Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Camels? In Israel? Sorry, Bible.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Pony Boy View Post
    Speaking of 'States Rights"

    What's your opinion on Colorado making marijuana legal when it clearly violates Federal law?
    Does it infringe on anyone's rights?

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by houghtam View Post
      Further, cut, how far are you willing to go? The city of Hamtramck, MI is largely muslim. Should they be allowed to enact sharia law as long as it doesn't infringe on someone's rights? And I'm not even talking about the "stone a woman who is raped" types of laws, I'm talking about how eyewitness testimony takes precedence over forensic evidence. How male witness testimonies are given more weight than female testimonies.
      Houghtam I trust my Supreme Court to protect me from that. I am 100% confident that a law saying women are in any way less then men would be ruled unconstitutional. I believe in my country and no that due process of our legal system has the checks and balances to make sure none of the scare tactics you are saying would come to be.

      Saying that forensic evidence is not valid, and this womans tetimoney is unworthy because she is a woman, would violate due process and probably a bunch of other things I am not smart enough to know.

      Any law saying you have to cover yourself, sorry unconstitutional. It's the fact our country is so great that things like that could never happen.

      But if that same Muslim community wanted to say no alcohol sales on Sunday, probably could do it. No right to have alcohol to buy.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by houghtam View Post
        Does it infringe on anyone's rights?
        So you want the standard to be, you can violate fed law if you can show it didn't infringe on anyones rights?

        Stick to being Mr Mom.

        The whole marijuana issue has been completely mishandled by the feds.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
          Houghtam I trust my Supreme Court to protect me from that. I am 100% confident that a law saying women are in any way less then men would be ruled unconstitutional. I believe in my country and no that due process of our legal system has the checks and balances to make sure none of the scare tactics you are saying would come to be.

          Saying that forensic evidence is not valid, and this womans tetimoney is unworthy because she is a woman, would violate due process and probably a bunch of other things I am not smart enough to know.

          Any law saying you have to cover yourself, sorry unconstitutional. It's the fact our country is so great that things like that could never happen.

          But if that same Muslim community wanted to say no alcohol sales on Sunday, probably could do it. No right to have alcohol to buy.
          Huh.

          So you trust the Supreme Court in that regard yet not when it comes to ruling abortion falls under the liberty clause or that security checkpoints aren't unreasonable search.

          How convenient for the argument.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by houghtam View Post
            And see, this is exactly the problem. You smugly hide behind "states' rights" arguments when the intent and effect are both clear. It's been done before, as I recall.
            Actually I just misunderstood what he was proposing. The part you quoted looked like a whole different line of reasoning.

            It's a pointless gesture on his part. The real solution is to get government out of the marriage business altogether. It no longer makes any sense.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
              Actually I just misunderstood what he was proposing. The part you quoted looked like a whole different line of reasoning.

              It's a pointless gesture on his part. The real solution is to get government out of the marriage business altogether. It no longer makes any sense.
              I agree. Civil unions all around. If you want to get married, go to church and pay out the ass for it.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by houghtam View Post
                Does it infringe on anyone's rights?
                I see your point, New York and Chicago should not be able to pass laws that infringe on individual gun owners rights.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                  Actually I just misunderstood what he was proposing. The part you quoted looked like a whole different line of reasoning.

                  It's a pointless gesture on his part. The real solution is to get government out of the marriage business altogether. It no longer makes any sense.
                  Works for me. Get government out of the churches. Get the churches out of government.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by houghtam View Post
                    Huh.

                    So you trust the Supreme Court in that regard yet not when it comes to ruling abortion falls under the liberty clause or that security checkpoints aren't unreasonable search.

                    How convenient for the argument.
                    Nope I hate the ruling on DUI checkpoints. But you have to have an entity that makes the tough decisions. Sometimes you won't like them but I don't worry the decision will ever be mens testimony in court gets higher priority . You can't win with your bait and switch tactics.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X