Caitlin #####: RIP Democracy.
Thursday at 2:44pm
Philip #####: seriously
Thursday at 2:50pm
Ryan #####: democracy is alive and kicking. Amendments like this get overturned often if the people of America voted that our church shouldn't get to practice without tax exemption anymore the courts would overturn it based on the constitution. Our government has never been a pure democracy...
Thursday at 3:04pm
Caitlin #####: One biased man overturning 7 million California voters? Not constitutional or democratic.
Thursday at 3:23pm 4 people like this
Alex Christman: 7 million California voters were wrong. We're a republic for a reason. We employ others to represent our better interests, and that includes laws that were unconstitutional in the first place. Don't worry though. This is going to be nail and tooth for the next ten years.
Thursday at 3:46pm 1 person likes this
Isaac #####: "7 million California voters were wrong" = democracy is wrong? "We employ others to represent our better interests" = a central planning committee? Do you really think that?
Thursday at 8:14pm
Chris #####: @Alex -- If 7 million California voters were wrong, why can't one man be wrong? Don't assume the logic you use doesn't apply to yourself. Second, we didn't "employ" or elect the federal judge to his position. A former president did. Third, Prop 8 won't be an ongoing issue for ten years. It'll get to the Supreme Court by then (after reaching the 9th Circuit). And since the Supreme Court overturned 19 of the 22 cases it arbitrated from that particular court last year alone, it's a good bet that Prop 8 will be reversed again as well. Once the Supreme Court defines marriage, it'll apply to the entire US and won't be able to be reversed ever again. Just stating the facts.
Thursday at 9:36pm 2 people like this
Alex Christman: We DO employ others, actually, to represent our better decisions. And it's probably a pretty good idea we don't elect judges because, as I said, they're there to represent our better interests as a country that's promised equal rights to all of its citizens. They aren't there to bend to the whims of the people. If that was the case then the 14th Amendment wouldn't have been passed. And, regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court gets involved (which I don't think is necessarily a given considering this is an issue of states' rights and not federal law; something that's been stated time and time again), it doesn't mean that this will instantly not be an issue. Look at Roe vs. Wade. And as for whether or not my logic applies to myself, well, it does. I am an idiot. Like you. And everybody else in this country. That's why I'm not a judge. Or a statesman. That's why I don't make decisions regarding the welfare of the country. I simply choose the people who make the decisions. Thanks for reminding me of exactly what I was saying!
23 hours ago 2 people like this (including me!)
Alex Christman: And by employ, I mean it both in the sense that their salaries are paid for by our taxes and that we employ them, as in "use them", to represent our better interests and make the decisions that we as a country are so prone to make incorrectly. Guess what! It's this distance between the general populace of the country and the lofty heights of government that has made our country relatively stable, wealthy, and renowned for its high standard of living. Because it prevents the voting block from throwing around narrow-minded and capricious decisions that, GASP, affect people other than the majority! Imagine that.
23 hours ago 1 person likes this
Chris #####: Well I prefer not to take such a cynical perspective in regards to Americans' ability to make good decisions. My theory is as follows: while it's very easy for the individual to make a bad decision, it's less likely for 7 million to arrive at the same bad decision. Moreover, I understand more than you probably expect a judge's role in government (my dad was elected by the governor to serve as a judge on the California court of appeals). But I can't help but think that Judge Walker was making a biased decision given that he's an openly gay libertarian. If you haven't all ready, read Judge Walker's decision because it's very hateful and emotional and lacking in logical analysis. As far as the involvement of the Supreme Court is concerned, it will most definitely get involved assuming that another ongoing court dispute in Massachusetts doesn't beat California to the punch. While I understand the argument that this is a state's rights issue, Judge Walker is a FEDERAL judge. Remember, watch out for making arguments that apply to yourself! You can't say a ruling is acceptable in one federal court but not in another. Finally, as for your majority argument, read Federalist Papers 10 and 51. The contents of each are too lengthy to discuss here but they show how democracy serves the minority as well. On a final note, don't "like" your own comments. It's tacky. :)
22 hours ago
Alex Christman: Thanks Chris! And by the by, it doesn't matter what perspective you take on America's ability to make decisions: this is how our government is set up. Just because 7 million people believe one thing, does not mean that it has to be law. If you'd like for it to be a law, then go ahead and elect the people who will serve in the Senate and House of Representatives and have them propose the law and then see if it passes both the Senate and the House and doesn't get vetoed by the President and then if it does, see if it doesn't get voted on once again with a majority ruling in your favor and then see if it doesn't get taken to the Supreme Court to see if its legal, and if all of those things happen in your favor Chris, then you can go ahead and herald the way that our government sided with your 7 million voters. In the meantime, let the courts work they way they work and realize that this is HOW OUR GOVERNMENT WAS SET UP.
And thanks for taking me to the Federalist Papers. See, because the Federalist Papers were appeals to get people to follow the exact process of government that you now think isn't working in your favor. And as for 7 million people making a bad decision: see Germany 1932. No, you're right. A large voting block couldn't possibly make a bad decision.
22 hours ago 1 person likes this
Alex Christman: AND, LOL, THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION DIDN'T CARE ABOUT YOUR PRIM-ROSE PERSPECTIVE OF THE DECISION MAKING ABILITIES OF THE GENERAL POPULACE EITHER BECAUSE, LOL AGAIN, THAT'S EXACTLY WHY THEY MADE OUR COUNTRY A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. LOL. LOL.
I hope you went to private school because if this is what the public schools of this country are churning out, it's a VERY CONVINCING argument that our average, run-of-the-mill, Joe 12-pack citizens don't need to have their finger on the "Constitutional or Not" button.
21 hours ago
Alex Christman: Late addendum: My bad, 2/3rds of the house if president vetoes. Feel free to substitute Governor for President where necessary for state government. Writing things on no sleep is harrrrrrrd. But I think this is important information for everyone to know when it comes down to how a law is made! That way you understand the role that courts and the people of a state play in the making of state legislature! Then you can understand exactly how mad you should be (see: not very) about the completely fair and reasonable ruling on Proposition 8! See? We learn things every day!
16 hours ago
Brad #####: Alex, i really like that your profile pic is of whoopie - because when i read your comments, i feel like i am at home on my couch watching the View and laughing out loud.
Keep in mind Alex, that Cait and Chris (and myself) are from a state where electing representatives to actually represent us as a majority and thus make decisions is impossible. It appears you come from Kentucky - if I came from Kentucky, I likely wouldnt be complaining - the representatives that I think best represent me would in fact be in power (being a conservative Republican). But, put yourself in our shoes - in a state where Republican representatives make up a very low percentage of the representatives relative to other states, we put together an incredible campaign worth millions of dollars to pass a referendum that wouldn't be possible if we went through the representatives you spoke of earlier. Our referendum passed. Then, one man strikes it down. Pardon us for feeling some shock and awe. Its true that if the people pass a referendum that is inconsistent with the existing state or national constitution, then it is the judge's role to overturn it. However, I am not convinced, from Vaughn Walker's statement, that Proposition 8 is inconsistent with the 14th amendment.
And let's play nice - that public-private school comment was pretty out of line.
15 hours ago 2 people like this
Chris #####: We could honestly go back and forth Alex, but I have little tolerance for those who make personal attacks in an effort to land credence to their argument. I understand the role of government and its inner workings so there's little need to explain it to me. I, along with many other conservatives, are simply tired of government believing that the people work for them rather than the other way around. Fortunately, it's not a government we have to live with and come November I'm optimistic that the political pendulum will swing closer to the middle. Btw, I go to UCLA -- a public institution -- and I'm proud of it.
13 hours ago 1 person likes this
Alex Christman: @ Chris: Consider it tit-for-tat for your calling me tacky.
@Brad: Well-mannered and I can see where you're coming from because you chose to articulate your opinion (and call it opinion) well.
@All of you butt-hurt Californian Republicans: We obviously have radically different views of whether or not the proposition was legally right, what the Church's role should have been in the whole ordeal, and whether or not the ruling on the proposition was in good judgement. But, my only thought here has been to let you all know that we shouldn't have any differing opinions or perspectives on exactly what has happened here as far as how the legislative process has worked. Get butt-hurt because gays can get married. A lot of people will. I won't. But you probably all are. But don't get angry about the legal system. That will get you nowhere but butt-hurt. If you want to change things, go ahead and get involved (again gosh-darnit!) with the legislative process! Exercise your rights (again gosh-dangit!)
And also realize that no matter what, we are all white, priveleged, well-educated, and moderately wealthy members of a predominately homogenized religious institution. We probably don't have much experience with things outside of our own socio-economic class/race/creed/sexual preference/et al. And our views are always going to be pretty insulated! Just because the status quo is changing doesn't mean the world is falling down my dear Chicken Littles. Anyways, I'm going to go yell at some Jason Mraz fans on myspace. l8er h8ers.
33 minutes ago
Alex Christman: Yarrr. Privileged* I'm omitting myself from the "well-educated" category LOL. #self-deprecation
21 minutes ago
Chris #####: Read Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. Broaden your horizons. :)
16 minutes ago
Alex Christman: oLd WhIgS rEpReSeNt Y'aLl!
I would have thought you'd be a bigger fan of "Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents". Maybe you should read that. Burke is great if you're a super big fan of Russell Kirk which, I'm assuming you are?
7 minutes ago
Chris #####: Forgive me for being so responsive to your argumentation. You must realize that I travel the world debating people (literally, England, France, Spain, Italy, you name it). I spend most of my time reading history books so that I may better serve others in the future. If you're ever in need of a good book with exceptional analysis and insight, I would be more than willing to indulge your request.
5 minutes ago
Alex Christman: Dude, do you have a business card that you could send me? I'd like to frame it. I'll put a placard beneath the frame that reads: "I Have Seen The Glory And It Was Bright". Something like that.
2 minutes ago
Alex Christman: You should copyright your name.
about a minute ago
Alex Christman: I'm thinking about comissioning a painting of you for my study. I'll need a period of time when you'd be willing to stand very still whilst holding a skull in front of a bay window with a view of a large swath of water containing a battle ship. When are you available? I'll grovel to your secretaries.
a few seconds ago
EDIT:
Chris #####: Reflections is I think more relevant to this debate, but I'm impressed. And yes, I am a big fan of Russell Kirk. I feel as though Republicans have veered away from their base into a neoconservatist realm and need to once again look back to their roots...namely that Republicans love change so as long as it doesn't happen so fast as to cause the crumbling of a nation's critical foundations.
32 minutes ago
Alex Christman So you're saying that you would favor laws granting marriage for gays in the future?
14 minutes ago
Brad #####: did you seriously use the term "butt-hurt californians" in a thread about prop8?
10 minutes ago You like this
Chris #####: I would be and am for the equality of people of any race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. That means I hope for a future in which gays are granted EVERY right that straight men and women are entitled to in marriage. As for marriage, I side with Obama...that it is between a man and a woman.
7 minutes ago
Alex Christman: Cool story bro. Welp, you've got me sold on the party of inclusion! #my head just exploded
2 seconds ago
No comments:
Post a Comment