Rep.Stark (D) Should apologize!

[RickinNYC]

There has been NO ATTEMPT to change the Constitution first of all. Bill lied and subborned perjury to deny a private citizen her day in court. That is certainly limiting the Constitutional rights of that particular individual (Paula Jones). He was disbarred, so that is affirmation of what he did.

Sorry honey, although Conk was kind enough to provide a link to the CNN story, I thought I'd also provide one from The Little Busch That Could himself so that I could refresh your memory: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html

 

[Fitswimmer]

Sorry honey, although Conk was kind enough to provide a link to the CNN story, I thought I'd also provide one from The Little Busch That Could himself so that I could refresh your memory: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html

While the CNN link can be disavowed as biased liberal media-it's a little harder to say that something never happened when "The Decider" is quoted verbatim.

And then of course, there's the signing statements-doesn't matter if congress makes a law-if the President doesn't like it-he doesn't have to obey it. From the Boston Globe, April 2006.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.
But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.
Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.
Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.
Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.

If all of this is OK with you who support GW, how will you feel when Hillary takes over in 2009 and does the same thing??

 

[RickinNYC]

While the CNN link can be disavowed as biased liberal media-it's a little harder to say that something never happened when "The Decider" is quoted verbatim.

Exactly. I knew that certain people would immediately state that CNN is not as "fair and unbiased" as Fox so it couldn't possibly be true, hence my posting of the White House link.

 

[DawnCt1]

Looking forward to read how Dawn explains this

I don't believe that the Founding Fathers envisioned gay marriage so I don't see how it is a Constitutional Right.
Md. Ban On Gay Marriage Is Upheld
Law Does Not Deny Basic Rights, Is Not Biased, Court Rules
By Lisa Rein and Mary Otto
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 19, 2007; Page A01


Maryland's highest court yesterday upheld a 34-year-old state law banning same-sex marriage, rejecting an attempt by 19 gay men and lesbians to win the right to marry.

In reversing a lower court's decision, the divided Court of Appeals ruled that limiting marriage to a man and a woman does not discriminate against gay couples or deny them constitutional rights. Although the judges acknowledged that gay men and lesbians have been targets of discrimination, they said the prohibition on same-sex marriage promotes the state's interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children.


Buy This Photo


Stacey Kargman-Kayle and her 4-year-old son listen to a speaker at a news conference held by the American Civil Liberties Union and Equality Maryland. (Mark Gail - The Washington Post)
related story
Plaintiffs Face Aftermath of Md. Court Decision
They hoped to be celebrating a legal victory. But instead, the gay and lesbian plaintiffs in Maryland's same-sex marriage lawsuit found themselves blinking back tears as they gathered on the steps of a stately old Baltimore church and faced the media yesterday afternoon.
Wednesday, Sept. 19, at 12:15 p.m. ET
Maryland Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Gay Marriage
Prof. William N. Eskridge of Yale Law School offers his analysis of the Maryland Supreme Court's decision to uphold the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
Related Document

The State of Gay Unions
Yesterday's high-court ruling upheld Maryland's ban on same-sex marriage. The majority of states ban gay marriages, and a patchwork of laws, constitutional amendments and court rulings covers the legal rights of gay couples nationwide.
Online Resources

The 4 to 3 decision cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because the lawsuit relied solely on state law. But the judges appeared to invite gay rights advocates to pursue their goals through the political system: "Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex," Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote for the majority.

 

[disneyfan67]

While the CNN link can be disavowed as biased liberal media-it's a little harder to say that something never happened when "The Decider" is quoted verbatim.

And then of course, there's the signing statements-doesn't matter if congress makes a law-if the President doesn't like it-he doesn't have to obey it. From the Boston Globe, April 2006.



If all of this is OK with you who support GW, how will you feel when Hillary takes over in 2009 and does the same thing??

No, the people or persons who are OK with what Bush has done or already doing, will be the biggest watchdogs for anything Hillary does. You can already just see the posts and threads on those subjects. It will be amusing to see the conversion in attitudes of the current Bush supporters and how others will react to it.

 

[OrlandoMike]

I don't believe that the Founding Fathers envisioned gay marriage so I don't see how it is a Constitutional Right.

Your kidding right? I don't believe that the Founding Fathers envisioned freed slaves either! Honestly, your too much!

Oh and your right as a woman to vote, nix that one too!

 

[Fitswimmer]

I don't believe that the Founding Fathers envisioned gay marriage so I don't see how it is a Constitutional Right.

I doubt the Founding Fathers envisioned a country without slavery, one where women would have the vote, work outside the home and live independently, one where we would communicate and discuss issues over the Internet, where someone could steal your identity electronically, where there were laws to protect children from abuse..and so on.

If we were going to stick to the world the Founding Fathers envisioned we REALLY shouldn't be in Iraq, because it's more than likely they wouldn't have envisioned pre-emptive war either....

 

[yeartolate]

I don't believe that the Founding Fathers envisioned gay marriage so I don't see how it is a Constitutional Right.

THe founding fathers couldn't have envisioned alot of things.....that doesn't mean they shouldn't happen.

But you said he did not try to change the constitution, yet he did try.

 

[Fitswimmer]

No, the people or persons who are OK with what Bush has done or already doing, will be the biggest watchdogs for anything Hillary does. You can already just see the posts and threads on those subjects. It will be amusing to see the conversion in attitudes of the current Bush supporters and how others will react to it.

Then do we all get to say, "Well, Bush did..." the way the Bush supporters use Bill Clinton now?

 

[NYBlue1]

I don't believe that the Founding Fathers envisioned gay marriage so I don't see how it is a Constitutional Right.
Md. Ban On Gay Marriage Is Upheld
Law Does Not Deny Basic Rights, Is Not Biased, Court Rules
By Lisa Rein and Mary Otto
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 19, 2007; Page A01


Maryland's highest court yesterday upheld a 34-year-old state law banning same-sex marriage, rejecting an attempt by 19 gay men and lesbians to win the right to marry.

In reversing a lower court's decision, the divided Court of Appeals ruled that limiting marriage to a man and a woman does not discriminate against gay couples or deny them constitutional rights. Although the judges acknowledged that gay men and lesbians have been targets of discrimination, they said the prohibition on same-sex marriage promotes the state's interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children.


Buy This Photo


Stacey Kargman-Kayle and her 4-year-old son listen to a speaker at a news conference held by the American Civil Liberties Union and Equality Maryland. (Mark Gail - The Washington Post)
related story
Plaintiffs Face Aftermath of Md. Court Decision
They hoped to be celebrating a legal victory. But instead, the gay and lesbian plaintiffs in Maryland's same-sex marriage lawsuit found themselves blinking back tears as they gathered on the steps of a stately old Baltimore church and faced the media yesterday afternoon.
Wednesday, Sept. 19, at 12:15 p.m. ET
Maryland Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Gay Marriage
Prof. William N. Eskridge of Yale Law School offers his analysis of the Maryland Supreme Court's decision to uphold the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
Related Document

The State of Gay Unions
Yesterday's high-court ruling upheld Maryland's ban on same-sex marriage. The majority of states ban gay marriages, and a patchwork of laws, constitutional amendments and court rulings covers the legal rights of gay couples nationwide.
Online Resources

The 4 to 3 decision cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because the lawsuit relied solely on state law. But the judges appeared to invite gay rights advocates to pursue their goals through the political system: "Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex," Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote for the majority.

Ill defer to mikes responce on this one. Could not say it any better.

Making an amendment to the constitution that prohibits gay marriage was infact attempted by this president, thank GOD both rep and dems alike would not go along with an amendment that took rights AWAY from americans.

 

[DawnCt1]

Looking forward to read how Dawn explains this

And BTW, instead of wondering "how Dawn explains this" to someone else, ask me directly. To do otherwise is rude.

 

[NYBlue1]

And BTW, instead of wondering "how Dawn explains this" to someone else, ask me directly. To do otherwise is rude.

Dawn I have never had a problem speaking directly to you, I think you know that. I was responding to the post directly above yours no disrespect intended, I think you should realize by now just because I may not agree with you does not mean I would disrespect you. After numerous cheap shots at my proffesion and character I have yet to disrespect you.

 

[RickinNYC]

I don't believe that the Founding Fathers envisioned gay marriage so I don't see how it is a Constitutional Right.
Md. Ban On Gay Marriage Is Upheld
Law Does Not Deny Basic Rights, Is Not Biased, Court Rules
By Lisa Rein and Mary Otto
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 19, 2007; Page A01


Maryland's highest court yesterday upheld a 34-year-old state law banning same-sex marriage, rejecting an attempt by 19 gay men and lesbians to win the right to marry.

In reversing a lower court's decision, the divided Court of Appeals ruled that limiting marriage to a man and a woman does not discriminate against gay couples or deny them constitutional rights. Although the judges acknowledged that gay men and lesbians have been targets of discrimination, they said the prohibition on same-sex marriage promotes the state's interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children.


Buy This Photo


Stacey Kargman-Kayle and her 4-year-old son listen to a speaker at a news conference held by the American Civil Liberties Union and Equality Maryland. (Mark Gail - The Washington Post)
related story
Plaintiffs Face Aftermath of Md. Court Decision
They hoped to be celebrating a legal victory. But instead, the gay and lesbian plaintiffs in Maryland's same-sex marriage lawsuit found themselves blinking back tears as they gathered on the steps of a stately old Baltimore church and faced the media yesterday afternoon.
Wednesday, Sept. 19, at 12:15 p.m. ET
Maryland Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Gay Marriage
Prof. William N. Eskridge of Yale Law School offers his analysis of the Maryland Supreme Court's decision to uphold the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
Related Document

The State of Gay Unions
Yesterday's high-court ruling upheld Maryland's ban on same-sex marriage. The majority of states ban gay marriages, and a patchwork of laws, constitutional amendments and court rulings covers the legal rights of gay couples nationwide.
Online Resources

The 4 to 3 decision cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because the lawsuit relied solely on state law. But the judges appeared to invite gay rights advocates to pursue their goals through the political system: "Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex," Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote for the majority.

That isn't YOUR explanation. That's simply a cut and paste.

 

[RickinNYC]

I don't believe that the Founding Fathers envisioned gay marriage so I don't see how it is a Constitutional Right.

Interesting viewpoint. If you're going to support our founding fathers' stance, then I suppose you also support slavery, oops, I mean "indentured servitude"?

 

[RickinNYC]

Dawn, since you request a direct question, then I will question you directly, directly.

I proved you wrong. Busch DID try to amend the Constitution and I provided you with his words as proof. To keep this thread back on track, are you going to apologize to me directly?

 

[ConcKahuna]

I don't believe that the Founding Fathers envisioned gay marriage so I don't see how it is a Constitutional Right.

It's not a constitutional right, but at the same time restricting those rights has never been done in the past.

 

[DawnCt1]

Dawn I have never had a problem speaking directly to you, I think you know that. I was responding to the post directly above yours no disrespect intended, I think you should realize by now just because I may not agree with you does not mean I would disrespect you. After numerous cheap shots at my proffesion and character I have yet to disrespect you.

Because I have criticized members of your profession, does not mean that I have taken "cheap shots". I have criticized members of DH's profession, my own profession, DSs future profession. I don't assume that all nurses, physicians and teachers are trustworthy, competent and honest. I don't assume that all police officers are either.

 

[DawnCt1]

It's not a constitutional right, but at the same time restricting those rights has never been done in the past.

Men and men, and women and women have never attempted to marry "in the past".

 

[RickinNYC]

Men and men, and women and women have never attempted to marry "in the past".

Wrong . But there's a slight chance you're right if you amend your sentence by adding "in the United States."

 

[RickinNYC]

Men and men, and women and women have never attempted to marry "in the past".

Oh and prior to a hundred years ago, women didn't have the right to vote. Do you vote Dawn? Because you are enjoying a right established by your own people that had to fight pretty long and hard.