Wednesday, March 02, 2005
A Friendly Reminder from this Blog's Moral Arbiter
Since my friend has championed state's rights so unequivocally and Shearer has already commenced with the blowjob, here are some things that state's rights have led to without moral arbitration from your friends at the federal government:
State's rights have morally allowed:
1. Slavery
2. Religious persecution
3. Gender persecution
4. Gun control restrictions (oh wait, the opposite)
5. Capital punishment of kids not old enough to kill people legally (by joining the army)
6. The firing squad as method of execution (Utah)
7. Kentucky basketball flourishing and me having to read a new post about it every damn day when no retorts are granted.
8. Censorship (see #7)
State's rights have morally outlawed:
1. The teaching of the theory of evolution
2. Bans on the teaching of foreign languages (right here in NE)
3. Immigrants' rights
4. The practice of all non-Christian religions
5. Fair-trial rights
6. First-Amendment rights (freedom of press, speech, assembly, etc.)
Also, last time I checked it was a function of the Supreme Court to INTERPRET LAWS passed by states. And last time I checked they were the highest judicial court in this country, thus superseding the state's power by definition. What's the big deal?
State's rights have morally allowed:
1. Slavery
2. Religious persecution
3. Gender persecution
4. Gun control restrictions (oh wait, the opposite)
5. Capital punishment of kids not old enough to kill people legally (by joining the army)
6. The firing squad as method of execution (Utah)
7. Kentucky basketball flourishing and me having to read a new post about it every damn day when no retorts are granted.
8. Censorship (see #7)
State's rights have morally outlawed:
1. The teaching of the theory of evolution
2. Bans on the teaching of foreign languages (right here in NE)
3. Immigrants' rights
4. The practice of all non-Christian religions
5. Fair-trial rights
6. First-Amendment rights (freedom of press, speech, assembly, etc.)
Also, last time I checked it was a function of the Supreme Court to INTERPRET LAWS passed by states. And last time I checked they were the highest judicial court in this country, thus superseding the state's power by definition. What's the big deal?
Comments:
<< Home
Actually, the Supreme Court has no right to interpret state substantive law. They can only decide if the law goes against a provision in the United States constitution. Plus everything you described as "morally allowed" went on under the federal government as well. For everything under "morally outlawed," you and you god hating leftist freaks shouldn't be able to say whether that is right or wrong, its a moral judgment call that has to be made by individuals. If people don't want those rights then they have the right to give them up and if they do want them then they can fight for them.
Out for my Dog,
Big Daddy Scalia
Out for my Dog,
Big Daddy Scalia
# posted by 
: 10:56 AM, March 03, 2005
: 10:56 AM, March 03, 2005
My biggest problem with your post, Pete, isn't really what you listed. It is that this decision leaves a scary precedent. I agree with most of what you said, but this affects how states operate.
Not to mention in the majority opinion, they point to how Europe operates. In other words, they are using precedents FROM EUROPE to decide how to interpret OUR LAW. That is frightening.
Not to mention in the majority opinion, they point to how Europe operates. In other words, they are using precedents FROM EUROPE to decide how to interpret OUR LAW. That is frightening.
It should affect how states operate, because states, particularly in the Midwest and the South, come up with BS laws all the time that violate the US Constitution, which is, essentially, a a set of codes to act as moral guidelines on which to most effectively operate a democracy, especially the Bill of Rights and many other amendments.
And this stuff about Europe cracks me up even more because apparently we can not take precedents from Europe but I can't wait to hear how we should be posting the Ten Commandments in every federal building and I can't wait to see conservatives defend this. What a f'n joke.
And this stuff about Europe cracks me up even more because apparently we can not take precedents from Europe but I can't wait to hear how we should be posting the Ten Commandments in every federal building and I can't wait to see conservatives defend this. What a f'n joke.
No one is saying we need to post the 10 Commandments everywhere. Where they are posted (in 99% of the cases), they have been there for years and years. And your side has already won this battle, I don't know what you're bitching about.
And in the original post, I don't know where the hell you got this denying "the practice of non-Christian religions."
And how you can support the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT taking precedents from Europe is insane.
Post a Comment
And in the original post, I don't know where the hell you got this denying "the practice of non-Christian religions."
And how you can support the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT taking precedents from Europe is insane.
<< Home
Term Papers
