Seriously, it seems to me that informing a lot of upset people nationwide that they can be expected to riot and kill strikes me as an error.
I meant take/withold right away from **one group of ** citizens sorry about my accidental exclusion of words
Yes, Prohibition (XVIII) was a removal of a right (the right to make/sell/consume alcohol) from US citizens (But limiting terms of the president(XXII) and income tax(XVI) do not take/withold rights away from one group of US citizens.)
No it doesn’t. NOBODY has the right to marriage. It’s a privilege arbitrarily invented by a majority of people who believe that way. Just like the majority of the people believe that “green” is a color… if people started believing that “green” is just another word for “steak”, it will become so.
Argue all you want that the arbitrary decision is stupid, based on ignorance or bigotry… but you sound like an idiot when you try to call it a “right”. Getting tax breaks and the ability to see your spouse in a hospital is not a “right”.
Well, XXII takes away rights from one very small group of citizens: people who manage to win two Presidential elections. It’s not like it takes away a right from pretty much anyone posting on this Board (unless Clinton is trolling here under an assumed name).
Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. It’s not the California Attorney General’s job to refuse to defend a statute because he or she thinks it’s unconstitutional, especially when ordered to do so by the Governor.
When a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds, for example, the Attorney General has a duty to defend it. Even if the law is obviously unconstitutional, they have to give it their best shot. It’s the courts who make that decision. Indeed, the Attorney General can’t even agree to settle a case regarding a law’s constitutionality once a case has been filed. Only the Governor has that authority. Here’s an example.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/29/187.demise/
BTW, in poking about, I see that the Attorney-General’s spokeperson actually took back her little dig in the same statement.
Bolding mine.
So it seems that Ms. Jordan fully recognizes that the Governor is the Attorney General’s client and that the Attorney General does have to take orders from him. But she just couldn’t resist getting off her oh-so-humorous – and thoroughly gratuitous – little dig.
The betting is that Lockyer wants to run against Schwarzenegger in 2006. Looks like the campaign is starting early.
We aren’t calling it a right, jackass. Drop by GD, where you’ll find at least a dozen people citing to cases where the US Supreme Court defined marriage as a universal right.
Now who sounds like an idiot?
Besides, what, to you, is a right?
Uh… we’re not?
So I disagree with the Supreme Court. Wouldn’t be the first time. Gonna blow me now?
Something a person needs to have the chance to maintain their security of life and liberty. Getting another deduction on your IRS tax forms doesn’t meet that criteria.
Took a lot of drugs, too. Are we insane because we don’t want, say, the commander-in-chief of the California National Guard giving orders while doped?
Well, I’ll tell you what. You find a more authoritative source (and the voices in your head don’t count) who agrees with your theory of marriage as a privelege, and we’ll take it from there.
A “fundamental right.” But the Supremes have never said what the scope of that right is.
Umm… you DO know that calling something a privilege or a right is ARBITRARY and SUBJECTIVE, don’t you?
*marriage as a privilege, sorry.
Quite right. But wait- wouldn’t that make you a complete douchebag for calling people idiots for suggesting something is a right, when you’ve just admitted that there really is no rational basis for saying it isn’t?
There’s a point here that is being missed, though. In the Colorado case I referred to, the Attorney General sued because he believed that the redistricting law violated the STATE constitution. He couldn’t have cared less about the feds. A state court agreed with him. The defense was primarily that he had no standing to sue because he represented the state, and should only be defending whatever the legislature and governor chose to do. The court disagreed with that.
Isn’t it at all possible that the same circumstances in California could lead to the same result? If I understand correctly, the argument is that the marriage law violates the California constitution. Obviously, I don’t know much about the California legal system, but I don’t see why the same thing couldn’t happen there. Seems to me, he has to defend the constitution first, laws second.
24 hours later and your response just completely deflated my anger. Sorry, no title and no spanking.
DAMN! :mad: I knew that would happen - okay, okay “I TAKE IT BACK!”
Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my spanking now… 
You can have my leftover “Ilsa_Lund Award For Dumbshit Of The Year.”
[sub]You’ll have to scratch out the Civil Defense engraving…[/sub]