|
Jeep Friends Forum This is a forum for jeep friends to hang out. For more formal atmosphere hop over to the Technical Forum |
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dividing the country?
I have heard it bought up in the news a few times and see it on the Internet. People are saying that Gorge Bush is dividing the country. I say it always has been divided on some issues. George Bush is making people think about where they stand on some issues ?Gay Marriage, Abortion? but that is far from dividing the country since people already had there opinions about it all along.
IMO the people that are diving the country are the ones that stated it in the first place by issuing Gay Marriage licenses they are the ones that started the ball rolling but George Bush gets called out for dividing the country IMO it sounds like a real play on words from the Far Radical Left. This is not intended on being a discussion about whether Gay marriage is right or wrong but one on if George Bush is dividing the country when he is just standing up for something he knows is right and there has always been 2 sides to this issue but now it was brought out because Mayors are allowing Gay Marriage in many cities across thew US. How is that dividing the country when it has been divided all along? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Bringing up the idea of a U.S. constitutional amendment to force the issue one way or another before the issue can be resolved through normal channels, such as the courts, state const. amendments, or governors arresting offending mayors (as happened in NY), could easily be seen by some as divisive.
Perhaps that is where the slant comes from. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If thats the case I say the mayors are dividing the country not the Pres he just trying to come up with a permant fix. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Bush, in suggesting constitutional amendments as a means for legislating against behavior he sees as wrong is clearly divisive to a large portion of society who do not support him in tinkering around with our founding documents. Its not just the non republicans either as the time I looked, he did not have a majority in the congree either.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It's not the only way. Its the most divisive way. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Back in the saddle. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Such a thin veil you've draped over today's gay marriage thread.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But IMO Goerge Bush is not dividing the country it already was. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Equal protection issues are decided all the time in the Supreme court. That is one of it's main functions and one of the reasons for it's existance.
You let the states individually come to a consensus as to what is right on the issue, and then you let the inevitable test case make it's way to the U.S. Supreme court. By the time that happens, there will hopefully be more of a national consensus as to wether we as a country want to allow or disallow gay marriage. If not, then the situation will be where we currently stand, but at least the normal channels of legal resolution will have been tried out first. I personally think it's better to exercise the normal channels to decide an issue like this one. Equal protection cases are generally decided within the state and federal court structure. Trying to force a decision on incremental societal change by using a U.S. constitutional amendment is not the best choice, unless you are trying to curry favor to your power base in an election year, and you need to get things done quick. In that case, it may be good election year tactics, but not necessarily the best choice to resolve the issue. After all, we've been down this road as a country before. Prohibition is a pretty good example of what can happen with trying to codify societal change with a Con. Amend. before a concensus has been reached as to the appropriate benchmark for the societal behavior in question. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
May fly in NY, I don't see anyone in CA sacking-up to do that. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Not that anybody asked, but:
States have rights too ya know!!! Or we used to, I forget. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
To begin with I personally think changing the Constitution with a Marriage act is not a very appropriate thing to do.
That said I do think it is politically odd to say the President of the United States is being divisive in this "proposal". Last time I looked it was in his Constitutional Powers to recommend to the Congress amendments to the Constitution. From there there is a process. Both houses of Congress (the peoples House) must pass the proposed amendment by 2/3 majority. Then 2/3 of the States must "ratify the Amendment. else it doesn't become an amendment to the Constitution. Sounds like a process to me with a good amount of checks and balances and prevents for frivolous amendments. It also sound very legal, legitimate and appropriate before we change the Constitution. On the other hand, we have Mayors who are breaking the law becuase of their own beliefs and little action is being taken to stop it. What if we had a Mayor who decided on his own that pregnant woman could no longer have access to abortions? Would we allow him/her to shut down the choice of woman becuase he feel the Constitution gives and applies "rights" to an unborn fetus? I doubt it! I'd bet he would be arrested quicker then you or I could blink an eye. Today! But if we let this law breakage go without enforcement, then tomorrow we will be dealing with the other type of Mayor too! The writing is on the wall folks! If anyone is being divisive it is those who are circumventing the law for their own beliefs, rather then trying to change the law to support their beliefs. Maybe states such as California should have a "Do Over Referendum" over this issue, and keep doing it over till "the people" come up with the "right" answer, the answer that supports the law breakers. Until then the division and divisiveness here is happening becuase no one has the b***s to enforce the law of the land. It is that simple folks and it has NOTHING to do with the issue. Frank |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
He is, so what?
__________________
"Having a wife and children and working to keep them in comfort has ruined far more men than wine and harlots ever did" 2001 Sport, D44, NV3550, Rancho R/C, 8274 32X11.50 KM's on Canyons. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Anyone remember the furry over an art exhibit that showed a painting of Jesus in a public urinal? Boy, us narrow minded conservatives were messing with that poor artists right to express himself. Imagine the same painting, only now it shows Martin Luther King, or Mohamed, or that gay kid who was murdered in Wyoming. Think the ACLU would be as interested in protecting THAT artist's rights?
__________________
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The last ACLU lawyer that made any sense to me was Jack Nicholson in EASY RIDER
__________________
"Having a wife and children and working to keep them in comfort has ruined far more men than wine and harlots ever did" 2001 Sport, D44, NV3550, Rancho R/C, 8274 32X11.50 KM's on Canyons. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
02_WHITE_TJ_X your all over the place on issues, your boy George not only went religion but to the extreme and he's out of control. The very things he says he is giving Iraq, he is trying to take away from us.
__________________
ON BOARD AIR RULES!!!!01 Sport,Delayed response RULES !!!! Factory Hard Top, Auto, WARN? SYNTHETIC WINCH ROPE RULES!!!! Silverstone , D44 with Trac-Lok and 3.73:1 , LIBERTY DIESEL RULES!!!! TERA S3T 3" Lift, Currie steering box brace, MetalFusion Fenders Rule!!!!Currie steering damper, BFGoodrich Krawler RULES !!!!Bilstein Shocks,Harbor Freight winches rule!!!! GY MTR 33x1250-15 on rockcrawler Rims, Sun Performance rocker skids. Tera T-Locker's rule!!!! HUMMER SHOES RULE!!!! |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
And you say 02_WHITE_TJ_X is all over the place.
__________________
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
ON BOARD AIR RULES!!!!01 Sport,Delayed response RULES !!!! Factory Hard Top, Auto, WARN? SYNTHETIC WINCH ROPE RULES!!!! Silverstone , D44 with Trac-Lok and 3.73:1 , LIBERTY DIESEL RULES!!!! TERA S3T 3" Lift, Currie steering box brace, MetalFusion Fenders Rule!!!!Currie steering damper, BFGoodrich Krawler RULES !!!!Bilstein Shocks,Harbor Freight winches rule!!!! GY MTR 33x1250-15 on rockcrawler Rims, Sun Performance rocker skids. Tera T-Locker's rule!!!! HUMMER SHOES RULE!!!! |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Read the XSM thread
__________________
ON BOARD AIR RULES!!!!01 Sport,Delayed response RULES !!!! Factory Hard Top, Auto, WARN? SYNTHETIC WINCH ROPE RULES!!!! Silverstone , D44 with Trac-Lok and 3.73:1 , LIBERTY DIESEL RULES!!!! TERA S3T 3" Lift, Currie steering box brace, MetalFusion Fenders Rule!!!!Currie steering damper, BFGoodrich Krawler RULES !!!!Bilstein Shocks,Harbor Freight winches rule!!!! GY MTR 33x1250-15 on rockcrawler Rims, Sun Performance rocker skids. Tera T-Locker's rule!!!! HUMMER SHOES RULE!!!! |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
So who thinks OJ is going to try to flee the country? | speaceman | Political Arm Pit and Fool Shed | 4 | 09-20-2007 09:07 AM |
Dick Cepek Mud Country? | wcjp | Technical Forum | 1 | 09-30-2006 09:55 PM |
Rubicon, TJ, Rocks and Cross Country..... | Robert A.M. Stephens | Jeep Friends Forum | 97 | 05-18-2005 09:44 AM |
Moving across the country | Jays89YJ | Jeep Friends Forum | 7 | 08-28-2004 03:17 AM |
We LOVE working for our country! | Joe Dillard | Jeep Friends Forum | 9 | 05-13-2004 09:00 PM |