Tempra Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 There are 7 states that have "religious tests" which would prevent an atheist holding office but they are not enforced, and have been ruled unconsitutional.My linkWhat's the point of linking to laws that haven't been enforced in almost 200 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 What's the point of linking to laws that haven't been enforced in almost 200 years?Sometimes old law are suddenly enforce again. If an Atheist ran for office in these states I would be interested to see if any of the opponents would try to bring up these laws. It also shows just how weird these states are becuase they keep these laws on the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 There are 7 states that have "religious tests" which would prevent an atheist holding office but they are not enforced, and have been ruled unconsitutional.My linkThis may be one of many cases where you can't trust Wikipedia, because if you go to the reference the Wikipedia article uses for that statement, what it really says is that "By 1798, of the then 15 states only seven required such tests, and early in the 19th century most of them dropped or failed to enforce such tests." It does not say that seven states still have such tests in their constitutions or statutes in 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 This may be one of many cases where you can't trust Wikipedia, because if you go to the reference the Wikipedia article uses for that statement, what it really says is that "By 1798, of the then 15 states only seven required such tests, and early in the 19th century most of them dropped or failed to enforce such tests." It does not say that seven states still have such tests in their constitutions or statutes in 2010.Ah, never mind then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 huzzah supreme court, it's now illegal and aiding and abetting a terrorist to write an op ed in a newspaper suggesting to terrorist groups like hamas to try and use peaceful and legal resolution to their grievances.Apparently informing the terrorists of their legal options and trying to persuade them to a course of peace is now an illegal terrorist act in and of itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 lockesnow,huzzah supreme court, it's now illegal and aiding and abetting a terrorist to write an op ed in a newspaper suggesting to terrorist groups like hamas to try and use peaceful and legal resolution to their grievances.Apparently informing the terrorists of their legal options and trying to persuade them to a course of peace is now an illegal terrorist act in and of itself.I said years ago if the Supremes can interperate away federalism and State's retained powers they can interperate away individual liberties as well. Is everyone still excited about the "living" Constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightning Lord Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 lockesnow,I said years ago if the Supremes can interperate away federalism and State's retained powers they can interperate away individual liberties as well. Is everyone still excited about the "living" Constitution?Yes I am. The good thing about a "living" Constitution is that mistakes like this can be rectified.Hopefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 lockesnow,I said years ago if the Supremes can interperate away federalism and State's retained powers they can interperate away individual liberties as well. Is everyone still excited about the "living" Constitution?What other kind of Constitution is there?"Originalism" is a fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Shryke,What other kind of Constitution is there?"Originalism" is a fallacy.A Constitution that requires amendment for change. One where the Supreme Court lacks the power to amend by interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Don't know if this has been discussed elsewhere, but apparently Gen. McChrystal, the senior U.S./NATO commander in Afghanistan, is in big trouble for shooting his mouth off about the President and the President's advisors.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38837.htmlHe deserves to be shit-canned for this. Just flat-out stupid, really. If a General is going to mouth off to the press with disrespectful comments about the President, then the message for the troops is that they can say the same things in public about their superiors in the Chain of Command. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Don't know if this has been discussed elsewhere, but apparently Gen. McChrystal, the senior U.S./NATO commander in Afghanistan, is in big trouble for shooting his mouth off about the President and the President's advisors.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38837.htmlHe deserves to be shit-canned for this. Just flat-out stupid, really. If a General is going to mouth off to the press with disrespectful comments about the President, then the message for the troops is that they can say the same things in public about their superiors in the Chain of Command.Was wondering when this story would get mentioned here.For those interested, the original Rolling Stone story is here.The article makes me think McChrystal is a douchebag of the highest order, but I have to admit that if a general had been quoted calling Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld idiots and morons in 2004, I probably would have applauded him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alguien Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Don't know if this has been discussed elsewhere, but apparently Gen. McChrystal, the senior U.S./NATO commander in Afghanistan, is in big trouble for shooting his mouth off about the President and the President's advisors.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38837.htmlHe deserves to be shit-canned for this. Just flat-out stupid, really. If a General is going to mouth off to the press with disrespectful comments about the President, then the message for the troops is that they can say the same things in public about their superiors in the Chain of Command.I was a bit shocked by how candid McChrystal and his staff were with the reporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 A Constitution that requires amendment for change. One where the Supreme Court lacks the power to amend by interpretation.So the Supreme Court shouldn't interpret the Constitution? At all? Funny...we spend so much time obsessing over SCOTUS nominees, making sure they're smart and talented and experienced, and then we expect them not to try to interpret our nation's founding document? If the Constitution were 100% clear in terms of its application we wouldn't need courts at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 I was a bit shocked by how candid McChrystal and his staff were with the reporter.Ah, here's a little more info from the Rolling Stone reporter on how he got such candor from McChrystal and his aides: Hastings says he stumbled onto unprecedented access with McChrystal. After McChrystal's press advisers accepted a request for the profile, Hastings joined McChrystal and his team in Paris. It was supposed to be a two-day visit, followed up with more time in Afghanistan.The volcano in Iceland, however, changed those plans. As the ash disrupted air travel, Hastings ended up being "stuck" with McChrystal and his team for 10 days in Paris and Berlin. McChrystal had to get to Berlin by bus. Hastings says McChrystal and his aides were drinking on the road trip "the whole way.""They let loose," he said. "I don't blame them; they have a hard job."Hastings then traveled with McChrystal in Afghanistan for more time. What was supposed to be a two-day visit, turned into a month, in part due to disruptions of the volcano.Hastings says McChrystal was very "candid" with him and knew their conversations were for reporting purposes. "Most of the time I had a tape recorder in his face or a notebook in my hand," he said.Hastings says most of the critical comments, which are now causing a stir, were said in the first 24 hours or so. "It wasn't a case of charming him into anything," Hastings said.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/22/4544314-mcchrystals-pr-man-resigns-how-rolling-stone-got-more-accessSo... the man in charge of the war operations in Afghanistan got loaded on shitty beer (the RS article says McChrystal is a fan of Bud Light Lime) with his frat buddies aides on a bus ride, and spouted off to a reporter. Awesome job there, General McDouchefuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Damn. Any bets on whether he turns in his resignation this week or next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Was wondering when this story would get mentioned here.For those interested, the original Rolling Stone story is here.The article makes me think McChrystal is a douchebag of the highest order, but I have to admit that if a general had been quoted calling Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld idiots and morons in 2004, I probably would have applauded him.Well, it depends on the situation, doesn't it? It's one thing for a general to warn of impending disaster of which the civilian authorities are willfully ignorant, and quite another to pop off because one simply disagrees with the president. Both will get you fired, but only the first should get you admiration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Shryke,A Constitution that requires amendment for change. One where the Supreme Court lacks the power to amend by interpretation.How can the Constitution even be used if you don't interpret it?As I said, "originalism" is a hefty damn fallacy.A document like the US Constitution is UNUSABLE without interpretation. It doesn't cover every single case possible ever and simply can't. And beyond that, even the exact same wording can mean different things to different people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 So if he does get canned, how will Rush spin it as being Obama's fault. Does this not shed some light on McCrystal's earlier manipulation of the White House?What are you referring to, trisky? I can't recall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 I was a bit shocked by how candid McChrystal and his staff were with the reporter.Especially given that in this situation, truth is no defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
一方通行 Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 even the exact same wording can mean different things to different people.especially with a couple hundred years of language drift tossed in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.