Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I hear the echoes of Commander Crane of the Seaview,

"Damage Control!! Report! Report!!"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._11_showdown_7

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
And my point was that the criticism here was that he was an elected official violating some trust. If you are saying that he owes fealty to California law, over and above the wishes of his own electorate, you are taking him out of the "official acting in an official capacity" role for this argument and merely saying that everyone has a duty to obey the state's laws, thus effectively mooting concepts of civil disobedience.

Is there no state equivalent to the supremacy clause?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I hear the echoes of Commander Crane of the Seaview,

"Damage Control!! Report! Report!!"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._11_showdown_7

Uh, more like blackmail.

McCain and Leibermen took a highway funds bill hostage, and, if they didn't get their way, 5000 federal workers would be fired in about a week.

So much for their concern for the American worker, hey?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is there no state equivalent to the supremacy clause?

There is, but it's more informal. Our governor swears vengeance on you and breaks your neck in the third reel, despite having been shot up pretty badly by your henchmen before the denoument. It's considered traditional for you lunge for the gun after waving the white flag and pleading for his mercy. He doesn't like killing except in self-defense.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
So much for their concern for the American worker, hey?

Gosh, it really is softball season, isn't it?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
So much for their concern for the American worker, hey?

I thought the Repubs would be happy to get rid of more federal gov't employees. No?

Geez. It's getting so I can't tell the players without a scorecard.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What I am saying is that the legal process should first be exhausted before an elected official engages in civil disobedience in his or her official capacity.

I take it you have the same problem with Governor Schwarzenegger and his stash of contraband Cuban cigars?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I thought the Repubs would be happy to get rid of more federal gov't employees. No?

So I would have thought.

But it worked.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I take it you have the same problem with Governor Schwarzenegger and his stash of contraband Cuban cigars?

Yes, if it is indeed illegal, he should not be doing that while a public official.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yes, if it is indeed illegal, he should not be doing that while a public official.

Club, you are absolutely right that it is very different for a private citizen to engage in an act of civil disobedience than for a public official acting in his capacity as a public official to engage in civil disobedience. Newsome has not just engaged in civil disobedience, he has high-jacked the machinary of the government to carry out his own personal beliefs. That is a slap in the face to all this country stands for. We are a country governed by laws. This sort of illegal activity is no different from what the southern governors used to do when they didn't agree with the civil rights laws.

It is not the province of a mayor to interpret the state or US constitution - that is the province of the judiciary. Those of you who are confused about this, see Marbury v. Madison for more information.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
It is not the province of a mayor to interpret the state or US constitution - that is the province of the judiciary. Those of you who are confused about this, see Marbury v. Madison for more information.

Our little trip through Con Law 101 continues. Marbury doesn't exempt officials in the executive or legislative branch from constitutional interpretation. We absolutely want other public officials to do their best to construe the Constitution. By your reasoning, Congress could ignore the constitution and pass blatantly violative laws, on the theory that the job of determining whether they're OK is the courts'. And Newsom has brought an action in state court, and made clear that he will abide by the court's ruling.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Marbury doesn't exempt officials in the executive or legislative branch from constitutional interpretation.

It doesn't authorize them to blatantly violate statutes, either, by substituting their own constitutional interpretation for the explicit wording of statutes. Last I checked, prop 22 is the law of California. It is explicit. For him to have thumbed his nose at that is outrageous.

Moreover, all of his arguments can apply to polygamy, so if he denies any polygamist from getting a marriage license, is he authorized to make that determination, too? Is that how we want our country run, by mayors blatantly violating statutes under the guise that they believe that the statute is unconstitutional and then selectively violating that statute only for specific groups that the mayor thinks are being discriminated against?

That isn't how things work in this country and you know it. You just happen to agree with him on this so you try to make it out as if he is serving some higher purpose.

What if a mayor in rural Utah decides that discriminating against polygamists violates the Utah constitution and starts giving out polygamous marriage licenses? Would you stand up for that, too?

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
By your reasoning, Congress could ignore the constitution and pass blatantly violative laws, on the theory that the job of determining whether they're OK is the courts'.

What I said doesn't even apply to a legislative body. Congress doesn't enforce the law, the executive branch does. Congress just makes the law. And Congress considering what is constitutional and what is not before it passes a law is very different from an executive branch official choosing to violate a statute because he personally believes that it is unconstitutional.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
And Newsom has brought an action in state court, and made clear that he will abide by the court's ruling.

Then he needed to wait for the court ruling before rewriting the law himself and high-jacking the county clerk's office like that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
It doesn't authorize them to blatantly violate statutes, either, by substituting their own constitutional interpretation for the explicit wording of statutes. Last I checked, prop 22 is the law of California. It is explicit. For him to have thumbed his nose at that is outrageous.

Moreover, all of his arguments can apply to polygamy, so if he denies any polygamist from getting a marriage license, is he authorized to make that determination, too? Is that how we want our country run, by mayors blatantly violating statutes under the guise that they believe that the statute is unconstitutional and then selectively violating that statute only for specific groups that the mayor thinks are being discriminated against?

That isn't how things work in this country and you know it. You just happen to agree with him on this so you try to make it out as if he is serving some higher purpose.

What if a mayor in rural Utah decides that discriminating against polygamists violates the Utah constitution and starts giving out polygamous marriage licenses? Would you stand up for that, too?

What I said doesn't even apply to a legislative body. Congress doesn't enforce the law, the executive branch does. Congress just makes the law. And Congress considering what is constitutional and what is not before it passes a law is very different from an executive branch official choosing to violate a statute because he personally believes that it is unconstitutional.

Then he needed to wait for the court ruling before rewriting the law himself and high-jacking the county clerk's office like that.

What you think of Gavin Newsom surely depends -- at least in part -- on what you think of gay marriage. If you think civil disobediance is justified, then he's acting like a leader.

You don't seem to be particularly bothered by same-sex marriage, but you do seem to enjoy trolling on the subject.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
What you think of Gavin Newsom surely depends -- at least in part -- on what you think of gay marriage. If you think civil disobediance is justified, then he's acting like a leader.

That is not true for me. I am bothered by the contempt he shows for the legal process. He is a public official and I agree with club, that makes it different from Rosa Park. If he disagrees with the substance of the law, he should challenge it. But he should respect the process and act within the proper channels.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You don't seem to be particularly bothered by same-sex marriage, but you do seem to enjoy trolling on the subject.

I am bothered by the hypocrisy of those who claim it is all about stopping discrimination when it is really just about stopping discrimination against a group that they like. They talk about these lofty principles of equal protection and substantive due process but they want to be the ones to say who gets equal protection and due process and who does not.

It is time for the government to get out of the marriage business but it is also time for people to admit that they are only against discrimination when it is against a group that they approve of.

The perfect example of this is that post- 9/11, a zogby or other well respected poll found that 70% of African Americans approved of racial/ethnic profiling of Arabs at airport security screening. ROFLMAO!! Seems like African Americans are only bothered by racial profiling when it is done on their group but like it when it is done on some other group to protect them.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
They talk about these lofty principles of equal protection and substantive due process but they want to be the ones to say who gets equal protection and due process and who does not.

It strikes me that, in our society, or at least in the society we're supposed to be, if you are in doubt of where truth and beauty and light come down in an argument, you are always safer taking the position that MORE people should get equal protection and due process rather than FEWER. Finding yourself on that FEWER side should be cause for concern, right away.

Knee-jerk, I know, but it seems to work.