Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If the entire population and gov't of the State of Michigan united in the sentiment, we could do nothing.

I've often thought that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
I've often thought that.

The one time we ever came together we were about to kick Ohio's ass.

http://wiwi.essortment.com/toledowar_rzxq.htm

In 1833 when Michigan applied for statehood, the dispute over the Toledo strip came to the surface again. To try to resolve this conflict, Michigan’s territorial government tried to negotiate with Ohio Governor Robert Lucas in 1835. Lucas rejected any compromise by setting up a county government in the disputed area of the Toledo Strip. The young hotheaded territorial governor of Michigan, Stephens T. Mason, who was appointed as governor at the age of only 19 by President Andrew Jackson, angrily responded by sending the Michigan militia south to claim the Toledo Strip.


For awhile it looked as if there would be a major battle between the Ohio and Michigan militias in April, 1835. Fortunately bloodshed was avoided because the two armies got lost for a week in the swamps near Perrysburg, Ohio and were unable to find each other. In fact, the only blood shed in this war was when the Michigan militia arrested the family of Major Benjamin Franklin Stickney of the Ohio militia. Major Stickney was subjected to the humiliation of being tied to his horse for a trip to a Michigan jail. Enraged, Major Stickney’s son, named Two (not to be confused with his older brother named One) lunged at a Michigan sheriff and stabbed him in the thigh, making Sheriff Joseph Wood the only casualty of the Toledo War.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The one time we ever came together we were about to kick Ohio's ass.

http://wiwi.essortment.com/toledowar_rzxq.htm

Hilarious story, but I suspected (wrongly) that it was an Onion job when I saw that the winner would get Toledo.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Not Me
I am sure whomever [sic] developed that software based it on stereotypes and chose the stereotype that assertive language or a more analytical writing style was more likely to come from a male.

Or maybe it was the misuse of grammar that tipped the scale.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This blog is tracking where senators stand on an amendment banning gay marriage. Right now, he sees 42 senators opposed -- 36 Dems, 5 Republicans, and Jeffords.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes, the gov-uh-nat-uh's point about providing licenses for assault weapons and illegal drugs was a reasonably compelling one.

But I also think you can reasonably draw a line on the other side of this based on teh harm to others. There really is none, because the ultimate validity of the marriage license itself will be determined by a court. The act of granting the license is purely ministerial and doesn't really allow any of the recipients to do anything that won't be subject to exactly the same challenges as the person not doing anything, because they still have to get someone else to recognize its validity, be it an employer, a taxing authority, another state, etc.

Having a marriage license does nothing except a) provide a "social" statement that one can already get through some churches and b) provide a basis for claiming certain other rights under state (and federal) law.

So let me understand you. Laws are no longer really laws, but merely suggestions, and if by breaking the law you are not really harming anyone, in your opinion, then it's OK?

And what is the harm in issuing a assault weapon license?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
This blog is tracking where senators stand on an amendment banning gay marriage. Right now, he sees 42 senators opposed -- 36 Dems, 5 Republicans, and Jeffords.

Remarkably, a democrat for, and a cop-out (Landrieu). Odder that the dem is Zell Miller, when Bob Barr spoke very critically of the proposal yesterday. I guess that's the difference between needing to get reelected and not.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So let me understand you. Laws are no longer really laws, but merely suggestions, and if by breaking the law you are not really harming anyone, in your opinion, then it's OK?

And what is the harm in issuing a assault weapon license?

Do you think there's ever a place for civil disobediance?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Do you think there's ever a place for civil disobediance?

Of course, and in this case specifically, just not by those elected to enforce the laws.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Of course, and in this case specifically, just not by those elected to enforce the laws.

I see your point, but we elect them to be leaders. Part of a prosecutor's job is to decide that some conduct, though chargeable, should not be prosecuted.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I see your point, but we elect them to be leaders. Part of a prosecutor's job is to decide that some conduct, though chargeable, should not be prosecuted.

We elect the executive branch to enforce and uphold the laws. There is no other reason for the executive branch. I agree that prosecutorial discretion is appropriate, but not in this case.

I think all of you would have a far different take on this is Newsom was issuing assault weapon licenses, and that is what really scares me. Breaking the law is OK if I agree with it, but not if I don't? It is just an unworkable system.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So let me understand you. Laws are no longer really laws, but merely suggestions, and if by breaking the law you are not really harming anyone, in your opinion, then it's OK?

And what is the harm in issuing a assault weapon license?

Forgive me, I was raised in the Clinton era.

Let's recap: Someone said I welcome this civil disobediance. You said, no, that's not good, because we're a nation of laws, not men. I said, well, as civil disobediance goes, this isn't even as far out as Rosa Parks or lunch counters. From that you get Burger sez laws are just suggestions.

No. I said that if you're going to tolerate any forms of civil disobediance, this is a most tolerable form, because there is no harm to anyone prior to its resolution by the courts. Unlike, say, an assault weapon license, which, upon presentation to a salesman, would allow the immediate purchase of a device of mass mayhem.

If, on the other hand, you tolerate no civil disobediance whatsoever, then, yeah, you're right.

But let's go back to what's going on here. Each public official is sworn to uphold the laws that they are to enforce. If marraige clerk says I'm obligated to enforce not only the marriage laws but also the law/const. guaranteeing equal rights, and I can't comply with both so I'm going to comply with the equal rights law, how is that disobedient? It's a gray area, at least in light of the decisions of two state supreme courts. This isn't a southern sheriff saying that it's unclear whether the 4th/8th amendment allows him to shackle and flog a "Nee-grow" for looking at him funny.

At best, it's a police officer refusing to enforce separate lunch counters because his belief is that such would violate the 14th amendment. Would you be opposed to his refusal?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
We elect the executive branch to enforce and uphold the laws. There is no other reason for the executive branch. I agree that prosecutorial discretion is appropriate, but not in this case.

I think all of you would have a far different take on this is Newsom was issuing assault weapon licenses, and that is what really scares me. Breaking the law is OK if I agree with it, but not if I don't? It is just an unworkable system.

Since Kamala Harris was elected in this city to enforce and uphold the laws, I'm not exactly sure what Gavin Newsom should be doing on your view of the world. Getting her coffee?

I would have a different take on this if Newsom was issuing assault weapon licenses, or letting grade-schoolers go joy-riding in SFPD cruisers, but those situations seem to me to present a tangible risk of harm to the citizenry. Neither I, nor Judges Warren and Quidichey, for that matter, see that sort of risk here. In fact, that is the best answer to the whining on the other side. Lots of gays and lesbians have gotten married here in the last few weeks, and the sky has not fallen.

edited, per Sidd's directive, to fix the spelling of the mayor's name, and to point out, in my defense, that I know how to spell Judge Quidachey's name

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Of course, and in this case specifically, just not by those elected to enforce the laws.

If you think that there's a place for civil disobedience, and that gay marriage is an appropriate issue for it, then you have to accept that someone whose job it is to enforce the laws will engage in it. Because only someone like Newsom, in his post as "mayor" of a city that is also a county (in a state where counties issue marriage licenses), has the power to require issuance of licenses. Rosa Parks couldn't have done this act of disobedience.

Also, Newsom reached the conclusion that any state law prohibiting gay marriage was contrary to the state and federal consitution, so at least in his view he is, in fact, enforcing the law by requiring the county clerk to issue the licenses.

To reverse your assault weapons example: If the Cal. Legislature passed a law requiring that all African Americans over age 50 be publicly executed in City Hall, would you demand that mayors actually carry out the executions? After all, it's their job to enforce the law, even if they deem it unconstitutional. Right? Would you worry about the downfall of civil society if mayors, acting in civil disobedience, refused to enforce this law?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub


I think all of you would have a far different take on this is Newsom was issuing assault weapon licenses, and that is what really scares me. Breaking the law is OK if I agree with it, but not if I don't? It is just an unworkable system.

If we do, why? I think it's because of why I said. If Newsom looked at the state constitution, or the federal one, and had a credible basis for saying the 3d amendment compelled him to issue such licenses, and did so, I would not have a problem with it. So long as he suspended his implementation/grant of the licenses until the issue was resolved. But why would I require the issue to be resolved first there, but not here? For the reasons I said above--assault weapons cause immediate, tangible harm, whereas a marriage license's grant causes harm (if any) that is neither immediate nor tangible. The worst I can imagine it doing is that some folks will have to pay slightly higher premiums on insurance or taxes for benefits that are claimed, and I seriously doubt that any payments to a new spouse will actually go out before the resolution of this issu, and certainly not without a disclaimer that the payor is entitled to recoupment in the event the marriage is voided by court decision.

(ETA) I don't think it's that radical an idea. It's not much different from the standard for a preliminary injunction--balance of harms. You'd enjoin the non-enforcement of a weapons ban, but maybe not on marriages, because no one's getting hurt in the interim.