Democrats & Liberals Archives

Supreme Court rules in crucial cases regarding homosexual marriage

Edith WIndsor can now receive the inheritance bequeathed by her late wife, Thea Spyer, without the molestation of estate taxes due to the lawfulness of their marriage recognized by the State of New York. Likewise, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo may now marry one another and the same goes for Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier.

The wider ramifications are still unknown, but we are marching along the inevitable road toward greater and greater equality for all Americans. We began this march when Thomas Jefferson put a pen to a paper 237 years ago and wrote that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Posted by Warren Porter at June 27, 2013 7:57 PM
Comments
Comment #367732

Indeed, the decision is a step in the right direction. However, I fear that Democrats will send us down the road to more “rights” given to gays as a group rather than respecting gay people as individuals whose rights are no different than any other individual. That’s where Democrats screw up. They believe in the rights of groups over the rights of individuals. Only when we reject this notion of the “rights” of groups will we end the suffering of all Americans. We should remove “gay rights,” “African-Americans” and other falsehoods from our vocabulary. There are only individual rights and Americans. There are no group rights or hyphenated-Americans.

Posted by: Joseph at June 27, 2013 8:48 PM
Comment #367740

Joseph,

I agree with you regarding the importance of individual rights. We may talk about group privileges and the benefits they might bring, but these should never rise to the same level as fundamental individual liberties.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 28, 2013 5:29 PM
Comment #367742

The vastly overwhelming number of people who have ever lived, in nearly every civilization, got it wrong about sex and marriage.

Nearly every major religion that ever existed in the history of the world got it wrong about sex and marriage.

Nearly every civilized government that ever existed in the history of the world got it wrong about sex and marriage.

How is it possible that all those people, civilizations, and governments could have been so wrong about sex and marriage? It is mind boggling.

Enlightenment has come at last in the last few decades of the last century and the first decade of the new century.

What has caused this great revelation? Why has it taken nearly all of mankind so many millennium to understand the truth about sex and marriage? Has there been some great scientific breakthrough regarding marriage and families between men and women? What great new philosopher has arisen to give new thought to the meaning of marriage? Have new religious documents been uncovered to reveal a new truth about marriage?

Nope…none of the above make a bit of difference since the last few decades have somehow revealed a new truth about marriage between a man and women. It has taken thousands of years for mankind to recognize the value of men lying with men and women lying with women in a marriage bed.

I can hardly contain my self with the discovery of how smart we have become.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 28, 2013 7:29 PM
Comment #367745

I think it is about time gays were given the same rights AND responsibilities as others.

Let’s get rid of all civil unions. Nothing short of marriage should have those rights.

Gay marriage will not become common. After the first couple year of novelty, gay marriage rates dropped. Gay lifestyle does not particularly mix with monogamous marriage. Actually, I hope that changes. I would prefer that gays become less flamboyant.

If average gays had fewer sexual partners, diseases such as AIDS would never have spread so quickly. Monogamous partners, gay or straight, have almost zero chance of contracting AIDS, or any other venereal disease for that matter.

Posted by: CJ at June 28, 2013 8:24 PM
Comment #367747
The vastly overwhelming number of people who have ever lived, in nearly every civilization, got it wrong about sex and marriage.

Well duh. We already discovered that in 1967 with Loving v. Virginia.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 28, 2013 10:29 PM
Comment #367750

I would much rather the debate surrounding gay marriage had been framed around a simple question: Why is the government granting special privileges to certain individuals based on their association with others?

No one group should be granted special rights or privileges. All individuals should be treated equally under the law. As far as marriage is concerned, an unmarried person should have the same rights and privileges under the law as a married person.

We should wipe marriage from the law books. Marriage is between a man and a woman under God. People should be free to associate under that religious practice without interference from the government. No individual should ask permission to get married from his or her government. If a man and a woman want to enter into a marriage, that’s fine, but the government should have no involvement in it whatsoever. Likewise, if two gay people want to “marry,” that’s also fine, but the government should have no involvement in it whatsoever.

If the tax code is the problem, change the tax code. Income tax should be done away with anyway. A consumption tax makes far more sense. Food should be exempt from taxation. Everything else should be taxed at a certain amount and collected at the point of sale. No income tax. No property tax. No capital gains tax. No interest tax. The only tax you pay as an individual is when you buy something other than food. Everyone pays their “fair share” that way.

As for inheritance or who gets what when you die, that’s what a Will is for. If you’re in a hospital, another legal document can state who can handle your affairs when you’re incapacitated. We don’t need “marriage” to determine such things.

Posted by: Joseph at June 28, 2013 11:39 PM
Comment #367753

Did anyone read that article about how gay people in San Francisco feel about contracting aids? They pretty much said they just want to get it as soon as possible so they don’t have to bother with protection. They think they’re going to get it no matter what so just get it and be done with it.

I know a guy who is HIV+ and gay. He is a Typhoid Harry type that has unprotected sex with as many partners as he can find. He says he’s against gay marriage because he’s “too promiscuous”!

He’s also a truck driver and a lot lizard. He has sex with people all up and down the least coast. It sucks to be them!


Posted by: Weary Willie at June 29, 2013 3:31 AM
Comment #367754

Joseph

My wife and I pay thousands of dollars MORE in income taxes as a married couple than we would as two individuals. This is a problem for two earner families. It is about time those gay couples paid their fair share.

Re wills etc. - It is good for society to have some kind of recognized succession and property system. Many people do not have wills and there would be a lot of confusion among those that did if it was all a free for all. Imagine the vultures hanging around old folks homes tricking people into giving away their life’s savings.

Marriage serves a good social purpose. It accomplished many things that otherwise would be thrown to the state, probably with bad results. Breakdown of marriage is responsible for many of our social problems today. Children from non-married households are more likely to become poor, criminal etc. There are no positives. Married people themselves are less likely to be poor, criminal etc.

In fact, marriage is probably the best anti-poverty, anti-crime program we have going. If marriage tames some of those destructive gay lifestyles, I am all for it. If gay men had similar numbers of partners as straight married men, there would have been no AIDS epidemic. I fear it won’t have much of an effect on this, however.

Posted by: CJ at June 29, 2013 8:12 AM
Comment #367756

Joseph,

Why do poor people pay no income taxes? Why is there a mortgage deduction? Why is there the Earned Income Tax Credit?

This DOMA case in regards to Windsor and Spyer, is about the desire to pay less taxes because others pay less taxes. I wonder if I can bring a case against the United States arguing that I shouldn’t have to pay taxes since certain privileged individuals don’t have to pay taxes.

Posted by: George in SC at June 29, 2013 11:14 AM
Comment #367766

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

That same Creator, in His Word, declared homosexuality to be an abomination. Or does that count?

Posted by: Paul at June 29, 2013 10:01 PM
Comment #367769

I use the Bible to guide my life, not the lives of others.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 30, 2013 8:27 AM
Comment #367774

So the Bible is only for you and not for anyone else? Where has the Bible guided you?

Posted by: Paul at June 30, 2013 6:22 PM
Comment #367775

Is it any wonder a recent poll showed more people aged 18 - 30 name “no religion” as their affiliation than any specific religion?

Paul, you might want to shop around. There are a lot of perfectly good religions out there which do not encourage the kind of hatred and bigotry found in the Bible. All religions claim to be true, of course, but it seems the ones that promote compassion would at least be more worthy of following than the Middle Eastern tribal religions, which apparently declare the sexual orientation of millions of people an abomination. Ugly stuff. Do the right thing and turn your back on it.

In terms of politics, the older the groups polled, the more likely to name a religious affiliation. The likelihood of a Christian religious affiliation (Protestant or Catholic) among whites increases with age, and matches the likelihood of association with conservatism; in other words, conservatives are likely to be older, white males with a religious affiliation. Not really surprising, but the demographics explain the way our society is changing. The older demographic is dying off, and the younger one is replacing it with a generation more tolerant, open-minded, and liberal.

Posted by: phx8 at June 30, 2013 6:44 PM
Comment #367776

What if you’re wrong and the Bible is correct? Eternity is along time to be wrong.

Posted by: Paul at June 30, 2013 7:10 PM
Comment #367777

Paul, you need to understand that liberals like phx8 are experts on all subjects, including religion. Perhaps he would like to tell you which of those “perfectly good” religions he follows after. My guess would be none, which makes his comments on religion nothing more than BS.

Posted by: George at June 30, 2013 7:14 PM
Comment #367778

Well, if I run the risk of being condemned for compassion and tolerance, then I’ll just have to take my chances. I’m pretty sure that, whether it involves politics or religion, erring on the side of kindness will ultimately stand us all in good stead. In the case of homosexual marriage, it does not affect me, my wife, or my children, and it makes those people who are affected happy.

Btw, if a particular religion refuses to recognize such unions, that is the right of that church. But it will put that church further and further away from mainstream American society. Many churches choose that route anyway.

Posted by: phx8 at June 30, 2013 7:27 PM
Comment #367779

George,
It would behoove each and every one of us to be our own “expert” when it comes to religion. Personally, I think the Buddhists and Hindus come closest to getting it right… There are many, many schools of Hinduism, and among the Buddhists, I prefer the mainstream Theravadan school. Other schools, such as Mahayana, also have a lot to offer. Some people like the Tibetan version… The practice of Yoga and meditation spans these various schools.

Having said that, you can’t really be a “follower” of Buddhism. No one can make another person be Buddhist. It doesn’t work that way. Buddhism is an experiential religion. You could worship the Buddha if it made you feel better, I suppose, but it wouldn’t do you any good, since he was an ordinary man. The Buddha provided a practical example of how to deal with the nature of the problem in this life, in the here and now.

And that’s enough about religion. This is a political blog, so why don’t we go that route…

Posted by: phx8 at June 30, 2013 7:57 PM
Comment #367780

Some claim that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. They number about one billion, their religion considers homosexuality as punishable by death. So I don’t think gay’s need to be concerned about the tolerance or intolerance of old white men.

Posted by: Paul at June 30, 2013 8:58 PM
Comment #367781

Paul

Old white men and dead white men get blamed for lots of things. Their time may well be passing. The world will probably not improve because of that and may well become worse.

To paraphrase that dead white man Winston Churchill, Western Civilization is the worst possible, except when compared with all the others.

In any case, you are right. A world dominated by Islam would be a lot worse for women, gays and almost everybody else.

There is a practical problem for Western culture in general and gay culture in particular. We don’t produce enough children. Islamic countries are not so afflicted. Cultures that don’t reproduce disappear. As our relatively tolerant Western culture disappears, we will have more of the other kinds. Again, this is not good.

Posted by: CJ at June 30, 2013 9:50 PM
Comment #367784

Crucial?
The current state of our union is what should be “crucial.” My being able to marry another dude and get government benefits? Eh, not so much.

Posted by: kctim at July 1, 2013 9:52 AM
Comment #367800
So the Bible is only for you and not for anyone else? Where has the Bible guided you?

The Bible gives me hope. Hope for a better tomorrow and the hope needed to trust my fellow man.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 1, 2013 9:17 PM
Comment #367802

You are a liberal; you have no hope in tomorrow based on your fellow man. Liberals only have hope in tomorrow, based on government. Why would you have hope in the Bible; don’t you believe like other liberals, that it is just a book written by men? Thus we complete the circle; a liberal does not trust in man, they trust in government.

Posted by: Paul at July 1, 2013 10:12 PM
Comment #367803

Paul, you seem to know something that I don’t. Perhaps I should throw away my Bible and worship you instead?

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 1, 2013 10:44 PM
Comment #367804

You already worship Obama as messiah.

Posted by: Paul at July 2, 2013 12:10 AM
Comment #367806

Paul,
What? Your argument makes no sense. You apparently do not know what a liberal is or what they generally believe. In addition, if you think that your Christian beliefs tell you that gay marriage is a sin and that following some bizarre rules from the Old Testament is following the teachings of Jesus is misguided at best. If you are so into the teachings of the Old Testament do you think women should be executed for losing their virginity before marriage as Deuteronomy proscribes? Or that a woman should e forced to marry her rapist? I think the teachings of Jesus, who you seem to be claiming as someone you follow and admire, tell us to not be judgmental, be accepting, and loving. I don’t think he said anything about homosexuality. I do believe there is a commandment about taking the lords name in vain, in other words, pretending you know God’s will. We are all sinners and I don’t think you should be casting stones from your glass house.

It’s pretty simple, if you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry a dude.

Posted by: tcsned at July 2, 2013 10:42 AM
Comment #367807

Paul,

“You already worship Obama as messiah.”

Dude, this comment is so 2010. Surely, even with half your brain tied behind your back, you can come up with something more intelligent than this.

tcsned,

The belief system of most of the “Christians” that frequent this site seems to be “treat me how I want to be treated, and screw the rest of you”.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 2, 2013 11:52 AM
Comment #367808

Rocky,
Yup, otherwise known as self-righteous hypocrisy.

Posted by: tcsned at July 2, 2013 12:03 PM
Comment #367809

Prop 8 didn’t treat people like they wanted to be treated and they said screw the majority who voted for it, but somehow you guys think it is the “Christians” who should be singled out and condemned for “self-righteous hypocrisy?”

No wonder Christians feel like they are being constantly attacked by the far-left.

Posted by: kctim at July 2, 2013 12:21 PM
Comment #367810

kctim,

Is it the duty of the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of a law whether the majority voted for it or not?

Is this country majority rule?

This is Civics 101.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 2, 2013 12:30 PM
Comment #367816

tcsned, show me the quote where I said ” your Christian beliefs” or “so into the teachings of the Old Testament do you think women should be executed for losing their virginity”? I never said any of these things; but I suspect this must be a real sore spot with liberals.

“kctim,

Is it the duty of the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of a law whether the majority voted for it or not?

Is this country majority rule?

This is Civics 101.

Rocky”

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 2, 2013 12:30 PM

Interesting comment…Do you support all Supreme Court decisions?

Posted by: Paul at July 2, 2013 5:36 PM
Comment #367817
You already worship Obama as messiah.

Paul the Infallible, please tell me more about this Messiah that I should be worshipping. Surely it must be a coincidence that He shares the President’s name? Or is it a divine miracle prophesied in some holy text?

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 2, 2013 5:43 PM
Comment #367818

Paul,

“Interesting comment…Do you support all Supreme Court decisions?”

Actually, no, that said, I don’t think I am going out on a limb to say you probably don’t either.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 2, 2013 6:22 PM
Comment #367819

Are you saying the left Never considered Obama as the savior of America. Louis Farrakhan believes he is the messiah:

“Addressing a large crowd behind a podium Feb. 24 with a Nation of Islam Saviours’ Day 2008 sign, Farrakhan proclaims,

“You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

“Brothers and sisters,” Farrakhan said, “Barack Obama to me, is a herald of the Messiah. Barack Obama is like the trumpet that alerts you something new, something better is on the way.”

Farrakhan points out that the man Nation of Islam followers refer to as “the Saviour,” Fard Muhammad, had a black father and a white mother, just as Obama did.

“A black man with a white mother became a saviour to us,” he said. “A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.

“Would God allow Barack to be president of a country that has been so racist, so evil in its treatment of Hispanics, native Americans, blacks?” he asked. “Would God do something like that? Yeah. Of course he would. That’s to show you that the stone that the builders rejected has become the headstone of the corner. This is a sign to you. It’s the time of our rise. It’s the time that we should take our place. The future is all about you.”

Barbara A. Thompson believes Obama is the messiah:

The Gospel According to Apostle Barack, by Barbara A. Thompson.

Excerpt:

Yes, Barack had worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people, especially those who elected him in 2008. His followers needed to re-elect him to a second term, so that he could continue to accomplish the promises he made, thus, realizing his vision of America as a more perfect political union or “heaven here on earth.” Then, as I began to contemplate ways to assist Barack in his 2012 re-election bid something miraculous happened. I felt God’s (His) Spirit beckoning me in my dreams at night. Listening, cautiously, I learned that Jesus walked the earth to create a more civilized society, Martin (Luther King) walked the earth to create a more justified society, but, Apostle Barack, the name he was called in my dreams, would walk the earth to create a more equalized society, for the middle class and working poor. Apostle Barack, the next young leader with a new cause, had been taken to the mountaintop and allowed to see over the other side. He had the answers to unlock the kingdom of “heaven here on earth” for his followers. The answers were repeated – over and over – in speeches Barack had made from his presidential announcement to his inaugural address. Those speeches or his teachings contained the answers to the middle class and working poor people living in a “heaven here on earth.” For when the answers were unlocked and enacted, Apostle Barack’s vision of America would be realized.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/09/book-compares-obama-to-jesus-christ-and-martin-luther-king/

Even Michelle believes her Obama is the messiah:

Michelle Obama confirmed what many Democrats have believed for years – Barack Obama is Jesus reincarnated.

Michelle Obama came onto the stage of the Democratic Convention in North Carolina on Tuesday night to the strains of Stevie Wonder’s new gospel song “Barack is Lord”!

The self-described “mom-in-chief” — “my most important title,” she said this night — gave an effectively emotional speech, at times her voice quavering. She spoke about her early life with her husband. Mrs. Obama talked about their courtship and their college debts. She said that when they were first dating, Barack’s most prized possession was ” a coffee table he found in a dumpster,” clearly a bold attempt to trump Ann Romney’s we-ate-our meals-on-an-ironing-board anecdote.

Then, she shocked the convention hall when she said that it wasn’t until after she was married to Barack Obama for two years that she came to realize that Barack was, in fact, the Messiah.

In fact all Democrats believed Obama was the messiah, yet you say you didn’t?

Rocky Marks, we weren’t talking about me. We were talking about your claims.

Posted by: Paul at July 2, 2013 7:56 PM
Comment #367826
Is it the duty of the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of a law whether the majority voted for it or not?

It is a role they have taken on for themselves, it was not intended to be so…

“The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.” —Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303 “But the Chief Justice says, ‘There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.’ True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force.” —Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

“But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best.” —Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47

“The Constitution… meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

“In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that ‘the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.’ If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow… The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” —Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.” —Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

Is this country majority rule?

No

“The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism.” —Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

“Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” —Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:318

“The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.” —Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:490

“Great innovations should not be forced on a slender majority.” —Thomas Jefferson to John Armstrong, 1808. ME 12:42

“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” —James Madison, Federalists #51

Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes. —James Madison

Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents. —James Madison

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction. — James Madison

A pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. — James Madison

In a free Government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases, will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of People comprehended under the same Government. — James Madison

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. — James Madison

This is Civics 101.

What Civics class was this? I would ask for my money back…

BTW, another quote from Madison that isn’t actually related to the topic but a good one for people to get re-acquainted with…:

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

And…

“Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2013 4:53 AM
Comment #367828
In fact all Democrats believed Obama was the messiah

Paul demonstrates his infallible omniscience once again with amazing mind-reading abilities! Only he can confuse a few random remarks from Leftist radicals with widespread Messianism; what a feat! And Paul also demonstrates his mind bending prowess by tactfully ignoring imilar remarks made regarding previous Presidents; simply amazing!

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 3, 2013 6:49 AM
Comment #367829

Rocky

Your statement and my reply had nothing to do with the Supreme court or how you see their job.

You mocked “Christians” for having what you termed a “treat me how I want to be treated, and screw the rest of you” attitude, and I found that funny because that attitude is exactly why Prop 8 was challenged in the courts.

Tom adding the “self-righteous hypocrisy” quote was just icing on the cake.

Posted by: kctim at July 3, 2013 9:19 AM
Comment #367833

kctim,

“You mocked “Christians” for having what you termed a “treat me how I want to be treated, and screw the rest of you” attitude, and I found that funny because that attitude is exactly why Prop 8 was challenged in the courts.”

No, I didn’t.

I did mock most of the “Christians” on this site for their system of belief that only loosely follow the teachings of Christ.
They are the first to judge, but they refuse to be judged, and they are the first to bitch and whine if they are treated as they treat others.

We are all, theoretically at least, equal under the law, and majority rule can be challenged through the courts, because of the 14th Ammendment.

Rhinehold,

The founders also allowed that only 3/5 of slaves were counted for tax purposes. They allowed that women had no say in the running of the country.

Whether the founders wanted the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of Constitionality, they are now and have been for quite a while, whether we agree with their decisions or not.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 3, 2013 11:24 AM
Comment #367834
The founders also allowed that only 3/5 of slaves were counted for tax purposes. They allowed that women had no say in the running of the country.

And the Supreme Court ok’d those things as well.

Whether the founders wanted the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of Constitionality, they are now and have been for quite a while, whether we agree with their decisions or not.

And, as with those other things that were right to be changed, a Constitutional Amendment was necessary.

BTW, you are wrong that the specific people that I quoted wanted black men to be counted as 3/5 citizens and women couldn’t vote. They were compromises that they didn’t agree with. Your argument carries no weight at all.

In fact, what was predicted to happen if we went down the path of ignoring the Constitution and it’s intent is happening exactly as they said… I would give them a ton more credence based on that, wouldn’t you?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2013 12:53 PM
Comment #367835

BTW, you should know by now that I agreed 100% with the decisions of the Court in these two cases, but that doesn’t change history…

We are not a democracy (thankfully).

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2013 12:55 PM
Comment #367836

Warren Porter, you can make all the claims you want about the “leftist radicals”; but it does not change the fact that the Majority of the Democratic Party had a messiah complex when it came to Obama. The leftist radical followers and supporters of Farrakhan and the reverend Wright, which is about 97% of the 16% of blacks who make up the American populace, believed Obama was the savior of America. Now if you had said “a minority of moderate Democrats”, you would have been more believable. But nobody believes that the Democrats did not look at Obama with a messiah complex.

Very good points Rhinehold; the left loves to just spout false facts as if they are true. But thanks to great Americans like yourself, who are knowledgeable enough to make them look like fools.

Regarding Christians on this site; I may not be an expert on the subject, but it is my understanding that being a Christian is not in name or deed, but in faith. I would like to know what chapter and verse in the Bible says that Christians are not allowed to judge, while at the same time, liberals are allowed to base all their beliefs on the judgment of others. Don’t liberals base all their beliefs on Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”, which blatantly teach to judge everyone and tear down their lives, i.e. personal attacks?

Posted by: Paul at July 3, 2013 1:04 PM
Comment #367837

Rhinehold,

“BTW, you are wrong that the specific people that I quoted wanted black men to be counted as 3/5 citizens and women couldn’t vote. They were compromises that they didn’t agree with. Your argument carries no weight at all.”

I didn’t say they wanted it, I said they allowed it.

Regardless of what they didn’t agree with, it would seem their principles were less important than forming a more “perfect” union.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 3, 2013 1:08 PM
Comment #367838

To support my claim of personal attacks, all one has to do is read the comments made on Watchblog, by the left, when quoting prominent conservatives. The left never deals with the content of the quote; the first thing they do is attack the conservative being quoted.

Posted by: Paul at July 3, 2013 1:11 PM
Comment #367840
I would like to know what chapter and verse in the Bible says that Christians are not allowed to judge, while at the same time, liberals are allowed to base all their beliefs on the judgment of others.

Matthew 7

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

HTH

BTW, if you are going to adhere to a doctrine, don’t pick and choose. If you do pick and choose, and choose that which demonizes others that aren’t like you, then you are not a Christian, or a moral person at all, instead you are just a plain old bigot.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2013 1:51 PM
Comment #367841

Oh, and Paul, if you are going to complain about others attacking you personally, perhaps you should re-read what you write as if someone else wrote it and wonder if you aren’t doing the same thing…

If you are doing the same thing, how can you complain about them doing it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2013 1:52 PM
Comment #367842
Regardless of what they didn’t agree with, it would seem their principles were less important than forming a more “perfect” union.

Gee, Rocky, not for cutting some slack for a group of individuals trying to implement a new idea in self-governing that hadn’t been tried before at a time when most of them were wanted for treason and living under the fear of losing their heads at any given moment…

What they came up with was better than what anyone was living under at the time, and perhaps this is true to this day. They also acknowledged that the issue of slavery was one that was going to end up costing us in the future by not dealing with it then, and they were right again there.

We strive to live up to a principle, but as Madison said, when you are asking men to govern men, putting that much power into someone’s hands, unscrupulous will hold on to that power as the slave-owners did in the late 1700s. If they hadn’t made those compromises at that time, if they had fought the civil war then (as would have happened), the experiment that launched the French Revolution and resulted in self-rule for England and other countries and guaranteed the civil rights of millions of people worldwide would never have succeeded. We may still be living under a King’s rule today…

We can debate on whether or not that would be better than the morass of nonsense we are putting up with today, but it was a good thing, not a bad thing, even if they couldn’t get it 100% perfect at the beginning.

The basic idea, that people are free to live their lives without unfettered unless they are infringing upon the rights of others to the same, is still something we should be striving for. Neither of the major parties hold to that idea though…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2013 2:04 PM
Comment #367843

One more thing, to point out something in the Rules for Participation, that every poster agrees to when they post and can be viewed by the link just above the POST button…

Critique the Message, Not the Messenger. This means you may critique any points made in another person’s writing or comments. But, you may not criticize the person themself, nor their right to comment at WatchBlog. This also means you may not criticize categories of people who visit and participate at WatchBlog (e.g. All Democrats are commies or, All Republicans are idiots). To be in compliance, critique of what other WatchBlog participants say, must be aimed at the points being made in their content.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 3, 2013 2:06 PM
Comment #367845

Rhinehold: ?

Posted by: Paul at July 3, 2013 3:26 PM
Comment #368751

Mary Ford’s iconic jewelry ‘T’ regarding his sunglasses may be a subtle business logo オークリー サングラス that asserts class ナイキAir Yeezy together with elegance. A number of the models at the same time feature any trademark ‘cross bridge’ and anyone that knows anything during the fashion society will fully understand the media on Mary Ford eyeglasses!

For 2010, the Mary Ford spring/summer set brings everyone those loved favourites including Jennifer, Whitney, Lilliana together with Miranda. Often NIKE ZOOM HYPERDUNK times there are ナイキ 6.0 new variations too that will be inventive together with fresh, including Peter, Claude together with Martine. Even any classic Expert design has long been given a good makeover to allow these ‘wraparounds’ a good subtle retro overall look and feeling.

Posted by: NIKE ZOOM HYPERDUNK at July 23, 2013 11:04 PM
Post a comment