|
| Thread: American-Roman Connection |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
posted April 08, 2005 07:27 PM |
|
|
I seem to remember, from when I was reading about the American Civil War a few weeks ago, that the American Constitution contains an amendment about no states being allowed to leave the United States, and that if such an attempt were to be made, the rest of the Union would, if necessary, use force to make the would-be departing state stay in the Union.
Is this just me being confused, or does it have any root in reality?
If it has, then wouldn't such an attempt only lead to a new civil war?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted April 08, 2005 08:01 PM |
|
|
It All Depends
It would greatly depend on which states were involved, the popular sentiment, and the intentions of the current president.
~Hypothetically speaking:
1. If the original 13 colony states wanted to secede from the union then it would fall on them to see the error of their ways. They're much too small.
2. But if for some reason the modern-day southern states tried to secede again then this would pose a great problem. The sheer number of people available to support that cause would be extremely capable. Technology today would re-invent that kind of situation.
~Seriously/realistically speaking:
1. There is only one state that has secession written into its own constitution. This is Texas.
Our U.S. constitution guarantees all citizens the right to travel from state-to-state without restriction. Because of this, many Americans have family/friends living in Texas which might give it a sort of anchor to the union of the whole country.
If Texans ever decided to act on this law(which is as obsolete as the Queen's military power in England), then there would be three-fold conflicts. (A.)Their economy is interdependent on the rest of the country. (B.)Ripping families from their relatives in neighboring states would be a principle nightmare. (C.) Asking Mexico for military support would backfire disastrously.
 To answer the question posed by terje_the_mad_wizard: I would say that military intervention of a possible state secession would only come after exhausting the political, philisophical, and economic ties it has with the U.S. main body.
Civil war and policing-a-state(enacting a state of military lockdown) don't simply occur because of a few hundred or thousand cultist secessionists. These ignorant extremists do in fact still exist in many parts of the southern U.S. They still gather, hold regular leadership elections, and imaginatively fantasize about a greater world where the south is finally liberated.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 08, 2005 08:33 PM |
|
|
I do actually know at least one member of another site who's always going on about independence for California. Most Americans there think he's a little... eccentric 
Maybe getting rid of Texas wouldn't be such a bad idea, you'd get rid of all those embarassing people there after all 
Seriously though, I kind of get the impression PM was talking more about how the political divisions in the country and the problems that causes will damage America if it's allowed to go any worse than it is now as opposed to actual secession. I know we talked somewhat about that kind of thing when I was there anyway.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 08, 2005 10:10 PM |
|
|
PH, as has been obvious for quite a while, you know me well
You are correct in your inferences about my post. I was referencing the fabricated "culture war" between the Democratic and Republican party extremists -- the most recent chapters of which have been:
a) the Terri Shiavo case, and
b) the talk of the "nuclear option" by Republican Senators who plan to do away with the filibuster. The Democratic Minority is currently using (some say "abusing")filibusters in an attempt to stop the Bush Administration from packing the federal courts with ideological fundamentalists.
I may start a new thread on this. Something along the lines of:
See Congress Implode.
Let me think about it.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 08, 2005 10:30 PM |
|
|
I think there'd be a lot of people who'd pay good money to see all the members of Congress Implode, or Explode as well
Kind of reminds me of Lord Kitchener in our country (of "your country needs YOU" fame) who was known for not being a very jolly man. When he was asked once what would make him happy he said something like
If I was allowed to, I'd wait for a full house of commons, then get 2 squads of soldiers with a machine gun to each squad. I'd position them at an entrance each and then start a major fire in the middle, and shoot anyone who tried to leave. I think after an hour I may just give a smile.
Guess he didn't like politicians much
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted April 08, 2005 11:15 PM |
|
|
To Be Honest...
I don't mind him doing that with judges. Quite frankly, I think a few need to be sent to Massachusetts and San Fransisco. And I actually feel very strongly in support of Tom Delay's remarks regarding Mrs. Shiavo.
But I do mind removing the filibuster. I won't vote in favor of removing this historic power of the minority senate.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 08, 2005 11:51 PM |
|
|
Well I a) Don't agree and b) believe that's impossible since Kitchener has been dead nearly 90 years
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted April 09, 2005 07:01 AM |
|
|
Actually...
I was responding to Peacemaker my friend. Sorry to confuse you. I was saying that I agreed with Bush and his sitting judges that leaned toward his general philosophy. I really have never heard of Kitchner.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 09, 2005 11:05 AM |
|
|
Kitchener was a colonial/WWI British General. Generally speaking I don't agree for a moment with the conclusions of Bush and Delay though.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 09, 2005 01:25 PM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 9 Apr 2005
|
Quote:
I don't mind him doing that with judges. Quite frankly, I think a few need to be sent to Massachusetts and San Fransisco. And I actually feel very strongly in support of Tom Delay's remarks regarding Mrs. Shiavo.
But I do mind removing the filibuster. I won't vote in favor of removing this historic power of the minority senate.
If you are refering to his remarks that there are judges
that are out of control, I think he had it wrong. It was
Congress and the executive branch that were out of
control. Delay and Bush only got involved for political
ends, not because they believed so strongly in any moral
thingie.
And quite frankly, I find this whole right-to-life
scenario the height of hypocrisy, when so many people are
dying elsewhere, not just in Iraq. Lets not forget Delay's
father was removed from life support.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 09, 2005 07:34 PM |
|
|
The problem is this. Appointing judges to the higher courts who fit any criteria other than objectively applying the letter and spirit of the law leaves the entire country stuck with that agenda for the life of the judges, whether or not the agenda represents the essence of the Constitution.
Supreme Court appointments are FOR LIFE, or until the judge retires. We are likely to have several Supreme Court bench vacancies in the next four years. If each appointment openly suits the President's agenda, then the purpose of the Court will not be served and the separation of powers will be indefinitely disrupted.
Of course, many say that's already happened with the sitting judges, whom many decry as excessively "Liberal." The fundamentalist agenda claims any interpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court is "judicial activism."
However, others would describe this characterization as fundamentalist spin. Applying the letter of the Constitution is frequently nearly impossible in modern situations, which simply aren't addressed directly in the document. It's much easier said than done when a case gives rise to constitutional issues for which there are no clear-cut answers. Virtually every case requires some degree of interpretation. There's just no avoiding it.
The best Judge is one who can apply the letter of the language whenever possible, but who interprets the Constitution to the most minimal, objective extent possible in the gray-area situations, WITHOUT letting their personal or religious agendas enter the judgement process.
Most of the populace does not understand that the danger of "judicial activism" lies just as much with the extreme right as it does with the extreme left. Either side which applies some sort of litmus test in furtherance of their agenda (i.e. Democrats requiring a statement that the candidate supports abortion versus Republicans requiring a statement that the candidate condemns it) is encouraging judicial activism, not to mention judicially unethical activity. It is absolutely verboten to prejudge any case, and a judge who does so is automatically required to recuse themselves from the case.
So, theoretically, any of the candidates who answer those questions either way during Senate Confirmation Hearings, would have to exclude themselves from the panels when cases on those issues are put before them.
The moral here is to beware the spin that is currently going on on BOTH sides, my friends.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted April 09, 2005 07:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Either side which applies some sort of litmus test in furtherance of their agenda (i.e. Democrats requiring a statement that the candidate supports abortion versus Republicans requiring a statement that the candidate condemns it) is encouraging judicial activism, not to mention judicially unethical activity. It is absolutely verboten to prejudge any case, and a judge who does so is automatically required to recuse themselves from the case.
So, theoretically, any of the candidates who answer those questions either way during Senate Confirmation Hearings, would have to exclude themselves from the panels when cases on those issues are put before them.
This quote made me think of the normal separation of powers, where the legislative power is supposed to deal with the general laws, and the judicial branch is supposed to apply these general laws on individual cases.
So, doesn't this all go against the principle of sepatation of power? It seems to me that judges are "forced" into making statements about their own, personal, general opinions about issues in order to be appointed, and that the legislative branch also is putting their nose where it doesn't belong, by making laws that is applicable in one case only, and overruling the decisions of the courts. If this is so, then it is possibly endangering the entire system of Western Democracy, at least if this is part of a trend, or the beginning of one.
It should however be noted that my knowledge of this specific issue (Schiavo) is mainly superficial...
As for judges being appointed for life. That's just so pre-1789...
Makes my wonder if you yanks ever reform your laws. 
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 09, 2005 08:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It seems to me that judges are "forced" into making statements about their own, personal, general opinions about issues in order to be appointed, and that the legislative branch also is putting their nose where it doesn't belong, by making laws that is applicable in one case only, and overruling the decisions of the courts. If this is so, then it is possibly endangering the entire system of Western Democracy, at least if this is part of a trend, or the beginning of one.
Hey Terge, yes, the judges are frequently being compelled into making such statements. I have watched some Senate Confirmation Hearings in which the line of questioning was abysmally partisan, usually on the part of Democrats.
However, the Republicans aren't helping by remaining silent on a string of candidates with well-known fundamentalist agendas, which those candidates have publicly stated in the past. The Dems are faced with the choice of failing to address the agenda issue, or looking bad by trying to force a concession during Senate Confirmation Hearings, or resorting to the filibuster.
On the other hand, the Dems are using this as an excuse to stonewall candidates who have no such known previosuly stated agendas as well. This is back-and-forth pendulum swing is causing an increasingly extreme polarization between the two camps.
As far as Western Democracy unravelling, well that remains to be seen. Frankly, on the one hand this isn't the first time the President of the United States has tried to jimmyrig the situation by manipulating the composition of ths Supreme Court. I might be alarming to watch in real-life for the first time, but it may not be nearly as earth-shattering as it appears to those of us watching it play itself out. For example, Roosevelt achieved an increase of the number of Sup. Ct. Judges so he could "pack the court" by appointing his "brand" of judges. And there have been many other situations where the parties have tried to keep excessive control away from one another, frequently unsuccessfully.
On the other hand, the fundamentalist extremist camp is basically mounting all-out warfare against the entire federal court system. The "nuclear option" of changing the rules governing the filibuster is only one prong of this attack. C-Span aired an all-day conference last Thursday, with dozens of the Tom DeLay heavy-hitters raging in hysterical, blisteringly extremist terms about how they intend to mount a comprehensive campaign to "take the country back" on behalf of the "silent majority," the existance of which the statistics simply do not support. This group went so far as to discuss putting explicit religious language (i.e. references to Jesus and the Bible as the direct root of the entire American legal system into the Constitution and laws), seeking the impeachment of judges and senators who do not behave in conformance with their fundamentalist agendas, and other such tactics.
The conference in itself was not what was so disturbing, at least to me. What was disturbing was that as I listened over the course of the day, I heard repeated misttatements of fact by these people which were clearly designed to whip up hysteria on the part of the observers. (Further information can be found about this war on the court system can be found on the C-Span website.)
It is, indeed, possible that we are "seeing Congress Implode."
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 09, 2005 08:52 PM |
|
|
We talked about that too*... hmm this is getting spooky all these conversations turning up all the time. Just don't mention some of the personal ones ok PM?
* Well PM and her husband talked about it, I just tried to follow it all without asking dumb questions
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted April 10, 2005 02:36 AM |
|
|
Rome Didn't Have The Ability To Destroy The Entire World With The Push Of A Button
~PrivateHudson,
If you have any questions at all then please ask away. I was hoping to be as forthcoming as you are, when asking about your own country. Some of the questions I have had, over the many different posts inquiring into basic British law and even lingual schisms, are probably seen as 'dumb questions' by native Britons yes? But you never insulted me or seemed to become annoyed. You simply/politely helped me understand the way a British 'subject' does. And for that I am very thankful for your insightful patience.
~Peacemaker,
You've taken quite a liberal stance. I really quite enjoy your company here but I also feel obligated to point out your fervent idealism. We are all human. We are none of us at all infallible, much to the contrary of current papal law. If moving forward in this context, we can better understand the balance of judiciary proceedings. But who am I to lecture you, a judge, on law? I am nothing more than a compatriot. I feel very strongly that the use of the description "litmus test" is after-the-fact. I really don't give a rat's arse what they(the judges in question) say at injunction; it's their judicial history that matters to me. If a judge gets sworn in saying he/she is "against/for abortion" but his/her judicial ruling history clearly contradicts then I'm more inclined to believe the history over a flighty transparent sporatic phrase obviously used to gain the favor of supposition.
On the Supreme court we have both conservative and liberal judges. This is supposed to be our highest court representing ultimate objectivity. And yet here we have "conservative" and "liberal" judges. That isn't objective! Why? I think it is the balance that we must keep. If I discover the balance is going to be offset then I feel greatly compelled to act, but if the prior seat was held by a political equivalent then I sit back in my garage and continue reading through the paper feeling a sense of all's-well that ends well.
I really don't care when people shout LITMUS TEST! It means nothing. It's political and rhetorical. Let them have drama on the senate floor. I want to know their history of ruling and then move forward from there.
Now personally, I really do feel strong about marriage, right-to-life, pro-choice, and conservative rulings. As of late, I've been feeling greatly overwhelmed with liberal extremes ranging from Michael/Janet Jackson to Fahrenheit 9/11. So I say if Bush wants to pack it in a bit before he leaves office then let him. This country could use a good conservative flogging at the moment. But please don't take me for one of those kinds of people who is so drastic as to vote on favor of prohibition(the ultimate conservative extreme). I have many liberal views which I believe helps balance my political stance to within healthy moderation.
...All from within the selfish confines of my own humble opinions of course...
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 10, 2005 03:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now personally, I really do feel strong about marriage, right-to-life, pro-choice, and conservative rulings. As of late, I've been feeling greatly overwhelmed with liberal extremes ranging from Michael/Janet Jackson to Fahrenheit 9/11. So I say if Bush wants to pack it in a bit before he leaves office then let him. This country could use a good conservative flogging at the moment. But please don't take me for one of those kinds of people who is so drastic as to vote on favor of prohibition(the ultimate conservative extreme). I have many liberal views which I believe helps balance my political stance to within healthy moderation.
...All from within the selfish confines of my own humble opinions of course...
Liberal extremes ranging from Michael/Janet Jackson..say
what? Michael lives in lala land, even beyond any extreme
Liberal's pretensions . And it is getting a good
Conservative flogging, only the floggers are almost as
deluded as Michael is. For me, its not the issues so
much as the underlying narrowness of thinking which
spawns such thought.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted April 11, 2005 03:52 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 10 Apr 2005
|
Quote:
On the other hand, the Dems are using this as an excuse to stonewall candidates who have no such known previosuly stated agendas as well.
They do what with them again?
Quote:
C-Span aired an all-day conference last Thursday, with dozens of the Tom DeLay heavy-hitters raging in hysterical, blisteringly extremist terms about how they intend to mount a comprehensive campaign to "take the country back" on behalf of the "silent majority," the existance of which the statistics simply do not support. [....] seeking the impeachment of judges and senators who do not behave in conformance with their fundamentalist agendas, and other such tactics.
Is this Tom DeLay guy a republican and acting in accordance with bushie? This is frightening indeed. This sort of call can be interpreted as an open attack on the system, meaning that they admit they want to stuff the Supreme Court with fundamentalist judges, and not with judges who uphold the law. Am I wrong (cos it seems so unlikely something like this is happening in us), or do they really admit their intention are partisan judical authorities in order to "adequatly reperesent the silent majority"? This is an enormous impact against all legal institutions from all aspects.
Quote:
And yet here we have "conservative" and "liberal" judges. That isn't objective! Why? I think it is the balance that we must keep. If I discover the balance is going to be offset then I feel greatly compelled to act
Are you aware what this means consis? You mustnt allow balance and representation to play any role in justice. Only laws, and their equal implementation to everybody, in all cases, without anyone being privileged, represented or non-represented. This is the most anti-democratic and anti-justcice statement one could make.
Its only a fact that most court rulings will mostly be labeled "liberal" since Americas constitution is maybe the most liberal one in the world. That is how you peopl made it, and now you want balance. One single amandment (the one clearly and one-mindedly seperating religion and state) rejects all would-be arguments concerning the establishment/abolishment of laws that have any religious background, so there isnt really place for claims for anti-conservative (and especially their religious agenda) bias by the Supreme Court judges.
Also, I dont know about USA, but here its forbiden to comment on Supreme Court decisions (at least in "political ethics" (oh, such a funny expression)). Also, could u, peacemaker, tell me how are supreme court judges elected? Cos we're in the middle of reform here, in order to make judical branch more independent, but i guess there isnt a way. Currently, some gov body (primeminister, president? cant remember) proposes candidates for judges and the parliament votes them, which makes the process much dependant on the parlamentary majoritys will.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 13, 2005 05:46 PM |
|
|
|
(Sorry for my absence -- I have been very busy with a side project of late. I will return ASAP with responses to the questions/comments raised here.)
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted April 14, 2005 07:02 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 15 Apr 2005
|
~Svarog,
Supreme Court Appointments
Our Constitution grants the authority for appointing federal judges to the President, but also gives the Senate the duty to “advise and consent” to the appointment, as a check on the President’s power. First, the President nominates a qualified person for a judicial opening. Next, the Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings on each nominee and then, if approved by a majority vote of the committee, the nomination goes to the full Senate.
Sometimes, as in the case of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, the nominations end up going to the full Senate even though the committee voted down the nomination. If and when a nomination gets sent to the full Senate, the Senate will then debate the nomination and, by majority vote (sometimes called an “up or down vote”), either approves or rejects the nomination. If approved, the nominee is then sworn in and takes his/her position on the court to which he/she was nominated.
Filibuster
The idea is that a minority can prevent a vote on a motion by prolonging debate indefinitely. Unless the non-filibustering majority can invoke cloture, proceedings on a given nomination will cease.
Filibusters of judicial nominees have never (before 2003) been used to prevent a vote on a candidate who had majority support in the Senate. Filibustering judicial nominees prevents an up or down majority vote, and effectively raises the confirmation vote requirement to 60 votes, which is the amount needed to end the filibuster. Bush appointees that otherwise would have been confirmed by a majority of the Senate, have instead been blocked by the use of the filibuster by Democrats. The Democrats have threatened to continue using the filibuster against any Bush appointees who express antipathy toward Roe v. Wade or other judicially legislated “rights” that activist courts have created over the last few decades.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 15, 2005 08:44 PM |
|
|
Consis, I've really enjoyed your posts. I think you've sparked a branch of conversation here that really requires a new thread, which I will now create. You can see my long-winded response under "See Congress Implode" at:
http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?FID=10&TID=14697
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
| |
|
|
