« Taboos and Social Policy | Main | A Stampede of Angry Pachyderms »

December 18, 2004

Comments

the 14th amendment's anniversary is also my wedding anniversary.

yes, I am a tool.

(It's a coincidence--I'm not that big a tool.

It does lead me to take the marriage amendment as a personal insult though. Step on my wedding guests and my wedding anniversary in the name of defending my marriage? I don't think so. Grr.)

Just wondering how the courts substituted themselves for Congress, which is my only problem with the 14th Amendment.

We shouldn't forget that the "radical" GOP pushed this through. I wonder what they, radical Republicans, will get accomplished in the next four years.

Happy Anniversary Katherine!

I wonder what they, radical Republicans, will get accomplished in the next four years.

I suspect they'll succeed in returning America to the same level of unity we had leading up the 13th.

One of the amazing aspects of American history was that the 13th Amendment was ever necessary.

On this issue, we were as modern as czarist Russia, who also finally figured out that it was time to end slavery.

Timmy:

Yeah, its a terrrible thing applying the Bill of Rights to the States. How could any court think that the 14th Amendment was intended to protect individual liberty in that manner?

As for your "Radical Republicans," they would be expelled from the current reactionary version of your party.

"or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Iraq?

It always amuses me when Republicans try to trumpet Lincoln-era accomplishments as an apology for the modern GOP, or cite the racist and bigoted past of the Democratic party, as if either meant anything whatsoever today. Both parties are as different from their incarnations a century and a half ago as modern-day Britain is from the country that fought to keep us under its thumb.

how could any court think, see Article V of the 14th Amendment and please tell me where court is mentioned. Hint, hint, you won't find it.

Is legislation by the courts unconstitutional, well yes it is.

I suspect they'll succeed in returning America to the same level of unity we had leading up the 13th.

Edward, was the presidential election of 1868 (or 1864 for that matter) not legitimate and do you struggle with overall construct of federalism when the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were ratified.

I hope you understand the full ramifications of the question I put to you and the answer will be telling.

We should never forget that greatest president ever elected only got 35% (an all time low) of the popular vote in his first election.

It always amuses me, when people have no understanding of history and are unable to read simple English.

Catsy, I suggest you read the 14th Amendment and then tell me how I've misrepresented it. Finally, there are more similarities betweent the Democratic Party of 1864 and the Democratic Party of 2004 then you would care to admit (see Albany Democrat if you fail to get my drift, :)).

Timmy:

Read the whole constitution and all of its amendments, and tell me where you will find the principle of Marbury vs. Madison articulated. Funny how no serious constitutional scholar (regardless fo ideology) would then conclude that its illegitimate because it was not spelled out.

Belated Happy Anniversary, Katherine.

I was being snarky Timmy...you know snarky, don't ya?

We should never forget that greatest president ever elected only got 35% (an all time low) of the popular vote in his first election.

Why? Is there some connection between that and our current or future presidents? In the context of the current dialog it would seem that suggests it's not important whether Bush is popular or not, he may be "great" despite the fact his opponent in the last election garnered more votes than any other person running against an incumbent president.

I may one day be proven wrong about this, I'll admit, but Bush currently looks so incredibly unLincoln-esque to me the comparison is nearly insulting. Lincoln fought to unite the country with grand ideas and convictions, he didn't resort to petty mean-spirited dismissals (e.g., flip flop) or magnify meaner-spirited wedge issues (e.g., FMA) in a calculated re-election bid. He wasn't arrogant. He actually embraced the Truth, as opposed to having a tenuous relationship with it at best, as Bush does. In other words, his greatness was part of who Lincoln was, reading his biography you see he embodied the principles that made him great his entire life. Read Bush's biography as a comparison and you're left wanting quite a bit from the man.

because it was not spelled out, actually it was spelled out, the amendments specifically refer to Congress.

Edward, Lincoln fought to save the Union and Lincoln was probably the most arrogant (if you don't believe me look up "Albany Democrats" in that bio you read) president ever elected, neither which reduces his greatness.

As for Bush and how history will treat him, time will tell, Edward. Time often treats presidents kindly, see Truman, and sometimes badly, see Jefferson. :)

Speaking of time, we have to push the old man (Ken White) to come to New York, so we can drink and smoke cigars.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad