SecretMethod70

Pan, being our resident tea party apologist, mentioned that situation as one example of his general argument in support of tea parties. It's either discuss the tea parties themselves (they happened, there were a decent but not particularly large number of people, they will likely have little impact, the end), or try to discuss particular complaints of our resident tea partier. Personally, the latter is more interesting to me, but please post new thoughts about the parties themselves if you have some. I just can't think of anything more to discuss on the topic other than parroting news reports about turnout, Fox News and Libertarian think tank fundraising, etc. If you can, please add your thoughts

---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------

Actually, here's an interesting parrot of news:

Total 'tea party' participants nationwide? 225k. Perspective? 500k protested immigration crackdown. 400k in NY alone protested the Iraq war.

---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

I understand that. What I'm trying to get at is whether or not you think a state has greater authority to be discriminatory by nature of being a state rather than the federal government, so long as the majority of citizens in said state support the discriminatory action. This is comparing apples to oranges. Telling a judge he cannot publicly display the 10 commandments in a courthouse is not prosecuting him for a crime. Your answer was that you won't answer for fear of being misunderstood. It's a simple yes or no question, and it gets right to your argument of state's rights. You brought up gay marriage in this discussion, saying that the people of each state should decide whether or not it is allowed. I'm asking a very simple question to try and understand how this is different from allowing states to decide on interracial marriage. Like I said, the argument you're making so far is the same as the one that was made before states were forced to allow interracial marriage, so I'd like to understand if you allow for states to outlaw interracial marriage, or where you limit the majority will of the people.Completely agreed. So you're OK with states choosing to outlaw particular business deals between two men or two women because the majority of people in said state do not like such business deals?I'm not sure what divorce has to do with anything here. People can hardly fight for same-sex divorce before they're allowed same-sex marriage.

This section I find particularly interesting. So far, you've kind of stuck to a strict constructionist view of the federal government, arguing that the government does not have the right to impose same-sex marriage on states because that does not fall under its constitutional authority. Yet you want the federal government involved in education, which is also not in the constitution? Or am I misunderstanding and do you want each state to be 100% in charge of its own education, and the federal government with absolutely no involvement in education, either through money or other influence? Same with roads, can you clarify? Student loans? Those are definitely not in the constitution. I'm truly trying to understand here: why does the absence of mention in the constitution mean the federal government doesn't have the right to demand states perform and recognize same-sex marriage, but not restrict federal involvement with education, student loans, or construction and maintenance of roads?

And then there's that interesting clause, "if the people vote for it." I trust you will address this in your upcoming response regarding whether or not you are arguing for a direct democracy, because that's what it seems like again.

There are plenty of minority protections that have been passed as law but are not part of the constitution. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was also passed by elected representatives of the people, not by the people themselves. Does that mean it is invalid, since it is not part of the constitution and was also not directly voted on by the people?

I hope you can see how this all relates to the tea parties and your arguments here. Co-opting the imagery of the Boston Tea Party is a direct appeal to taxation without representation. Except there is plenty of representation in almost every facet of government. We elect alderman, mayors, county boards, county commissioners, state representatives, state senators, state attorney generals, state treasurers, governors, federal representatives, federal senators (which, by the way, originally weren't elected by the people), a president, and much more, all for the purpose of acting on our behalf. Now you're not happy with how those representatives are conducting business; I get that. And let's set aside for a moment that I don't fully understand what you do expect of the government. The fact is, we're not even 100 days into a new presidential administration and new Congress, all elected less than 6 months ago, and doing for the most part what they said they would, such as passing the largest ever middle-class tax cut for 95% of Americans, and you're acting like they're King George III. So I'm trying to understand your grievances and piece together how exactly you envision the government working. You defend the tea parties and say the government is overstepping its bounds, so I'm trying to piece together what you view those bounds to be. You say the government is not listening to the people, so I'm trying to see how exactly you believe the government should listen to the people. If you can't explain the difference between the majority of state citizens voting against same-sex marriage and the majority of state citizens voting against interracial marriage, when neither is protected by the US constitution, how can I expect you to explain how the recently elected representatives of the people are or are not listening to the will of the people, and how that will should be ascertained?

So, let me review for clarity. I'm not trying to trap you or anything of the sort. (That said, if it's a trap to say states have the right to outlaw interracial marriage, shouldn't that indicate it may not be a great idea to support that? And if you don't, what's so hard about explaining how it is different from same-sex marriage?) I'm trying to ask direct questions which have a specific point here. All I ask is that you give direct answers, and I'd be happy to do the same for you should you have questions of me. We may not come to any sort of agreement, but if you won't even give direct answers what's the point of airing your grievances? If you can't debate these opinions with a stranger on a message board, I can't see how you're going to convince any government representative.

1. Do you or do you not support a state's right to outlaw interracial marriage if the majority of that state's citizens want to? Yes or no. If not, please explain the difference between interracial and same-sex marriage, since neither is protected by the US constitution.

2. Presupposing that it's a state issue, is it equally OK for a judge to publicly display commandments which demand worship of a specific god and demand rule over one's thoughts (coveting) as it is for him or her to display commandments demanding wives be subservient to their husbands, or that homosexuality is an abomination, so long as the majority of people are OK with such displays? Yes or no. If not, why is one OK and not the other? If so, how can there be any faith that justice is blind in that judge's courtroom?

3. I realize you haven't gotten to this particular issue yet, but... Are you arguing for a direct democracy, with each law voted on by the people? Yes or no. If not, what kinds of laws should be directly voted on, and what kind of laws can be made by elected representatives? If so, how can minorities expect protection from the majority in each state, unless the majority of 3/4 of the other states step up in their defense for a federal constitutional amendment? Remember, even the Civil Rights Act is not a part of the constitution.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling