Lurker > red sox 777

American demographics are completely and utterly irrelevant and would be even if it weren't incredibly dumb to say that the majority should be able to force their religion on everyone else.

Actually, in a Republic, they are highly relevant. The side with more votes gets to make the laws. And no one is forcing their religion on anyone here, so don't try to argue that.

Just curious: have you read any John Austin or other legal positivists? Because this shift from metaphysical disputes to questions of practical harm/benefit sounds a lot like it.

Nope. Maybe this summer?

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Do you have a problem with special taxes on cigarettes? Because that is the majority imposing their will on the minority, to actively punish smokers for smoking.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

And now we loop back to the very beginning and I ask why Christianity deserves to be given special treatment? They get to take entire concepts that exist in tons of other contexts and have for huge amounts of history and make them their own, to the point of taking the word itself and preventing others from using it? Suck dick, non Christians, it's not enough for Christianity to be allowed to use its own definition of marriage, we need to be forced to obey their definitions too.

Because it's a large majority of the USA. Any majority would get to do the same thing.

Though I must say I don't like the argument. I like the Scalia-style dictionary argument much better. Oh, what's that, you have all these theories and values and arguments about human rights? Too bad, my dictionary published in England in 1770 says differently, you lose. If you don't like it, go try to get a Constitutional amendment passed.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

"Objectivity" in these discussions tends to boil down either to utilitarian calculus or application of the libertarian preservation-of-rights, the value of both being entirely subjective. I understand what you're saying, but the entire legal sphere is a dense web of competing and contrasting subjective principles; you can only become "objective" once one particular set of value judgments has been agreed upon.

Indeed, that's why we try as best we can to ignore the conflicting subjective values and focus on lawmaking that advances values everyone or almost everyone agrees on. And the default is to leave the rest to individual freedom, to let people do as they please according to their own subjective values. Of course you're right that in practice, subjective values are pretty central to laws.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Galileo was too prominent and popular to turn into a martyr I think. Keep in mind he lived during the first century of the Protestant Reformation, so the Catholic Church had very real competition and could not afford to turn people away by killing popular figures. Not to mention that everyone knew how corrupt the Medieval/Renaissance Popes were.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Could you explain this a bit? Because I can't think of a law that isn't based on some moral judgment.

That's probably true, but still, it's best to avoid morality (read: subjective value judgments) in law as much as possible. We promote free trade because we can prove that it helps everyone economically. We established the Federal Reserve to provide for a more elastic currency and banking system. To the extent that we can, it's best to stick to objective things, meaning things where people agree on the goals, even if they disagree on how best to achieve those goals.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Hey, there's actually a judicial opinion in which the judge writes, "As a matter of law, the house is haunted."

Issues of fact in law are for juries to decide, and in politics they are for voters to decide. If 51% of voters decide that they are in terrible fear of imminent rains of fire from the skies if they legalize gay marriage, they have a strong interest in the preservation of their own lives to ban gay marriage. It's similar to if Vladimir Putin threatened to rain down nukes on us if we legalized gay marriage.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I think fire and brimstone is a better reason than moral decadence for making something a law. Morality is probably the flimsiest reason there is for making a law. Fire and brimstone is a very real and tangible danger that threatens to kill us all. Remember, you must consider things from the perspective of if they were true, as the person honestly believes. Moral decadence by itself won't kill anybody no matter how true it is.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Well that's too bad for them isn't it? Do you really think that it's better to force Christianity on everyone even if they don't believe in it than it is to allow people on both sides of the issue to use their own definition for their own purposes?

Haven't heard anyone advocate that the government recognize only Christian marriages. And yes, we do stuff like this all the time. Why do drug laws exist? Because some people think they are immoral. Why do you get to deduct mortgage interest from your taxes? Because many people consider owning houses to be a good thing they want to encourage.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Anyway, I don't believe that government should define marriage traditionally because of religious or moral reasons. I think there's a strong case that the majority can define it traditionally, however, just based on what the dictionary says. It's the Scalia approach to things. What does marriage mean? Well what does the dictionary say it means? (Or even better, what does a dictionary published around the time our marriage law was established say?) It says it is a union of a man and a woman, so that is what marriage is. Gay marriage is impossible in the same way that a woman cannot be a man, no matter how much she may protest that separate is not equal and she should have the equal right under law to being a man.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I get your comparison but 'murder' is a bit of an extreme example. The difference here is that murder is something that has a potential to affect the life of a Christian - they could be the one being murdered, after all. Gay marriage is different. It's a lifestyle choice that someone else is making, one that doesn't have any direct bearing on the Christian since they don't necessarily have to associate with it. It could be morally reprehensible to them, but so are a bunch of other things in society that they have to deal with (such as the existence of other belief systems).

Nobody ever has the right not to be offended, and everyone has the absolute right to offend others. However, it is not strictly true that gay marriage will definitely have no impact on Christians. Christians, may, for example, fear that God will punish America because of its association with gay marriage- for example, look at Sodom and Gomorrah, where 2 cities were destroyed with fire and brimstone from the skies.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Apple is too popular, and has crossed the line into "evil." Or just annoying, perhaps.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Previous results: TI defeats McDonald's 6-4.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Up

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Thanks MWC! I'm glad you softened your line on Boston- and hope you'll visit it sometime.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

No, I'm basing this off of South Carolina's position back in the 1830s. Their position was that they were superior to the Constitution.

There was a tenable argument that secession was constitutional, but nullification as envisioned by SC back then IMO was clearly unconstitutional because it is inherently an attack on the Constitution, that reduces it to mere words on a paper with no force. By contrast, secession requires a state to abandon the whole Constitution if it will abandon any one thing.

Perhaps Dred Scott and Plessy were bad decisions morally, but I'm not sure they were so horrible purely legally given the state of the law at those times. Certainly there were much better logical arguments supporting those decisions than a hypothetical decision that South Carolina-style nullification was constitutional (no such decisions happened of course).

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Wyoming is making the much less bold statement of: the Constitution does not give Congress this power and we retain it as a state. Versus, the Constitution gives Congress this power and we override it by our power as a sovereign state.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

If you don't see the fundamental difference, it's this: nullification (South Carolina 1830s style) is based on the principle that states are sovereign and superior to the US Constitution because they were the ones who voluntarily ratified it. Thus, they can secede from the Union at any time (not terribly bold a statement), and moreover, can cancel their agreement to any part of the Constitution or the federal government it creates at any time (this is the really bold statement, because it is essentially a line item veto on the Constitution).

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Ah, well that's definitely not attempted nullification then. Nullification would be: Wyoming says that the federal government cannot enforce laws on firearms moving through interstate commerce in Wyoming.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

This would merely be the most extreme example of nullification. And it HAS happened historically, and even currently. Recently, Wyoming passed one of those "firearms freedom" laws and announced their intention to arrest any federal agent who attempted to enforce federal firearms regulations within Wyoming. Feds haven't tried their luck yet. Would be interesting to see who blinked if they did.

Until it reaches that extreme, it is not unconstitutional.

I hadn't heard of the Wyoming case, but if the details are as you say, it would probably come down to whether the federal firearms regulations at question are themselves constitutional or not, as decided by a court. If it is deemed to be so, my guess is Wyoming is out of luck should the feds ever try to go in.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Well, I saw a Peter Schiff video in which he claimed to be paying some absurdly high tax rate. Hint to Mr. Schiff: no one in the top 1% who doesn't want to pay that high a rate actually pays it. Except you, apparently. There are all kinds of loopholes, deductions, and just smarter ways to structure your income based on the tax code that are open to people with enough wealth to choose how their income is generated.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Exactly, what matters is the enforcement, which is the job of the executive. Courts have an easy way to deal with legislative nullification: declare the law unconstitutional or preempted and be done with it. Courts do not have such an easy way of dealing with an executive.

Also, a state has no affirmative duty to help enforce federal laws. It can even do things to oppose the federal law's purpose. Nullification is when the federal law is declared null and void, which is not the case in any of those.

Example: South Carolina can announce that they are firing all their tax collectors and will not contribute to collecting the 47% tariff on imports. South Carolina cannot declare that there is no tariff in South Carolina and no one can collect it.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

The Legislature AND Judiciary of Wisconsin both proclaimed they would not enforce the fugitive slave law within Wisconsin. Not sure if the governor ever commented on it.

And neither of those is nullification. Courts obviously can rule on constitutionality. Sometimes they are reversed by higher courts. Legislatures also can pass unconstitutional laws- it is the job of the courts to strike those laws down.

The heart of nullification is the executive defying the law, as interpreted by courts.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Day 2 Results: McDonald's defeats Apple 12-5.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Quickly looked that up, and the history is:

1842- US Supreme Court says free states do not have to voluntarily return slaves.
1850- Congress responds by passing a new statute, the Fugitive Slave Act, overruling the Court's 1842 ruling. Congress could do this because the Court wasn't saying that the Constitution mandated what it said, merely that there was no requirement either way under existing law.
1854- Wisconsin Supreme Court rules Fugitive Slave Act to be unconstitutional.
1859- US Supreme Court overrules Wisconsin Supreme Court, says that FSA is constitutional.

There's no nullification in this course of events, which would be the executive branch opening ignoring the law.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I think you mean jury nullification! With Northern juries nullifying laws like the Fugitive Slave Act.

The North didn't actually do any government/political nullification, though they did talk about it a lot. And the South didn't try nullification either after South Carolina tried and failed in the 1830s.

Personally, I think nullification was clearly unconstitutional, while secession was a gray area back then. The Supreme Court never ruled on secession until after the Civil War, but I could see them going either way on the issue before the Civil War- with quite reasonable arguments. There are no good arguments for state nullification of federal laws that get past the language of the Constitution itself and basic fairness, either now or then.

And the US Constitution explicitly protected slavery before the 13th Amendment, so it's no surprise the Supreme Court kept ruling in favor of it.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

MCD - 6
AAPL - 5

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Also, rest assured the money will trickle down. All the way from the Fed to the big banks to the bottom of the top 1%. It may only be a trickle by the time we get that far, but rest assured that you will get your money if you are in the bottom half of the top 1%.

And if you're not in the top 1%, you must be a communist.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Romney/Bernanke 2012

Inflation We Can Believe In

It's a simple question. If you want more money, vote for Romney. If you want less money, vote for Ron Paul.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Up

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Day 1 results: Apple defeats Bank of America 8-5.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Also will accept nominations for the next companies to be featured, but companies will be chosen by me, not auto-entered by number of noms.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Any more?

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Apple - 7
Bank of America - 4

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Sorry man, but I doubt it. At least on this board, you don't come across as having that........charisma?......that politicians need.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Smartmuffin would do awful as president. As would I, and most people.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Hmm....voting for Bank of America. If you think the banks are bad now, just wait until you have to suffer through the i-Bank!

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I don't think there's a single b8er that has a good enough sense of how to "do" politics and has enough charisma to get anything done, and wouldn't support absurd policies.

Probably true. Though I could see SephG doing pretty well.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Vote for your favorite company. The winner advances to face the next corporation. Because corporations are people too.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Best case: We get someone slightly better than Obama (because being president is harder than it looks).

Worst case: This could be pretty bad. There are real socialists on Board 8.

Obama.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Let's see how this one goes.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Also, cheers for Las Vegas Sands for doing something to reverse the trade deficit with China a little bit. LVS brings something like 8 billion dollars from Chinese gamblers to its US shareholders each year.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I'd have to vote for Goldman Sachs as most evil company in America.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Well, the law school is a rather insular community (only 1000 students). Darn you Fedsoc for not emailing me about this.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

What, why didn't I hear about this event? I would have gone!

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

I was going to criticize that, but go through some college catalogs and try to find courses teaching the military side of history. It almost no longer exists, and this the heart of history, that has the greatest actual impact on events.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

FDR tried to use legal means, namely increasing the size of the court. Quite distinct.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

2 wildcards run for the hills. Unless we cut down to 2 divisions anyway.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

If he sent in troops to collect by force, even the Democrats would be voting him out. He's not going to be able to use any legal mechanisms to enforce a law the Supreme Court deems unconstitutional.

It just wouldn't work for Obama to do that kind of thing, even if he wanted to, which I'm pretty sure he doesn't, as much as some people suspect his intentions.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

And now that I think about it, a 2% error in the (universal, not Earth) gravitational constant would probably not be okay even for Cosmology..... Try extending that 2% error over a few billion years, and we'll get well beyond an order of magnitude (1000% error) pretty quickly.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.