Recommended Posts

Achmed wrote: I am reasonably sure that Trump would not accept the VP if the reverse was in play.
erd quant

I had not considered that. But I can’t imagine any of the candidates offering Trump the VP slot. Unless . . . they wanted to get free press and also have Donald pay for ads. Nah, Trump would steal all the thunder, and make blunders and not stick to the script or the Candidate's agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Achmed wrote: I am reasonably sure that Trump would not accept the VP if the reverse was in play.

erd quant

I had not considered that. But I can’t imagine any of the candidates offering Trump the VP slot. Unless . . . they wanted to get free press and also have Donald pay for ads. Nah, Trump would steal all the thunder, and make blunders and not stick to the script or the Candidate's agenda.

oops removed

So Peter - how many states do you think that ticket would take and how many could be attributed to Carly if she is the VP?

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam wrote then erased, Yeah, however, Trump would be bored by then and he would not care...right Peter? Then Adam edited and wrote: oops removed. So Peter - how many states do you think that ticket would take and how many could be attributed to Carly if she is the VP? end quote

The polling evidence for FEBRUARY has Trump winning Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada (Trump by 13) If Hillary is the top vote getter in three of those four states Carlys demographically induced chances for VP improve. Yet, I just can't help thinking Trump would pick Sarah Palin over Carly Fiorina. It may be a temperament thing. Plus Sarah was a Governor and has a good following. But everything is fluid Carly!

Florida is on March 15 and is also illuminating. Per Real Clear: Trump 25, Carson 18, Bush 18, Rubio 8.5, Fiorina 6.0, Cruz 5.0, Kasich 3.0, walker 2.5, Paul 2.0, Christie 1.5, Jindal 1.0, Perry 0, Graham 0. If the homeboys cant win Florida and beat Trump unless their total is combined, that tells me Trump is popular almost everywhere. The last proportional voting state/territory is Puerto Rico on March 13th. After that it is winner takes all of a states votes. I think it is looking good for Trump even though we have another debate coming up and not one vote has been cast.

Peter

Notes:

Once more here is the list in march April, May, June, and July and some states with no fixed date so far, from Wikipedia.

March Tuesday, March 1: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado caucuses (pending legislation exists however); Georgia; Massachusetts; Minnesota caucuses; Oklahoma; Tennessee; Texas; Vermont; Virginia

Saturday, March 5: Louisiana; Kansas; Kentucky caucuses (subject to the payment of $250,000)

Tuesday, March 8: Hawaii caucuses; Mississippi; Michigan

Sunday, March 13: Puerto Rico (the last contest in 2016 required to be proportional)

Tuesday, March 15: Illinois; Missouri; Florida; North Carolina; Ohio (contests on or after March 15 can opt to be winner take all.)

Tuesday, March 22: Arizona; Utah caucuses

April Tuesday, April 5: Wisconsin

Tuesday, April 19: New York

Tuesday, April 26: Maryland; Connecticut; Delaware; Pennsylvania; Rhode Island

May Tuesday, May 3: Indiana

Tuesday, May 10: Nebraska; West Virginia

Tuesday, May 17: Idaho; Oregon

June Tuesday, June 7: California; Montana; New Jersey; New Mexico; South Dakota

Tuesday, June 14: District of Columbia

States with no firm dates The following states have not set dates, or have established only tentative dates. Maine Saturday, March 5 (presumably) Washington Saturday, March 19 - Saturday, April 16 (presumably) Wyoming - Tuesday, March 1 (presumably) Idaho - Tuesday, March 8 (presumably) North Dakota - Tuesday, March 1 (presumably)

July July 1821: 2016 Republican National Convention

Link to post
Share on other sites

Carly Fiorina gaining on Trump

"“More awareness of stronger candidates like Carly Fiorina,” said talk-show host and former presidential candidate Herman Cain. “She’s moved up and rightly so.”"

Mikee:

Who do you think she should pick for her VP if she gets the nomination?

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... it's a little early. Not Trump. Disappointed in Cruz re the Kim Davis issue. I think respecting someones religious beliefs stops when they are infringing other people's rights as an officer of the government, I would think someone steeped in the founding principles and the constitution would come to that conclusion. She protects her conscience and her oath of office by resigning. I can't respect who won't speak up on the side of individualism against misuse of government power on this issue. I guess Graham. Maybe Steve Forbes could be drafted...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... it's a little early. Not Trump. Disappointed in Cruz re the Kim Davis issue. I think respecting someones religious beliefs stops when they are infringing other people's rights as an officer of the government, I would think someone steeped in the founding principles and the constitution would come to that conclusion. She protects her conscience and her oath of office by resigning. I can't respect who won't speak up on the side of individualism against misuse of government power on this issue. I guess Graham. Maybe Steve Forbes could be drafted...

So you don't think that government should accommodate some differences in belief and opinion? Only those who agree one hundred percent with every law, and every change in law, should work for government, and keep their jobs when the laws change? You don't think that there should be the attitude in government, or even in the private sector, of "Okay, that's only 0.002 percent of your duties, and it's very simple for us to have someone else do the task"?

It seems to me that opposing such accommodations is the attitude opposing the "side of individualism."

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand how this is difficult. A representative of the government has to treat every person they interact with as a representative equally under the law. The law now clearly states any couple regardless of sexual orientation is entitled under the law to get a marriage license. Kim Davis not only would not comply personally but she ordered others in her office to deny marriage licenses as well, forcing them to comply with her personal religious beliefs, as if her office represented an official state religion. She could easily follow her conscience and resign her position or ask for some other relief but she imposed her beliefs by force on others. How are her rights being ignored? She swore to uphold the laws of the land duly passed and now, oops, changed my mind. What if someone working for the DMV refused to issue drivers licenses to white people because her religious belief taught her that whites were the spawn of the devil? Fine to believe nonsense in your own home, not fine to impose it on others. I believe she has now promised to not interfere and will remain free and will continue the other duties of her position. Problem solved.

I'm not surprised you are confused by the concept of individualism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law now clearly states any couple regardless of sexual orientation is entitled under the law to get a marriage license.

Mikee:

Can you trust me for a few questions and not hear them as an attempt to attack, or, disprove what should be a morally correct position on "same sex marriage" in the State of Kentucky versus say New York?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law now clearly states any couple regardless of sexual orientation is entitled under the law to get a marriage license.

Mikee:

Can you trust me for a few questions and not hear them as an attempt to attack, or, disprove what should be a morally correct position on "same sex marriage" in the State of Kentucky versus say New York?

Yes, I trust you Adam. This is a sticky subject however, as I don't believe the government should be involved in private contracts (including marriage) at all except for refereeing the disputes if they are broken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law now clearly states any couple regardless of sexual orientation is entitled under the law to get a marriage license.

Mikee:

Can you trust me for a few questions and not hear them as an attempt to attack, or, disprove what should be a morally correct position on "same sex marriage" in the State of Kentucky versus say New York?

Yes, I trust you Adam. This is a sticky subject however, as I don't believe the government should be involved in private contracts (including marriage) at all except for refereeing the disputes if they are broken.

We are in complete agreement.

However, we are dealing with the facts and jurisdictions of now.

There has been a decision by the highest court in the land that it is unconstitutional to deny persons of the same sex/sexual orientations the privilege of being "married."

There is no law that has been enacted federally, or, in the State of Kentucky that this Chief Clerk violated.

I did not read the contempt Order and I will endeavor to do so in the next few days.

Now, she can be held in Contempt, as anyone can be held in contempt.

There are two (2) types of contempt - the in the presence of the Court ... this is the one we all see in the movies/tv with the angry Judge warning the lawyer/witness that one more word will lead to contempt, i.e., My Cousin Vinny and Inherit The Wind.

The other is conditional. William was correct in that the "keys to your cell" are in your own hands. However, there are several exits from the contempt cell that do not use a key.

An inability to comply is a defense, Also, the obligation of the state, or, business to accommodate a person's religious objections in the least restrictive manner.

Very interesting area of legal theory by the way.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the constitution as originally written silent on the institution of marriage?

Yes.

There is even a "settled" area of law called the "domestic relations exception" to federal jurisdiction:

Title 28 of the United States Code grants original jurisdiction to the federal district courts in all civil actions which arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (federal) question jurisdiction) 1 or are between diverse citizens where the matter in controversy exceeds $ 10,000 (diversity jurisdiction). 2 There are, however, two well-estabished, judicially-created exceptions to the grant of diversity jurisdiction. 3 Federal courts view themselves as without subject matter jurisdiction to entertain diversity cases involving probate 4 or domestic relations matters. 5

This Comment deals exclusively with the domestic relations exception which, simply stated, mandates that federal courts lack jurisdiction to grant divorces, determine alimony or support obligations, or resolve conflicting claims of divorced parents to custody of their children. 6 Even though such a case may satisfy all the requirements of the diversity statute, 7 it must be dismissed --not as a discretionary matter of abstention 8 but because the court has no power to act. 9 .

The domestic relations exception arose in Supreme Court dictum in 1858. 10 Since that time the federal courts have observed a "hands-off" 11 policy in cases requiring an inquiry into a marital or parent-child relationship. 12 Although the exception first arose in the context of divorce and alimony, 13 federal courts have since applied it to suits involving almost every marital or parental conflict. 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the constitution as originally written silent on the institution of marriage?

Yes.

There is even a "settled" area of law called the "domestic relations exception" to federal jurisdiction:

Title 28 of the United States Code grants original jurisdiction to the federal district courts in all civil actions which arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (federal) question jurisdiction) 1 or are between diverse citizens where the matter in controversy exceeds $ 10,000 (diversity jurisdiction). 2 There are, however, two well-estabished, judicially-created exceptions to the grant of diversity jurisdiction. 3 Federal courts view themselves as without subject matter jurisdiction to entertain diversity cases involving probate 4 or domestic relations matters. 5

This Comment deals exclusively with the domestic relations exception which, simply stated, mandates that federal courts lack jurisdiction to grant divorces, determine alimony or support obligations, or resolve conflicting claims of divorced parents to custody of their children. 6 Even though such a case may satisfy all the requirements of the diversity statute, 7 it must be dismissed --not as a discretionary matter of abstention 8 but because the court has no power to act. 9 .

The domestic relations exception arose in Supreme Court dictum in 1858. 10 Since that time the federal courts have observed a "hands-off" 11 policy in cases requiring an inquiry into a marital or parent-child relationship. 12 Although the exception first arose in the context of divorce and alimony, 13 federal courts have since applied it to suits involving almost every marital or parental conflict. 14

Thanks Adam. Interesting. Does it ever seem the law is convoluted beyond belief? I don't want to get Greg started...but Tower of Babel comes to mind. I purchased a book on the Constitution for my Kindle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand how this is difficult. A representative of the government has to treat every person they interact with as a representative equally under the law. The law now clearly states any couple regardless of sexual orientation is entitled under the law to get a marriage license. Kim Davis not only would not comply personally but she ordered others in her office to deny marriage licenses as well, forcing them to comply with her personal religious beliefs, as if her office represented an official state religion. She could easily follow her conscience and resign her position or ask for some other relief but she imposed her beliefs by force on others. How are her rights being ignored? She swore to uphold the laws of the land duly passed and now, oops, changed my mind. What if someone working for the DMV refused to issue drivers licenses to white people because her religious belief taught her that whites were the spawn of the devil? Fine to believe nonsense in your own home, not fine to impose it on others. I believe she has now promised to not interfere and will remain free and will continue the other duties of her position. Problem solved.

I'm not surprised you are confused by the concept of individualism.

The law also states that people's religious convictions should be accommodated to a reasonable degree. But you're apparently too emotional and irrational in regard to this topic to recognize and accept that fact.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reasonable degree doesn't mean a government official denying a lawful right to a subset of humanity for religious reasons, their own personal Sharia. Davis had options, she chose not to take them, she refused accommodation and went straight to lawless. Apparently you're just trying to pick a fight. You're right, I am emotional: angry. But not irrational. Go for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reasonable degree doesn't mean a government official denying a lawful right to a subset of humanity for religious reasons, their own personal Sharia. Davis had options, she chose not to take them, she refused accommodation and went straight to lawless. Apparently you're just trying to pick a fight. You're right, I am emotional: angry. But not irrational. Go for it.

I heard her lawyer speak yesterday, and his position was that she requested quite simple accommodations and was refused, so I don't know where you're getting your opinion that she refused accommodation. None was offered to her.

And your emotional mindset has led you to mischaracterize my position. You're being too hot-headed and irrational to see that I'm calmly considering the facts and the laws, even though I disagree with Davis's religious beliefs. You're in hate and punish mode. You were salivating at the idea of Davis being jailed, fired and stripped of her pension. Massively disproportionate and purely emotional recreation. And you're self-contradictory in the fact that you're preaching the idea that the law must be obeyed and implemented, yet you wish to then ignore the laws on religious accommodation because you don't like them.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

She ordered the clerks in her office not to issue licenses. She violated other peoples rights as a representative of the government. What part of the founding principles of the country do you fail to understand? Freedom of religion doesn't mean a representative of the government imposes their religious belief on others. She was performing actions in violations of others rights, she had the option to step down, no one was forcing her personally to violate other people's rights. She represents the coercive power of government, the people coming to her office were the innocent recipients of her lawlessness, their rights matter more than hers in this matter. She is the initiator of force and the rights violator in this case. Her rights have not been violated. You ignore principle, I'm not surprised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She ordered the clerks in her office not to issue licenses. She violated other peoples rights as a representative of the government. What part of the founding principles of the country do you fail to understand? Freedom of religion doesn't mean a representative of the government imposes their religious belief on others. She was performing actions in violations of others rights, she had the option to step down, no one was forcing her personally to violate other people's rights. She represents the coercive power of government, the people coming to her office were the innocent recipients of her lawlessness, their rights matter more than hers in this matter. She is the initiator of force and the rights violator in this case. Her rights have not been violated. You ignore principle, I'm not surprised.

You are aware that at least some of your points are debatable?

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have probably slipped into Hate and Punish mode, myself. My emotions are engaged, so let it be known that this could be Lizard Brain speaking, and not the relatively sober William you have come to know.

Corollary situations can be found, where an elected official seeks an exemption from carrying out this or that stipulated duty. In regulated industries, one can find some too. Comparing and contrasting such corollaries can expose tricky areas where accommodation is a difficult thing to negotiate.

For example, in province A, official issuing and filing of licenses/contracts/properties/business is done by private registrar. At office D of province A, licensing same-sex marriage is a tottle -- the internet allows full access to all the forms of the registry, online filing, online fees. The 'head clerk' does indeed have to officialize and in some rare occasions 'witness' a transaction or testament. In a strictly legalistic sense, she must 'sign' somewhere that the license is authoritative and the couple can then traipse to their ceremony wherein a final celebrant-signing wraps up the social ritual. In reality, the moment the fee is paid, a union is approved by the registrar.

Sometime in province A, a religious-minded person figures out that the requirement to 'sign' puts him or her in an odd situation. By affirming or testifying (in bureaucratic terms; it is electric) a same-sex marriage, she is committing a grave sin. She cannot in good conscience 'approve' such a thing. She seeks accommodation. In province A the matter is between her and her employer. It's in her contract. She raises section X, the boss raises Section F. Their philosophical discussion is delicious. They emerge with several legalistic precedents binding their positions (the Registry D is a franchise of a chain, with a 'constitution' signed by its 'citizens'/franchisees).

Under section F, the negotiation of accommodation must not interfere with any service provided. The aim is free flow of business. Under section X, the accommodation must be reasonable and not unduly burden the employee. Under a little-known proviso, a Registrar may be the Owner of the franchise and so her own boss, and the Head Office cannot overrule the conscience provisions of F without due process or legal order. Everyone merrily consults "The Law."

As she is sole proprietor, sole employee (as the bulk of her business is electronic) and the sole person to deal with the public in person (aside from automated teller type 'employees'), she figures she cannot issue marriage devices/certificates of any kind. She will not accept any fees, she will not e-register any such sinful things. She would go to hell, she believes, if she affixed her 'signature' to any such accursed unholy things.

The Franchise reminds her that the constitution provides that her the business is entirely secular. Her religious self-exemption from accepting reasonable orders of accommodation by law invalidates the basic terms of contract. Her option can indeed be accepted by Head Office, but she loses her brand, her provincial database access, her use of trademark, etc, the actual power shared out to her by The Firm according to The Law.

She begins to decide ...

Any fun situation can be conjured up to illustrate the moral/philosophical/legal pickles. I find them each to offer an angle on the schmozzle in Rowan County. The morality play/legal drama is only just in intermission. The second act will open when several imagined situations come together in a Venn moment.

-- Kim Davis returns to work

-- a marriage-license-seeking couple approaches the clerk office counter

-- the deputy Brian Mason begins the paperwork for a marriage

This, to my mind, swept along with the angry villagers and spitting for Kim on a pyre, is where the accommodation argument and the civil rights argument and the constitutional/legalistic argument go Venn.

Kim may decide that one of the first things she will do on Monday is instruct Brian Mason on how to do his job. Brian Mason might then fist up the court order with his name on it that he finds trumps her instructions. Lawyers may be consulted. God will be consulted. A dingle/buzz as the door opens to two grim-faced people ...

-- here is just one of the second act scripts I can see being performed:

Kim Davis instructs her deputies that no marriage licenses can be provided any applicant until a legal situation exists wherein her name is no longer on a marriage device.

The five deputies (one on conference call) speak each in turn. The first tells Kim that her signature line is not on the devices. The second reminds Kim of the court order that he vowed to follow. The third, and fourth each affirm to Kim that they will issue said devices if applicants so request. Kim's son says nothing but that he will do what Kim and God and God's lawyers tell him to do. He asks to please not be placed on counter rotation this week ...

Brian is one of two on duty when the grim-faced couple arrives. He glares at Kim's son and Kim's and God's lawyers. He begins the procedure. Kim hovers. Kim's son glares. Brian prepares to accept the fee. Kim fumes. The grim-faced couple prepares to hand over the fee which will 'ratify' the legality of the device and enable the couple to go frolic in the meadows of their open-air fuck partner's shit party. to which Greg is not invited.

Kim is giving this a lot of thought. So is Brian Mason, the other clerks, and the assembled yokels, worthies, lawyers, pundits, world media, Huckabee and Cahn, and so also the ineffable angels and demons that attend such a Venn event.

America, we love you! You shine a beacon on the struggles of the angry villagers, of humankind. You provide moral entertainment to the world.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a thought.

Why should the government be issuing marriage licenses at all?

Government intrusion and abuse starts there.

To me, there is little difference between dog poo and cat poo because it all smells like poo to me. I'm not crazy about choosing between religious poo and gay poo and then claiming one is superior to the other just because people want to fight a different war (traditional Christianity versus gay).

Poo is poo, no matter which asshole it comes from.

:)

(I do admit there is a difference between dog poo and cow poo because a cow makes a lot more of it. But pardon me as I overextend the metaphor. :) )

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

She ordered the clerks in her office not to issue licenses. She violated other peoples rights as a representative of the government. What part of the founding principles of the country do you fail to understand? Freedom of religion doesn't mean a representative of the government imposes their religious belief on others. She was performing actions in violations of others rights, she had the option to step down, no one was forcing her personally to violate other people's rights. She represents the coercive power of government, the people coming to her office were the innocent recipients of her lawlessness, their rights matter more than hers in this matter. She is the initiator of force and the rights violator in this case. Her rights have not been violated. You ignore principle, I'm not surprised.

So your position is that it is proper for government to be involved in issuing marriage licenses? Humans have a right to have their unions officially recognized, approved and endorsed by government? And those rights extend to all individuals, sexual preferences and viewpoints, regardless of history and tradition? So, in other words, gays, despite not having the power to be granted government licenses in the past, nevertheless had the right, and all government institutions of the past were therefore in violation of those rights? Currently, three or more people cannot receive a government license to group-marry, and therefore their rights are being violated?

Isn't that the type of position that you're taking?

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now