Originally Posted by C4Casey Zero difference? Really? Well, that's one of the more ignorant comments I've read on this post. The price of oil fell 7 bucks when the President simply removed an obstacle to more drilling. If you have more of something, then it's price will go down. If ...
| |||||||
 |
| Register to Post a Reply |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
07-19-2008, 11:52 AM
| #41 | ||||
| Friend to all.  Socialist Maryland 
| Originally Posted by C4Casey 
When the goal is to get off oil in the first place, yes, by the time this oil has the opportunity to reach us and affect pricing it will be not needed...therefore useless. It's funny you called my statement ignorant yet you came back with "Bush made an announcement and the price dropped". Pathetic at best. I for one do not want more drilling. It defeats the purpose of getting off oil in the first place...which should be our major focus at this time. It's like going to AA to get off booze and then buying a bar. Either we're serious about moving towards alternative fuels or we're not. Spend the money we would waste drilling offshore on research towards that goal of becoming less oil dependent.
__________________ www.otraw.com | ||||
     |
|
07-19-2008, 12:56 PM
| #42 | ||||
| Arse Anarchist Halifax, Nova Scotia
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 Good job dismissing my evidence without even attempting to explain it. (Perhaps, ole' Jefferson was drunk, or maybe the founders didn't properly understand the Constitution like we do today)
You're understanding of the Supremacy Claus is exactly like you're understanding of the rest of the U.S. Constitution - poor. State nullification does not deny the principle that the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land. On the contrary, it defends that principle, as it disputes whether the law in question is itself pursuant to the Constitution in the first place. (Moreover, it's obviously safer to assume that Jefferson and his colleagues understood the Constitution more than you) By you're argument, the federal government is allowed a monopoly on constitutional interpretation - that is, if the state have no real power to contest and resist the federal government's interpretation - then in effect it gets to determine the extent of its own powers. To give the federal government this power is a recipe for federal domination. Thomas Jefferson: When all government, domestic, and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. He and Madison even took the principle of states' rights even further in 1798 the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky approved resolutions that affirmed the states' right to resist federal encroachment on their powers. Using the term "nullification," - the states, they said, could nullify federal laws that they believed to be unconstitutional. The states delegated to the federal government the powers listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and retained to themselves anything they did not delegate (MARRIAGE). The Tenth Amendment, which Thomas Jefferson described as cornerstone of the Constitution, makes the point clear: all powers that the states have not delegated to the federal government, and are not prohibited to them by the Constitution, remain reserved to them and to the people. An then the key: if the federal government should encroach upon the powers reserved to the states, the states have a right to nullify the offending law. Originally Posted by WickedLou9 Previously you said marriage wasn't a right - which is it?
You're argument still makes no sense. There is no singular definition of marriage - if the state is going to provide benefits to 'married" individuals it clearly needs to define what "married" is. Which is painfully obvious that it is a power delegated to said states. Any legal definition of marriage will result in some group being denied benefits that come with legal marriage. That's what happens when you put a box on something! However, that does not mean that members of the group cannot get married, just that the must do so legally. Furthermore, if the state must provide benefits to all it's "married" people (assuming that it has chosen to do so), then the federal government itself must define "married," which of course could be even more oppressive then it's current form. Let's say the federal government does overstep their authority and says all states must give the same benefits to all married individuals. And then goes on to define married as "a union between a man and a woman." By, you're system, that's it, done. Meaning all married gay couples, even in Massachusetts and California, no longer receive any benefits. You just hope they use your definition. Note: Please, don't assume that I am a supporter of the American Federalist system or Constitution. Marriage should not be provided by any form of government. | ||||
| |
|
07-19-2008, 01:02 PM
| #43 | ||||
| Administrator  libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by Donkey® You think we're going to be off oil in 5 to 7 years? or even 20 years for that matter?
| ||||
| |
|
07-19-2008, 02:54 PM
| #44 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal  Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot I don't know why you keep quoting the foudners as if thier words have more weight than more recent supreme court decisions. they don't. They actually have no legal standing whatever. Their words may be taken into consideration when constitional issues arise, but they are not the law. I am citing law, you are citing history. You may think that the foudners writings and thoughts SHOULD have more weight, or you might tend to agree with them, but the way that thigns actually work today, after 200 years of case law prescedant , don't always coincide with how things worked 200 years ago. Today the federal government does have much more power than it did in 1776. the FEDERAL supreme court has final say on all matters concerning constitutionality. It's decisions are supreme and trump any and all state laws to the contrary. This is a fact. The federal government can not write it's own ticket as as you seem to think it could under the current system ( reality, not my interpritation). Why? Because the constitution limits it's power and requires a significant amount of concensus both from the congress and from the states before the constitution can be changed. I am sure you knew this already and I am confused why you chose to forget it.
You need to stop reading from history books and start reading more modern literature on law. Your views on states rights are antiquated. They are simply not true today the way they were 200 years ago. I have not dismissed your "evidance". Your evidence is quotations of men who spoke/wrote hundreds of years ago, prior to thousands of court cases which all have established case law precedant. You should probably read something on law rather than reading history. Also, I never said marriage wasn't a right did I? All along I have been talking about states that grant special privelges to married persons. Tax benefits, legal rights, rights of survivorship, etc. Marriage in and of itself is simply two people that live together and call themselves married. In the personal and religous sense no one can allow or deny that aspect of marriage. However the state does look at married individuals differently in a legal sense, so it's important that they even handedly apply thier defintion of marriage. For instance, married people can not be compelled to testify against one another in court. These are the sorts of legal issues I am talking about. The fact is that neither the federal government nor state governments could define marriage as being between a man and a woman, nor more than they could define it as being only between two white people. Doing so would be unconstitutional. I make these assertions on the basis that someons sexual orientation is inborn and someone can no more choose to be gay or straight than can a person choose to be black or white. This is a critical aspect to my arguement and if you want to argue that sexual orientation is a choice, that would change everything. However since I do not agree that it is a choice, I must assume that sexual orientation is no different than race or gender in that it is inborn. there are decades of case law precedant that prevent states from acting in a way to limit marriage so that it only applies to those couples that it deems socially acceptable. There were laws on the books which banned interracial marriages. Those were struck down as unconstitutional, and given the supremacy clase, the ruling applies to all states. Since you can apply the same principles to gay couples as interracial couples, there is no reason why you would not apply the same case law precedant here. | ||||
| |
|
07-19-2008, 03:20 PM
| #45 | ||||
| Friend to all. Socialist Maryland
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95
Not if we keep using "drill for more" as a fix. The bottom line is that the drilling will do nothing for us. It would cost us WAY more to drill, refine, etc our own oil than it would to just keep purchasing it from others. | ||||
| |
|
07-19-2008, 07:16 PM
| #46 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by Donkey® It would not cost as "way more". We have vast oil reserves in shale deposits that the democrats conveniently put a moratorium on last year. Those reserves are profitable at 70 dollar/bbl and higher. With the increased costs in the industry over the last 12 mos that may be 80 dollars now, but thats substantially cheaper than the 130 it currently trades at. The OCS has the potential to provide huge reserves at an estimated cost of 50 to 75 dollars per bbl. Again substantially cheaper, not to mention it is OUR oil we will not be sending money overseas and it provides good high paying US jobs. Even if the cost was the same I'd much rather have the money go back into the US economy than Saudi, Iran or UAE.
You want higher prices as a means to transition us to some other fuel even though there is no reasonable alternative at this point. Nothing even comes close which means 15, 20 or 25 years of extremely high prices if we dont begin to fix our supply issues. I do not want 1 dollar gas again, I think that would be bad long term for the nation, I believe we do need to conserve and use our resources in a more efficient manner but thinking we're somehow not going to be using oil in 5, 10, 20 or even 30 years is ridiculous. There is no silver bullet to this problem, it will take a variety of sources to meet our future energy demands. | ||||
| |
|
07-20-2008, 12:33 AM
| #47 | ||||
| Arse Anarchist Halifax, Nova Scotia
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 What laws are you citing? You foolishly tried to juxtapose the Brown v. Board education decision to marriage. The founding fathers view of the Constitution is obviously the correct view, as they understood it far better than modern people can.
This brings me back to a previous question I asked you, Why do you even mention the Constitution? it seems you only care how modern judges think, not how they clearly should. Originally Posted by WickedLou9 Today the Federal government violates the Constitution! If you don't value the Constitution fine, just don't use it in your arguments, ever. Coincidentally, this discussion started because you said it was a constitutional issue.
Originally Posted by WickedLou9 Wrong. I even gave you examples why. What have you given? Just links to Wikipedia that aren't scholarly nor in depth.
Originally Posted by WickedLou9 Wrong, not a fact. And saying "this is a fact," does not make it so.
And again, you contradict yourself: first you say "It's decisions are supreme and trump any and all state laws to the contrary" then you say "Because the constitution limits it's power and requires a significant amount of consensus both from the congress and from the states before the constitution can be changed." Which is it, the fed trumps all or they need input from the state? Originally Posted by WickedLou9 History books provide the most accurate interpretation of the Constitution.
How dare I try to bring accuracy to a discussion! I'm a monster. If you are going to use the same Constitution that men in America did 200 years ago then you are going to have to interpret it the same way men in America did 200 years ago (Unless you change it, which you can). Otherwise, you're doing nothing more than paying lip service to a piece of toilet paper. On top of that, your assessment that the "old" interpretation came "prior to thousands of court cases which all have established case law precedent" is factually incorrect. Factually (you know, with history books) far, far more court cases used my "antiquated" understanding (Many times, by looking at founding father writings!) than your way. In fact, only more recently has the Supreme Court even started loosely interpreting the Constitution. Originally Posted by WickedLou9 You did say marriage wasn't a right, I quote you, 'It's no different than providing an education. We don't have a right to education either."
Originally Posted by WickedLou9 Again, you've put your definition of marriage as the definition of marriage - stop doing that. That is not the definition of marriage, there is no concrete definition of marriage, you hard-headed conservative.
Originally Posted by WickedLou9 What on earth does "even handedly" mean?
The only way to receive these rights and privileges is to prove that you're marriage falls within the state definition of marriage. The state cannot even begin to sort out who is married and who isn't until the state defines what marriage is. The very act of defining something, automatically exclude something else. Originally Posted by WickedLou9 Wrong. Just read the Constitution (oh wait your opinion wouldn't change even if you did) And again, you use the term "fact" as if you know what it means. The fact is most states already have defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Originally Posted by WickedLou9 Wrong. We've even been over this, black men and women are still men and women. The average state definition of marriage says that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, not between a man and woman of the same race. That is why not allowing blacks and whites to be married is unconstitutional, it violates the (state) constitution's definition of marriage!
| ||||
| |
|
07-20-2008, 09:56 AM
| #48 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| You are talking about the way you want thigns to be, not the way they are now. I don't know how to argue with you. I am arguing what is true now, you are arguing the way you think it should be. These are two different things. | ||||
| |
|
07-20-2008, 03:03 PM
| #49 | ||||
| Arse Anarchist Halifax, Nova Scotia
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 How many times can you be wrong?
This entire discussion has been me explaining the Constitution to you. And you incorrectly applying various clauses and unrelated Supreme Court decisions in an attempt to explain why the marriage issue is unconstitutional. I've graciously taken the time to educate you on the Constitution, and you've said it doesn't matter, history is irrelevant apparently. You are the one talking about the way you want things to be. I haven't even gotten into the way I want things to be, just how the U.S. Constitution says they should be. You are the one casually throwing in your definition of marriage and calling it a fact. Fact: there is no one definition of marriage, you silly conservative! Marriage is different for different people, you fail to grasp that by applying your definition you will still discriminate (or you don't care). It simple, just admit that your original assertion was wrong and that the marriage issue is NOT a constitutional issue, and you can get out of this discussion honorably. Last edited by Angus_Aboot; 07-20-2008 at 03:41 PM.. | ||||
| |
|
07-20-2008, 03:33 PM
| #50 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Guys make sure we keep it civil... | ||||
| |
|
07-21-2008, 10:02 AM
| #51 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot I don't see how I am wrong. I told you that the federal government is much more powerful today than it was 200 years ago. You agreed and said that it was unconstitutional, something which is not fact, but merely a matter of opinion.
So you agree with the following but still say it's not constitutional issue: 1) Federal law is supreme law of the land. It actually says this in the constitution. Established supreme court precedant says that if a state law contradicts a federal law, the state law is preempted by the federal law. 2) Established supreme court precedant says Marriage is a fundamental right. 3) the 14th ammendment has what is known as the equal protection clause, which was applied to the educational system within the states, said that seperate but equal is inherantly unequal. This has application elsewhere, not just to schools. That is how common law works. You apply the principle decided upon in the ruling to other subsequent cases. They don't have to be on the same subject. 4) The federal government has already struck down state laws banning interracial marriages, even though the state defined marriage as being between two people of the same race. By your own logic, this should have been OK since anyone can get married so long as it's to someone of thier own race. None the less, the current legal reality is that bans on interracial marriages violate federal law and as such can not stand. Given all of these facts, not my opinions, but legal cases which have been decided... how can you say that states banning marriages between two people of a certain protected class is not a constitutional issue? | ||||
| |
|
07-21-2008, 01:23 PM
| #52 | ||||
| Arse Anarchist Halifax, Nova Scotia
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 If they have more power today than they used to, then something is wrong. They power of the federal government is supposed to be limited as to not encroach on the states power.
Originally Posted by WickedLou9 Wrong. The federal government cannot supercede state power when it doesn't have the Constitutional authority. I even gave you factual examples.
Originally Posted by WickedLou9 Absolute rubbish. Marriage has multiple definitions, if the court said that then all marriages would be legally accepted. Show me the the case and the exact ruling.
Originally Posted by WickedLou9 The 14th Amendment was improperly ratified. Furthermore, it was specifically applied to education - to say "well, we can extend it to marriage too" is just plain foolish.
Originally Posted by WickedLou9 "By your own logic, this should have been OK since anyone can get married so long as it's to someone of thier own race."
Absolute bullshit. Can you not read, or do you purposely misinterpret me? Originally Posted by WickedLou9 "Protected Class?" What is a protected class?
Regardless, you are wrong again, sexual orientation is only a protected class in a few jurisdiction in the United States, not the whole. Please use facts to back up your "facts." Furthermore, the entire notion of "protected classes" is itself unconstitutional. State's may ban the marriage between people because they have the authorization to do so. The people cannot get married because their marriage would not fit the state's definition of marriage, however they can still get married. | ||||
| |
|
07-21-2008, 01:30 PM
| #53 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| If they have more power today than they used to, then something is wrong. They power of the federal government is supposed to be limited as to not encroach on the states power. That's the beautiful thing about the constition. It can change if it needs to. It was never meant to be a static document which was why the founders added a provision to allow for it to be amended. Again, I am talking about the way things are, not the way you want them to be. Wrong. The federal government cannot supercede state power when it doesn't have the Constitutional authority. I even gave you factual examples. This is not really at issue. It does have authority. We have already established that the federal governmnet can preempt state laws on marriage. We saw this when laws concerning interracial marriage at the state level were struck down by the federal government. Absolute rubbish. Marriage has multiple definitions, if the court said that then all marriages would be legally accepted. Show me the the case and the exact ruling. Gladly: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm
The 14th Amendment was improperly ratified. Furthermore, it was specifically applied to education - to say "well, we can extend it to marriage too" is just plain foolish. Improperly ratitifed? Well again you are speaking about your opinion, which is fine, but it does not represent the current legal reality within which we all must operate. The 14th is currently accepted law in the US. Whether you think it should be there, for legal purposes, is a moot point. It's not foolish, it's how our legal system works. You take precedant from prior cases and apply the principles resolved upon in that prior case to the case you have at hand. It's the basis of every legal case. Your first step as legal counsel is to find prior precedant setting cases and apply them to the case at hand. You apply the principle from those cases to your case. A rather famous example that is used in into level law classes is that of the "no bears on the subway" law. IN a codified law country, such a law would only mean exactly what it said. NO bears. Tigers, dogs, pumas and wombats would all be OK. In a Common law country such as our own, a law banning bears on the subway could be extrapolated to also ban dogs and other dangerous animals. Why? Because of the principle being applied. The law does not have to specifically ban all other dangerous animals, the simple fact that a law bannign bears exists can be applied to subsequent cases. This is how a common law system works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law "By your own logic, this should have been OK since anyone can get married so long as it's to someone of thier own race." Absolute bullshit. Can you not read, or do you purposely misinterpret me? They were your words exactly. Replace the word interracial with "same sex" and your arguement does not change. You can not argue that bans on same sex marriages are any different than bans on interracial marriages. Simply because some state changes the definition of marriage to exclude gay marriage does not legitimize it. We have already established that Marriage is a fundamental right. "Protected Class?" What is a protected class? Regardless, you are wrong again, sexual orientation is only a protected class in a few jurisdiction in the United States, not the whole. Please use facts to back up your "facts." Furthermore, the entire notion of "protected classes" is itself unconstitutional. State's may ban the marriage between people because they have the authorization to do so. The people cannot get married because their marriage would not fit the state's definition of marriage, however they can still get married. It's clear you are better versed in history than you are in law. Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
