At 10:56 PM 2/24/2004 -0500 David Hobby wrote: >"John D. Giorgis" wrote: >> >> For whatever it is worth, I would just like to point out that one of the >> oldest tools of tyrants on the books is to rely upon technicalities to >> frustrate and thwart their democratic opposition. > >Tyrants are often not that subtle. I would hazard that using >technicalities is one of the oldest tools of politicians, instead. > >> It is precisely because of this kind of reliance upon red-tape and >> technicalities to frustrate minorities, opposition viewpoints, and any >> other "undesirables" that a "due process" clause was added to our Bill of >> Rights. > >Are you talking about this part of the 14th Amendment? > >"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, > without due process of law;" > >Exactly WHO is being deprived of anything by San Francisco performing >gay marriages? I don't see how this applies.
That is a pretty novel interpretation of "due process." So, would you have no problem with Republican justices frustrating and delaying the lawsuit against Cheney's Energy Task Force on the basis of technecalities? >> Thus, the City of San Francisco is still handing out faux marriage >> certificates in direct contravention of the Laws of the State of California >> - as was passed by *popular*referendum* all because a judge found a >> misplaced semicolon in a hastily prepared legal document to be grounds for >> a multiday delay in judicial proceedings. > >I suspect that when technicalities help your side, you do in fact >cheer. Like when I said that I would not have signed the Bush v. Gore opinion had I been on the US Supreme Court? >The marriage certificates shouldn't be legally valid, but issuing >them seems a fair way to dramatize the issue. It's getting you >steamed up, so it's having an effect. : ) > >> I state again, this kind of action is cycnical, craven, crass, and is >> unbecoming of a constitutional republic. > >Where were you when Texas was gerrymandered? This stuff does happen >all the time, AND this one is harmless. Actually, I have stated before that I strongly support handing redistricting to non-partisan commissions. Indeed, in the current case before the USSC regarding pro-Republican redistricting in GA and PA, I've often wondered if the USSC might be able to find legitimate equal protection grounds to hand that redistricting over to a non-partisan commission. (My current conclusion is probably not, but I have not yet seen the formal arguments.) >> If anyone is wondering why "conservatives" are now rallying behind an >> amendment to the federal constitution, it is because the courts can clearly >> not be relied upon to uphold the rule of law. > >Oh. I thought it was to change the law, just in case it was decided >that the next clause: > >"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection > of the laws." > >meant that gays had a right to marry too. And indeed, every homosexual in the US has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. But seriously, what gives here? Why is it that *I* have to constantly prove my "bona fide" intellectual credentials around here? Look back through the List Archives, how many times are the Left-Wingers on this List badgered into demonstrating that they have occasionally disagreed with Leftists and supported Republicans? When has anyone else been pestered into providing a 15-point list of disagreements they have had with those who normally share their beliefs? To me it seems like yet another double-standard. But I'm just "running with the pack" on this one..... JDG _______________________________________________________ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l