I still don't see how human rights issues come under the federal government's legislative power. Someone fill me in here please.
Due process.
US Town Hall Debate |OT| When is the election? What are the names of the candidates?
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Due process.
eBay Huckster
Member
there's a reason for that.
I suppose the Fed could put forward the argument that since tax is a large part of what constitutes a marriage gay marriage could be said to be incidental legislative power. I'm not sure if that's a doctrine in US constitutional law (It is in Australian Cons law but not to the same extent). Seems like a bit of a stretch though.
Ok let's assume that the 14th amendment applies to gay marriage. The legal consequences of this would be that the STATES wouldn't be able to prohibit gay marriage. This doesn't cede legislative power to the federal government.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Did you read that article?
not psycho
Member
Which part did Obama lie about?
Your cite seems to agree that Obama called it an act of terror.
metalslimer
Member
He should as this whole thing has been mess, but I can't help but feel happy the republicans are failing miserably with this as they are the last people I would want fixing that kind of problem
IrishNinja
Member
I still don't see how human rights issues come under the federal government's legislative power. Someone fill me in here please.
Judical, not so much Legislative
Declaration of Independence. "entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
US Constitution Bill of Rights... also protects...
"prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
so US Supreme Court ultimately rules on such matters when Legistaive bodies make laws
Please do not post sources that are heavily bias in order to promote an argument. It does you no favours from the offset.
But yea, the politicisation of this tragedy has gone too far. It's embarrassing, insincere and just wrong imo.
Angry Fork
Member
Is the media really shitting on the candy lady for pointing out Romney was lying? How is that a bad thing? You can't just let them keep on saying "no you're lying", "that's just not true" back and forth. The moderator should be there with the facts to say who's right/wrong otherwise nobody would know, it's not like the candidates have power point presentations with them.
Apparently she went on CNN after to try to damage control? There's no reason for that it's a shame she feels she has to. Even after she called out the lie she seemed to feel like she overstepped her bounds and tried to even things out by saying Romney was right about something. That CNN 'fair' bs in full swing.
Apparently she went on CNN after to try to damage control? There's no reason for that it's a shame she feels she has to. Even after she called out the lie she seemed to feel like she overstepped her bounds and tried to even things out by saying Romney was right about something. That CNN 'fair' bs in full swing.
JeTmAn81
Member
I don't...how can there be so many of these already?
Shy Fingers
Banned
I highly agree of that importance. Was actually happy that immigration and gun control were talked about.
Still would be awesome to see them debate things such as gay marriage and abortion even though we all know their stances on the subjects.
"Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
So 14th Amendment, arguably with a smattering of Necessary and Proper.
No he didn't. Mitt was attempting at making a fair point but the president didn't lie about what he said and when he said it.
eBay Huckster
Member
i don't disagree - particularly on the subject of gay marriage.
i also wish there'd been a question regarding climate change :|
metalslimer
Member
It's annoying how one thing has predominating the last couple of election cycles. Terrorism and the Economy for the last 3. Of course immigration is going to be huge when red states start flipping blue.
TO be fair Obama did this too. The more annoying things was Mitt basically telling her he didn't care what she asked he was going to talk about something else.
TO be fair Obama did this too. The more annoying things was Mitt basically telling her he didn't care what she asked he was going to talk about something else.
I only read the transcript, but that's what he was doing in the first debate too. Nice to see he's being called out for it this time.
Vincent Alexander
Member
Heya. Trying to have a civil discussion with my friend about Romney...I told him about something I saw on here a week or so ago and he wants to see if anyone can help. A website where you can choose your position on an issue and it'll show you/link you an article where Romney supports position no matter what you choose? Anyone have link? Want to see how legit it is.
Thanks. Will look it up.
Vincent Alexander
Member
^Thank you both!
Yeah me too. Climate and drugs should have been brought up. The social side is more important to me because is affects how well people work at those new jobs that everyone is so focused on.
metalslimer
Member
Officerrob
Banned
It was worse this time. In the first one Lehrer gave-up very quickly and Romney kept talking. This time Crowley kept talking trying to get Romney to stop talking and he just spoke over her
not psycho
Member
What actually happened is Romney got caught parroting ridiculous Fox News talking points without checking them himself.
There seems to have been some confusion about what happened, with having it happen on both 9/11 and at the same time as the video, so if Romney wanted to go on the offensive about the investigation taking too long, or poor communication in the administration, he could have done it truthfully.
But because he got fooled by Fox News he just said "lol Obama refuses to call it an act of terror why does he love terror" when in reality Obama called it exactly that, an act of terror.
There seems to have been some confusion about what happened, with having it happen on both 9/11 and at the same time as the video, so if Romney wanted to go on the offensive about the investigation taking too long, or poor communication in the administration, he could have done it truthfully.
But because he got fooled by Fox News he just said "lol Obama refuses to call it an act of terror why does he love terror" when in reality Obama called it exactly that, an act of terror.
Thank you. The debate format is much more entertaining than the first one.
Yeah did not work this time cause Obama was on the attack and he does not have a punching bag as a moderator.
WonkyPanda
Member
Pigeon is right for the most part. Although, I don't see why it has to even get that far if gay marriage prohibition is deemed to infringe the EPC. If it infringes the EPC, an actual legislation would simply be icing on the cake considering that gays would be able to get married anywhere within the union. Unless, i am viewing this argument wrong.
SpaceBridge
Member
This is my fave one so far.
Sounds like it. The transcript I read had a lot of those sections just listed as <CROSS TALK>, guess I'll have to catch the full debate later on CNN... x.x;
Bingo.
Mitt's become so wrapped up in trying to win that he's started believing his own bullshit and the bullshit invented by right wing blogs/news/etc.
Everybody lies, but generally you lie about generalities. Never specifics, unless you can back that shit up. Unfortunately, for Mitt, he's got a whole closet full of stuff to throw at him.
No. He didn't say that. It's a particularly uncharitable interpretation of what he said. These are his words:
Mitt Romney said:
He was saying he made the workplace hours more flexible because that's what it takes to make a workplace friendly to women ...which is a widely-held belief among those who are working towards bettering the lives of women. You see the same thing appear on almost every single policy recommendation for increasing the number of qualified women working in important positions.
It's worth reading Anne-Marie Slaughter's piece "Why women still can't have it all", to understand where calls for this stuff are coming from. In it, she explains why she quit working for the State Department and went back to academia. It's a long read, but a good one. The tl;dr version is that in a lot of high-paced jobs, people must choose between work and their families. But that choice is not one that must be forced. In most circumstances, greater flexibility in the workplace will allow men and women to spend time with their family and make them happier, productive people. Inflexibility without purpose directly leads to people (particularly women) leaving the organization, or abandoning their career path even if they do retain their jobs.
Attacking him over that remark? I find it hard to see.
phosphor112
Banned
datsracist.gif
obama's HQ after debate.
NullPointer
Member
I agree with you, it
's simply a more complicated issue. But it's easy to see how it can be said to demonstrate traditional gender roles. The quoted poster was not inaccurate, he just didnt provide the whole story.
Overall I don't think he did a good job answering the question, but it wasnt a particularly strong point for either candidate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=athcyCTnTTs
Candy admits Romney was right on the libya moment.
I'm confused.
Candy admits Romney was right on the libya moment.
I'm confused
.Officerrob
Banned
Romney loves affirmative action
the question was not about opportunities for jobs or complexity of women in the workplace.
It was "why do women get paid 18% less than men on average for same jobs and what will you do about it"
Obama signed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 which specifically addresses that issue (even after she lost her specific case in USSC)
Romney then went on about getting home in time to make dinner.
Azure Dream
Member
It was such an odd, poorly-delivered story, that didn't really answer the question, and even then there was a person involved that called it a twisted version of the actual events.
That's exactly what she said during the debate. Nothing has changed.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=athcyCTnTTs
Candy admits Romney was right on the libya moment.
I'm confused
NullPointer
Member
Romney is all about putting the power back into the hands of labor, so employers will be forced to accept flex-time and other benefits because they'll be so darn happy to have somebody to hire.
Or did I understand Romney's argument wrong?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=athcyCTnTTs
Candy admits Romney was right on the libya moment.
I'm confused
Doubling down on listening comprehension problems.
- Status