Saturday, October 25, 2008

How to spot a terrorist

Q: Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist, under this definition, governor?

PALIN: (Sigh). There’s no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance was one who sought to destroy our U.S. Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that uh, it would be unacceptable. I don’t know if you’re going to use the word terrorist there.


Do the following "Ayers worked with Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley in shaping the city's school reform program,[30] and was one of three co-authors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant proposal that in 1995 won $49.2 million over five years for public school reform.[31] In 1997 Chicago awarded him its Citizen of the Year award for his work on the project.[32] Since 1999 he has served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty, philanthropic foundation established as the Woods Charitable Fund in 1941.[33] According to Ayers, his radical past occasionally affects him, as when, by his account, he was asked not to attend a progressive educators' conference in the fall of 2006 on the basis that the organizers did not want to risk an association with his past.[34]" as an adult, repent for your past, get branded a terrorist.

Blow up buildings, some with actual full grown women in them: "I don't now if you're going to use the word terrorist there.'

14 comments:

Jennifer B. said...

Thanks for your comment on my blog--I welcome opposing viewpoints. Before I publish it, however, I noticed a couple of errors and thought you might appreciate the chance to re-post it.

I'm sure this was just a random typo., but you wrote "domestic" channels instead of "democratic" channels. And you should know that it was one of the Ca. Supreme Court judges himself (J. Corrigan) who made that claim. Also, the court was not making a judgment on failed legislation, but the case arose from the city of San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples when it was considered illegal. Finally, neither the Supreme Court, nor the legislature has the authority to amend the constitution--only the people have that right.
I hope this clears things up. Please let me know if you want to re-post your comment, or if you would like me to publish the original. I will happily do whichever you decide.

Thanks for weighing-in!

Jennifer B. said...

Thought you might want to read these before you re-post. The first is from the Washington Post regarding the veto in 2005 and the second is from the L.A. Times regarding the 2007 veto.

"In a statement, Schwarzenegger's press secretary, Margita Thompson, said the governor opposes the legislation, passed Tuesday night by the California Assembly and last week by the state Senate, because he thinks the matter should be decided by California's courts or its voters." (W.Post)

“The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action – which would be unconstitutional – but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state,” the statement said. “We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote.” (L.A. Times)

Jennifer B. said...

Sorry. I would e-mail you, but I found this the only way to contact you. I hope you'll delete these.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but I simply didn't want you to be embarrassed. Your comment had a typo. that changed the meaning of your opening sentences. The rest of you comment implied that you had an incorrect understanding of the law, the constitution, and the responsibility of the judiciary and the legislature.

Next. I'm sorry for being confusing in my reply. The constitution does not guarantee same-gender marriage, as when the constitution was written, same-gender marriage did not even exist.

However, this does not mean that changes (or amendments) can not alter or clarify rights granted by the constitution. The supreme court may only interpret the constitution, the legislature is to write laws that are in keeping with the constitution, but only the people can actually change it.

Regardless of personal belief, the Gov. could not let a law pass which had not yet been declared constitutional by the courts or the people.

Finally, the court's decision was highly controversial. Please remember that I am not the only one making this claim. The other three highly-educated, legally-experienced judges did not just merely disagree with the decision. They said that the court was abusing its power and going beyond their constitutionally set limits. In other words, they didn't just interpret the constitution, they changed the law without proper constitutional precedent.

So, back to what I said in my original post: Unlike ANY other civil rights issue, the court didn't just extend the rights of marriage to same-gender couples. They had to change the definition of that right to make it possible. That is not just my personal claim. That is the claim of three highly-respected judges.

I have not deleted your comments, I am just waiting to know if you want me to post the original or to have a chance to re-post it. I'm sorry to be so frank, but I want you to understand why I am contacting you--Your comment implied that you did not have a correct understanding of law and the constitution--I am not at all offended by them, and I will respond to them but I didn't want you to be embarrassed.

Your argument will be much more persuasive if you correct the errors. However, I will publish it if you don't want to change it.

I just wanted to be helpful--I'm not at all offended, and I'm sorry if I offended you.

Jennifer B. said...

To answer one more thing--you asked, "what exactly is the point of the legislative branch--merely because a proposition is on the ballot does that remove all governmental influence?

It was not vetoed because a proposition was on the ballot, it was vetoed because a 61% majority vote had already PASSED prop 22 (not prop.8) and made it law. In that vote, the people clearly made their wishes known--they wanted to preserve the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. As the Gov. said, the law should not be in direct opposition to the voice of the people.

However, prop 22 was only a law and was not written into the state constitution, so it was vulnerable to the courts overturning it IF it was unconstitutional. No California court had ever found it to be unconstitutional--NONE, until the recent supreme court decision.

Prop. 8 will not be a new law, but an amendment to the constitution so that the will of the people can be made clear and cannot be overturned by any abuse in judicial power.

Please feel free to ask me any more questions. I hope I was able to make this clear.

Randy Simes said...

I was truly disturbed when I was watching this and taking in Gov. Palin's response. It's almost as if she was dancing around calling abortion clinic bombers domestic terrorists as well. If you want to throw the term around in daily dialogue then you better sure as heck be consistent in your application of it.

djinn said...

Jennifer B; you miss my point. The Governor had the ability to veto or not veto the legislative actions? Right? We agree here? This is the point. The legislators passed a law. The governor had the ability at that point to veto it, or pass it. Do you disagree? he MADE THE DECISION to veto it.

He made a comment, that he would veto the law -- but he could have. The reason is is just his personal opinion.

In California, the legislature can, in fact, override a voter proposition. A proposition is just a statute, like any other statute, say, like those from the legislature, subject to judicial review. I seem to think you're something different? That they are some other sort of beast with some sort of superpower that makes them immune from being otherwise touched? No. And Huh?

Also the courts, what function do you envision for them? Do they have a function?


The court did not seek to amend the constitution, they read the existing constitution and said that gay marriage is required under equal protection laws. You see, gay sex used to be illegal. However, since Lawrence v. Texas it isn't, which changes matters.
Now that same sex couples are engaging in a legal activity, in light of all the precedents in front of them, the supreme court declared that gay marriage was already in the constitution.


I guess I really have no idea what you're talking about. There is a quote from Gov. Schwatzenegger saying that the given legislative law was unconstitutional, but it's not his job to say so; the courts get to decide. It's just the Governator's opinion.

You mention abuse of judicial power, you do know that most of those judges were appointed by Republicans? Case law changes. Lawrence v. Texas changed everything. What you should try to do is make gay sex illegal again, and then you'd have an actual legal case.

Forgive the typos. Or not, point them out clearly to your readers if you like. Do whatever you want with my comment.

Chandelle said...

Sigh. It irritates me so much when people use "gender" and "sex" interchangeably. They are not the same. There is no such thing as "same-gender marriage." Sex is intrinsic, a function of genitals. Gender is cultural, a function of socialization. Take a sociology class, for chrissake.

djinn, thanks for posting this. I think that Ayers issue is by far the dumbest and most disgusting non-issue the McCain/Palin campaign has promoted.

djinn said...

Chandelle, I think jennifer b. may be embarrassed by the word sex? "Same gender marriage" is a rather odd phrase.

Randy Simes said...

Funny thing is that I took a stand with my boss and made that same point about our survey results. I had listed the results according to "sex" and the powers at be wanted it changed to "gender." In the end I lost and "gender" ended up in the report. I was none too happy.

Jennifer B. said...

I see your point. Yes, the Gov. could have passed the legislation. (Although it almost certainly would have been overturned in the courts.)

No, I don't think I am "different." Surely the legislature or the courts may overturn any statute, but ONLY if it is constitutional to do so. In my opinion, the court's decision was unconstitutional. (I won't bore you again with my explanation of "suspect cases" and "strict scrutiny" although when it is explained well--I think it truly fascinating.)

And even if the court's decision was not an abuse of power, since I am one of the "people," I do, in a sense, have a greater say than either the legislature or the courts. I, along with a majority vote, have to power to amend the constitution to reflect what I believe to be lawful and moral.

Also, the case you cited is not a reason to re-define marriage, although it may set a precedent for domestic partnerships and civil unions to be legal in other states.

I have absolutely no interest in legally regulating anyone's sexual activity. Let them be committed and recognized by law--but that does not give them the right to change what marriage has been, is, and should be.

Thanks for helping me to understand you point.

Jennifer B. said...

chandelle -- thanks for clearing that up for me. Although "same-gender marriage" is used in several publications I have been studying--none of those articles mentioned that distinction.

It was kind of you to point it out.

djinn said...

OK, Jennifer, I am giving up being overly nice, this is not your blog,I doubt any of your cheering section will be over here to read it, but, whaterver, I cannot believe that this comment by you is anything but a lie, and a damn lie at that.

"I have absolutely no interest in legally regulating anyone's sexual activity. " Isn't what your entire blog is about? I'll ask you the same question that went completely unanswered by m&m, certainly because to answer it was to give away the whole game--

Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to provide that: (1) marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman; and (2) no other domestic union may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equal legal effect.” This was Amendment 3 passed in Utah in 2004; how do you feel about it? Will you answer or like brave m&m run bravely away?

djinn said...

Jennifer b., I think your analysis of the legal issues is incorrect,

Loving v. Virginia established marriage as a"basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." --triggering strict scrutiny.

Lawrence v. Texas established gay sex as not illegal. Put the two together, two people in a legal relationship get to marry, using strict scrutiny, as marriage is a basic civil right. Analysis done.

djinn said...

Scalia called it, in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas--though somewhat longwinded and absolutely disapproving here it is.

The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada (in a decision that the Canadian Government has chosen not to appeal). See Halpern v. Toronto, 2003 WL 34950 (Ontario Ct. App.); Cohen, Dozens in Canada Follow Gay Couple's Lead, Washington Post, June 12, 2003, p. A25. At the end of its opinion–after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence–the Court says that the present case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." Ante, at 17. Do not believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court's opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to "personal decisions relating tomarriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education," and then declares that "[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do." Ante, at 13 (emphasis added). Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution," ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.