![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumThe most recent flap about the religious beliefs of John Kerry (and how this supposedly makes it impossible for Catholics to vote for him, and remain catholics) has been irking me.
Why is it, I rhetorically ask, that Kerry's beliefs on abortion and gay marriage make it impossible for Catholics to vote for him, but Bush's views on the death penalty and agressive war don't disqualify him?
For a more complete lowdown (and funny as all hell if one is an educated Catholic, or religious historian George Bush, Heretic at NewDonkey.
To avoid making another political post, I was having turbid dreams this morning... end of the world stuff, with Jobian interactions with God (I took him to task for His wanting to wipe us out and start over... He made us, He has to live with us... it made more sense in the dream) and I awoke, in that state of reverie, realising that the Right knows is is going against the tenets of the Nation and the meaning of the Constitution; at least the ones at the top (reading Is that Legal, and Orcinus will tend to make one less sanguine about the future of the republic, but I digress).
When someone writes a law, they know that difficulties will lead to the courts reviewing it. It's one of the checks in the system. So when someone starts writing a law which tries to exclude itself from those checks, one has to wonder why.
The Right will say it's to prevent, "activist judges" from misinterpreting the law. But that's tough. The Constitution gives them the power to do that, and the truth of the matter is that it hasn't been happening, at least not to the detriment of the causes they espouse.
With the judges appointed to the federal bench, under both Clinton and Bush, it's also going to happen less and less. Which means they can only think the laws they are proposing are so severely out of step with the Constitution that even their pet judges will balk at them.
That's a scary thought.
The laws they are proposing Pecunium are even scarier. As I've said before, Nehemiah Scudder is waiting in the wings.
Why is it, I rhetorically ask, that Kerry's beliefs on abortion and gay marriage make it impossible for Catholics to vote for him, but Bush's views on the death penalty and agressive war don't disqualify him?
For a more complete lowdown (and funny as all hell if one is an educated Catholic, or religious historian George Bush, Heretic at NewDonkey.
To avoid making another political post, I was having turbid dreams this morning... end of the world stuff, with Jobian interactions with God (I took him to task for His wanting to wipe us out and start over... He made us, He has to live with us... it made more sense in the dream) and I awoke, in that state of reverie, realising that the Right knows is is going against the tenets of the Nation and the meaning of the Constitution; at least the ones at the top (reading Is that Legal, and Orcinus will tend to make one less sanguine about the future of the republic, but I digress).
When someone writes a law, they know that difficulties will lead to the courts reviewing it. It's one of the checks in the system. So when someone starts writing a law which tries to exclude itself from those checks, one has to wonder why.
The Right will say it's to prevent, "activist judges" from misinterpreting the law. But that's tough. The Constitution gives them the power to do that, and the truth of the matter is that it hasn't been happening, at least not to the detriment of the causes they espouse.
With the judges appointed to the federal bench, under both Clinton and Bush, it's also going to happen less and less. Which means they can only think the laws they are proposing are so severely out of step with the Constitution that even their pet judges will balk at them.
That's a scary thought.
The laws they are proposing Pecunium are even scarier. As I've said before, Nehemiah Scudder is waiting in the wings.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Part 2
Date: 2004-10-23 04:01 pm (UTC)On a different level, even if Congress had called him on the revocation of authority, he gets 30 days, under the war powers act to do what he wants, before he has to justify it to Congress. That he broke the law isn't relevant to the lawfulness of the order (in part because there are so many laws, in regards to what constitutes a legal order; and what recourse a soldier, or unit, has to defy one that isn't. Orders give a limited privilege to the soldier).
That Congress hasn't repudiated the attacks, means they gave tacit consent, after the fact, and so the illegality is being winked at.
TK