Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: February 2004

when I have to explain the difference between a BArch and a BA twice – ’cause you asked “so is it a BS?” after I explained the significance of the professional degree as opposed to lib arts degrees the first time… I don’t think you’re the person I want trying to place me with firms. And as a matter of fact, you’re not even trying to place me with actual architecture firms… you’re just looking for cad jockeys. I’m not getting the best feeling about this… but hey, I’ll interview. don’t know if you’re gonna get me to leave the airline just yet. I’d be getting just as much of the internship time I need to be licensed at the airline as I would working for anyone but a licensed architect. “just as much” being none. so yeah… and ehh…

Advertisements

And if all you cryptofacists out there can’t figure out why all these naughty, naughty judges are what you call “legislating from the bench,” let me please direct your attention to Exhibit C, the third most important document in American history, the Supreme Court’s decision in the truly, truly landmark 1803 case Marbury v. Madison.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19&page=transcript

now, if you’re gonna stop this cancer against the will of the American people, you’re gonna have to repeal Marbury. The catch is that the Supreme Court would have to repeal it, as they are the final arbiters of any matters of constitution, as laid out in the decision in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison case.

See where I’m going with this?

1. Chief Justice James Marshall (author of the decision) is one of the most brilliant and influential characters in American jurisprudence.

2. You’re going to have to get an institution to will itself out of power – a power that Marshall makes perfect sense that it should have.

3. Isn’t this 201 year old law as traditional and American as Mom, apple pie, and the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman? To even doubt the right of the bench to make law goes against a great 200+ year old history of American law – and wouldn’t doubting that kind of history and tradition be, by your own definition – Un-American?

“Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.” -proposed constitutional amendment banning marriage.

simple equation here, folks.
1. where does it say ANYTHING about marriage anywhere else in the constitution. I’ve looked for it. it’s not there now, and it doesn’t belong there.
2. Why a man and a woman? what’s so special about that? if you’re referring to so-called “judeo christian” values as the foundation of western democracy, get your fucking church outta my state. please.
3. I think we should ban taxi-drivers from entering contracts with each other.
don’t forget that a marriage is just a contract, and it’s an infringement upon civil rights to make someone a second class citizen by not allowing them to enter into a contract with someone that they wish to.
4. what does the wording of that passage even mean? reread it. it makes no sense.
5. Upon looking at all the states that have laws that prohibit honoring only the same sex marriage laws of other states, which was a kneejerk bill that a bunch of state legislatures passed after they realized that Hawaii and Vermont were going to stop denying the constitutional right to enter into a contract with whom you please, it makes me wonder who ever heard of the full faith and credit clause. Which, if you’re keeping score, is in the constitution – unlike the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman – and says that all states will honor all laws passed in other states.

So now they wanna go fucking with that. If only people’d loosen up a little. Just because we don’t want to be prohibited from marrying another man doesn’t mean that you HAVE to marry a man. so what’s the problem? isn’t it my constitutional right to associate and enter into a contract with whom I please? That’s what this breaks down to, and that’s the only lens you need to see how absurd all this flak about “traditional marriage” is.

now let’s talk about jobs and corporate profits…

“From the campaign’s Arlington headquarters, McKinnon, a former Democrat, is directing an expanded 12-person media team that includes Stuart Stevens and Russ Schriefer of New York, veterans of the last Bush campaign… Vada Hill, who is credited with making the talking-dog commercials for Taco Bell; and Madison Avenue adman Harold Kaplan, who has written Kentucky Fried Chicken spots.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4317052/