um, pretty sure there's no practical difference in those instances. defense of human rights requires no further justification.faceking said:Defeating on principle or defeating to state power... a la abortion...
Senator Paul Sarbanes said:Dear Mr. XXX:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the proposed
constitutional amendment defining marriage. I appreciate having the
benefit of your views on this issue.
As you may know, S. J. Res. 1 was introduced in the United
States Senate on January 24, 2005. A cloture vote regarding the
Motion to Proceed to the consideration of this amendment occurred in
the Senate on June 7, 2006. Because I had serious concerns about this
proposed constitutional amendment, I voted against the motion to
prematurely conclude debate. The motion required 60 votes to cut off
debate and failed by receiving only 49. I will be sure to keep your
views in mind in the event that this or related legislation comes before
the full Senate for consideration.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views on
this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me about other matters of
importance to you in the future.
In the future please visit my web site at http://sarbanes.senate.gov rather than
clicking reply.
With best regards,
Paul Sarbanes
United States Senator
Ha ha, I wrote to my guys days before you did... and have heard from none of them. Senator Warner, Senator Allen, and Representative Wolf, none of them thought it important enough to respond. I guess they are all just worn out from that frenzied debate (and worn out from answering each and every letter I send them... yeah, right. Warner is the only one who has ever sent me even a non-answer response, but not even this time.)Lex said:I actually got a response from one of my Senators. Better this than no response at all, I suppose:
No, you are quite right. Their first obligation (as well as the President's) is to uphold and defend the Constitution.DC_DEEP said:Am I the only one who see a bit of conflict between his two phrases that I emphasized with bold text? It's time for some major change in the House and the Senate.
Oh, man, JA... what fun you and I could have talking politics non-stop for a couple of days! I'll be sure to look that one up.JustAsking said:No, you are quite right. Their first obligation (as well as the President's) is to uphold and defend the Constitution.
But now I am scared. I just read a disturbing book called American Theocracy. Read this if you want to be completely insecure about the future.
DC DEEP said:Interesting to note that Senator Allen makes it clear to note that he bases his legislative decisions solely upon his personal beliefs. While some of may be quick to say "how else can he make decisions?" let me remind you... his personal beliefs aside, he is SWORN to UPHOLD the US CONSTITUTION, whether he personally agrees with it in its entirety or not.
Dr Rock said:um, pretty sure there's no practical difference in those instances. defense of human rights requires no further justification.
The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.faceking said:But "human rights". Let's please draw the line on that definition somewhere...
Lex said:But they allow people to marry their cousins. Go Figure.
No need to halt the spread of birth defects (many of which are known to happen when relatives marry) when we can spend our time treating different people differently.
What would the Mormons do?Lex said:But they allow people to marry their cousins. Go Figure.
No need to halt the spread of birth defects (many of which are known to happen when relatives marry) when we can spend our time treating different people differently.