Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (402497)	5/3/2003 10:25:53 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 769670

Not at all, i'm just pointing out the conflict between his and your take on the rule of law with Henry Hyde's, Lincoln's and all good impeachment supporting republicans everywhere. Well then you have failed because you were claiming goldworld was saying what he clearly did not say and the record here bears that out for any clear thinking reader. You are arguing against what does not exist. There is not a shred of contrariness between goldworldnet (or the impeachment Republicans) and Lincoln. We simply have here someone who acknowledges that though a certain law is not being enforced, its existence yet serves a valid purpose. He may well yet accept Lincoln’s encouragement to follow every law and demand that everyone else follow them. The two positions are simply not mutually exclusive, and I marvel that this is not readily apparent to you. Goldy may easily believe, and likely does believe, that ‘though folks are disobeying a law, which as Lincoln tells us they should never do, and though I constantly struggle (in futility) to uphold this law as Lincoln encouraged me to do, the mere fact that the law exists does quite a lot of good and so we ought to keep the law.’ It's a crime against liberty to not zealously uphold the law, and therefore a crime to have laws on the books which you don't intend to zealously uphold. At least that's what republicans used to say. Depending upon the circumstance, one may well uphold the law simply by acknowledging that it is valid and good. One need not robotically ignore human frailty to enforce the law such that it ends consistently in one certain form of punishment. When Republicans maintained that the rule of law must be upheld, they were not arguing that Clinton should have been forced out of office, they were showing that whatever the result of the rule of law Clinton had to at least face the bench in the form of impeachment. Democrats on the other hand were quite frankly lying, claiming that since our highest law enforcement officer's clear and repeated lies to our Federal Grand Juries did not amount to High Crimes and Misdemeanors, the rule of law did not apply in his case. Some Democrats claimed that the rule of law did apply, but that it did not compel the formation of a court of impeachment (though the rule clearly states otherwise). You are really mixing this matter up here, and I marvel at it. The logic is we condone all that we do not outlaw regardless of how zealously we enforce the law. Therefore we must outlaw all that we don't condone. Mustn't we outlaw the seven deadly sins then? We wouldn't have to imprison people for greed and gluttony, but we send a signal that those things are okay without laws against them. Don't we? Well, we do not pass laws granting rights to gluttons specifically on the basis of their gluttony, and so your point is utter nonsense. You fail to realize that the issue here (and this is what Santorum was getting at) is that should we federalize homosexuality, then all bets are off. You simply must by reason allow those oriented toward having sex with animals, or polygamy, or virtually any other sexual deviancy, to have the same societal rights and freedoms as homosexuals, this, on the basis of their sexual deviance. Actually Santorum is being disingenuous because he's using the Texas law to make his point. But Texas allows bestiality, so how he could possibly argue that without Texas' law against homosexuality that Texas would be condoning bestiality? My word. He did not make his point in reliance upon Texas law. He simply referred to the Texas situation to show the danger of having the Supreme Court take away state sovereignty on this issue, thereby forcing decent people everywhere to accept an identity that is naturally foreign to them.