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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (224744)	3/17/2005 7:02:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571926

some would say that the decision to put Bush is office in 2000 was one of the worst More of a grey area than it is one of the worst of the courts decisions. And yes I do think there are grey areas in the constitution. I never said it was all black and white, merely that some of it is, and that when it is unclear this uncertainty should not be considered license to just invent something. But law is a very fluid process, subject to changes based on social opinion, anything but black and white. Legal interpretations and legal culture are fluid. That doesn't mean the law itself is very fluid. The writers of the constitution obviously couldn't foresee every application of the document. Thsy probably never thought about abortion. But current judges are bound to make decisions in these new areas, and they use the spirit of a wonderful document, the US constitution. The word and the spirit of the constitution leaves this one up to the states to do whatever they want in terms of allowing or forbiding abortion. I could reasonably see the court striking down federal anti-abortion laws. The Supremes have upheld salvery in the past, as an example. Probably correctly. Until the 13th amendment slavery was not against the constitution. Frankly, since the constitution says nothing about marriage being between a man and a women, it they stick to the literal, they should say a marriage could be between a dog and a cat from a federal perspective. If the constitution says nothing about it than from the federal perspective the law is whatever congress passes, as long as it is an area where the federal government has the power to make law. Federal law about marriage is mostly about its effect on taxes and federal benefits. Even the "Defense of Marriage act" isn't a prohibition on states having same-sex marriages, but rather a declaration that neither the feds nor other states have to recognize them. If a state decides to say that my roommate's cat is married to my parents dog, I haven't seen anything in the constitution that compels the feds to recognize this "union" or give either Winston or Penny any special benefits. But if a state was truly going to act in such a bizarre manor it wouldn't be the feds responsibility to tell the state to cut it out. Tim

To: Road Walker who wrote (224744)	3/18/2005 12:05:35 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1571926

Europeans may seek own interview with Wolfowitz Thu Mar 17, 2005 08:47 PM ET By Lesley Wroughton WASHINGTON, March 17 (Reuters) - European members of the World Bank's board may seek to interview Paul Wolfowitz separately for the job of World Bank president, bank sources said on Thursday, reflecting Europe's concern about whether he is the right man for the job. The decision came during a meeting by European representatives on the board, including Germany, France and Italy, to discuss the Bush administration's choice of Wolfowitz to replace James Wolfensohn in June. The U.S. deputy defense secretary is considered a controversial choice because of his role as an architect of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which caused rifts with many of the nations he will have to work with at the World Bank. "The Europeans want to interview him by themselves and not inside the board," one source close to the board told Reuters. U.S. Treasury spokesman Rob Nichols said Wolfowitz was scheduling a wide range of meetings with board members. "Our nominee is beginning his courtesy visits as planned and looks forward to meeting with and listening to the members of the World Bank board," Nichols told Reuters. Wolfowitz's adviser, Kevin Kellems, said Wolfowitz telephoned Irish rock Bono, a global campaigner for African aid and debt relief, on Thursday, as well as other foreign leaders, bank officials and advocates for poverty reduction. Many of the European governments that opposed the Iraq war have yet to be convinced Wolfowitz, 61, has the proper credentials for the World Bank job. The bank sources said European directors wanted to wait before they made their move to interview Wolfowitz, to see if other countries put forward their own candidates. Developing countries are discussing among themselves whether to present their own nominee to show their opposition to a tradition that an American heads the World Bank and a European leads the International Monetary Fund. The trans-Atlantic tradition was challenged five years ago when Washington blocked Europe's choice of Caio Koch-Weser, Germany's deputy finance minister as IMF candidate. The job eventually went to Horst Koehler, who is now Germany's president. The U.S. Treasury, charged with leading the search for a candidate, said it consulted extensively for several months with board members nations before deciding on Wolfowitz. "We believe there is a consensus that the key qualifications to serve as president are proven leadership, management experience in a large, global organization, international diplomatic experience and commitment and passion for development," said Treasury's Nichols. "Paul Wolfowitz meets and exceeds each and all these criteria," he added. Europeans said consultations only concerned qualifications and no names. "No matter what one thinks of Mr. Wolfowitz, we cannot link the World Bank to the mess of Iraq," noted one European diplomat in Washington. Staffers at the Washington-based institution are also hoping their views on who leads the World Bank are heard. In an e-mail leaked to Reuters, the World Bank's Staff Association said it was seeking a meeting with Wolfensohn and had been in touch with board members. "While recognizing that the selection and confirmation of the next World Bank president is the prerogative of the shareholders, staff are asking that their views be taken into consideration and taken seriously by the decision makers," the e-mail said. There are concerns among the bank's 10,000 staffers that Wolfowitz's links to the Iraq war could hurt the credibility of the World Bank. reuters.com