Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
GeekNights Thursday - Robert's Rules of Order
Tonight on GeekNights, after Rym's return from the midwest, we consider Robert's Rules of Order. If you need to halt organizational drama or impress grognards, this is your go-to resource. We also hit up on some Hearts, an Edward Hopper exhibit, former slave states reminding us why we should have let them go, and SCOTUS ruling on a variety of things. Rym also announces that the next GeekNights Book Club book will be Stasiland.
Download MP3
Source Link
Comments
I suppose I could say "former confederacy" and mostly cover them as well.
It's just interesting that the former CSA, mostly in line with the former areas that slavery persisted through the antebellum period, lag behind the bulk of the nation in so many areas even to this day.
It was also the single biggest political issue of the many decades leading up to the civil war. "Slave state" status was the most important state-level distinction at the time for both sides of the "issue."
While the rest of the nation had already ended slavery, these states went to WAR to keep it alive indefinitely.
The distinction is both warranted and relevant even in today's politics.
Also, Atlanta is boss and much better than some northern places, such as asshole state known as NJ.
Of course the Southern states called themselves "slave states" in the 1840s, they had slavery at the time. The point isn't that they didn't have slavery, but that being of "former slavery" is insignificant. The difference made by six or seven decades is insignificant juxtaposed to the two to three centuries of national slavery.
I'm not saying that the distinction isn't relevant, I'm saying that the term is. We have plenty of other terms for the same group. They're probably more accurate, since I'm going to guess that Maryland and Delaware -- two "slave states" that stayed and fought with the Union-- aren't states that you're referring to, or West Virginia, the only state to secede from the CSA, founded on the principle that the war was wrong and fought with the Union, but continued to practice slavery until the passing of the 13th Amendment; and how does Kansas count in all of this? They were a slave territory, but they weren't made a state until half way through the war, and at no point seceded.
And I should also point out that while slavery was something practiced by a select few rich and powerful enough to profit from it, the CSA was fought for by the masses, and Jim Crow was practiced by approximately everybody, so they would be more appropriate to use if you're referring to entire populations of states.
Also, I opposed prop 8, opposed the appeals court finding some bs reason to overturn it (in general I think the courts are far too activist in overruling legislation, both conservative and liberal), and I agree with my father (a law prof) that standing is often applied very inconsistently. But everything worked out I guess. By the way, based on friend of a friend knowledge, Kennedy is easily the biggest moron on the court.
Also also, just because you question whether affirmative action is still needed and appropriate in its current implementation doesn't make you a racist. As someone who's mixed race it's always bugged me that I'd get preferential treatment for checking a box. Heck, one of the whitest people I know, who's 1/16th Cherokee (much less than me) has used it to his advantage for his entire career. Ugh.
I'd be hesitant to call Kennedy the biggest moron in the court in light of reading Scalia's dissent in the DOMA case - that guy is nuts.
Would this only apply if the state constitution is NOW being amended?
If a state doesn't allow 1st cousins or same-sex couples to marry, but it will recognize the marriage of 1st cousins from another state, then it has no rational basis for rejecting the same-sex marriage.
Steve: The Fed court's ruling in Prop 8 was VERY narrow. The only reason it was found unconstitutional is because CA already allows gay couples all of the legal privileges of being married that could have been used to justify denying them the right to marriage. Therefore there was no rational basis to deny them marriage. In states where gay couples are NOT granted those legal rights already, this holding doesn't even have a persuasive impact.
There's an interesting argument over whether plaintiffs can show harm over a non-current amendment sufficiently to get standing. As for the government refusing to defend the law, the idea of that actually happening was virtually inconceivable before the Prop 8 case actually happened, and I don't think that would be a common occurrence in other cases on the issue. I also think most other federal district courts would tend to side with the state government rather than against it; the prop 8 case was a bit of an exception because the court was in San Francisco.
EDIT: Nuri knows much more than I do about this.
Due to concerns in the late 70's about the gender neutral nature of the language it was altered by the legislature back to man+woman.
In 2000 prop 22 passed which was essentially the same thing as the legislation from the late 70's.
Around 2005 the state legislature passed two bills to legalize gay marriage but the governator vetoed them both citing the conflict with prop 22.
Shortly before prop 8 was passed prop 22 had been declared unconstitutional. In the intervening window of time a law was passed declaring gay marriage legal.
So was prop 8 declared unconstitutional because of the small window when gay marriage was declared legal due to a law being passed and prop 22 being thrown out?
In this case, here is what matters:
Gay partners in a domestic partnership could already do all of the things that anti-gay-marriage people usually use as an argument against gay marriage. For instance, adopting children. CA grants them those rights regardless of whether they are officially married or not.
Prop 8 was going to amend the Constitution to forbid same-sex marriage. This means it gave/denied people rights based on a CLASSIFICATION.
When you have a classification of people, you have to be able to justify that classification with AT LEAST a rational basis. For suspect classes like race, there is a higher standard, but the minimum level of justification is rational basis. You have to show that the law has a rational basis in serving a legitimate government interest.
IN CA, because gay partners could already do all of the things generally used as the rational basis for denying gay marriage, the Judge said there was no rational basis for this classification in the state constituion. PERIOD. Whether gay marriage was legal in the past or not, and how marriage was defined in the past, had little to do with it.
Louisiana 1960's "Literacy" Test