I fully expect a "full faith and credit" lawsuit in a non-gay-marriage state working at forcing them to recognize another state's gay marriage before the end of the year.
As I'm told, full faith and credit has never been used for all sorts of marriages that are legal in some places but not others, like cousin marriage and 17 year old marriage. Which isn't to say it couldn't be used for gay marriage, but it hasn't been yet.
I fully expect a "full faith and credit" lawsuit in a non-gay-marriage state working at forcing them to recognize another state's gay marriage before the end of the year.
As I'm told, full faith and credit has never been used for all sorts of marriages that are legal in some places but not others, like cousin marriage and 17 year old marriage. Which isn't to say it couldn't be used for gay marriage, but it hasn't been yet.
Yeah. I'm actually trying to research the issue. There aren't many (if any) high profile cases that I can find other than some common law marriage stuff.
It certainly appears that some members of Congress want to fix Section 4(b), and it will be interesting to see what they propose. Any rational formula is not going to cover the same states as the old one. In fact, a new formula keyed to updated versions of the stats on which the original formula turned – minority voter registration and turnout – might cause a turnabout of considerable magnitude. These numbers are substantially better for minorities in many of the states originally covered by Section 5, and substantially worse in many states that have never had to preclear their laws. So a revised formula that focused on these numbers might require preclearance in states like Massachusetts, Washington, and Colorado. Perhaps this is why so many people say that a revision is not going to happen.
And that's so amazing - it's like section 5 actually worked! I'm mostly angry that I fully expect one election cycle to be long enough to basically eliminate liberal politicians as contenders in much of the South for the foreseeable future.
I found this out recently. Apparently in the South, they call it "The Northern War of Aggression." Not the "we wanted to keep slaves war," because that's totally not what it was about.
This is a great example of non-partisan legislative workings. Also, living in Alabama, same sex marriage is highly doubtful in a state where the Treasurer ran on an anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration and pro-life platform.
I found this out recently. Apparently in the South, they call it "The Northern War of Aggression." Not the "we wanted to keep slaves war," because that's totally not what it was about.
Um, no. They call it the "War of Northern Aggression." But you were pretty close.
To be honest, I grew up and was educated in NC, and all they ever called it in school was The Civil War. Then again, I grew up in Hillsborough where the hippies and liberals who commute to the Triangle live.
I found this out recently. Apparently in the South, they call it "The Northern War of Aggression." Not the "we wanted to keep slaves war," because that's totally not what it was about.
War of Northern Aggression, but yeah. Every revisionist I meet frames the war as the South trying to keep states' rights to self-determination and the Borth being bullies. I LIVE in a "border state" and no one I know thinks it was about anything BUT slavery.
Slavery was a part of states rights. It was the "right" to own other people.
Slave owners saw the slaves not as people but as property. The north saw slaves as people not property. From that perspective the northern states were essentially trying to take the property of the slave states (which would run afoul of the fifth amendment if they were not compensated) with zero compensation for the act of taking. Even though they are not taking but freeing the slaves the impact on the slave owner is still the same; they are having their property taken with no compensation for the taking.
Think of it the way most of us think of information. The new thought system says that information(slaves) should be free. The old thought system says that information(slaves) is a form of property and should not be free.
The people who say "the civil war was about states rights" do not immediately follow it up with "by that I of course mean the right to have slaves, just so there's no confusion."
The people who say "the civil war was about states rights" do not immediately follow it up with "by that I of course mean the right to have slaves, just so there's no confusion."
The revisionists I encounter are the ones who are like "it wasn't about slavery, it was about economics," to which I always respond "yes, the economic system of slavery." People seem to get that the war was caused by a variety of things, but they don't seem to get that all of those things were in relation to slavery.
So I actually listened to the episode. For those who haven't listened, there's a pretty important point about how Mafia games would be categorically improved by using Robert's Rules in them, and I will never play Mafia the same way again.
I'm also in a student group where the meetings do (or at least claim to) follow Robert's Rules; of course, because the group is a silly place, the chair has fiat power over more or less everything.
I'm also in a student group where the meetings do (or at least claim to) follow Robert's Rules; of course, because the group is a silly place, the chair has fiat power over more or less everything.
Rym, I'm glad you mentioned the Texas legislators trying to get away with changing the time stamp on the vote. I'm surprised that isn't getting more attention. Especially in the context of the VRA ruling, it was pretty horrifying to see this blatant disregard of the rules.
Comments
Fuck the South. The North is vastly superior.
This
I'm mostly angry that I fully expect one election cycle to be long enough to basically eliminate liberal politicians as contenders in much of the South for the foreseeable future.
To be honest, I grew up and was educated in NC, and all they ever called it in school was The Civil War. Then again, I grew up in Hillsborough where the hippies and liberals who commute to the Triangle live.
EDIT: Also fuck question 20. The correct answer is "backwards," but I'm pretty sure that'd disqualify you.
Slave owners saw the slaves not as people but as property. The north saw slaves as people not property. From that perspective the northern states were essentially trying to take the property of the slave states (which would run afoul of the fifth amendment if they were not compensated) with zero compensation for the act of taking. Even though they are not taking but freeing the slaves the impact on the slave owner is still the same; they are having their property taken with no compensation for the taking.
Think of it the way most of us think of information. The new thought system says that information(slaves) should be free. The old thought system says that information(slaves) is a form of property and should not be free.
For those who haven't listened, there's a pretty important point about how Mafia games would be categorically improved by using Robert's Rules in them, and I will never play Mafia the same way again.
I'm also in a student group where the meetings do (or at least claim to) follow Robert's Rules; of course, because the group is a silly place, the chair has fiat power over more or less everything.