John McCain sought Pastor Hagee's endorsement
By John Amato Thursday Mar 20, 2008 5:45pmTweety finally brought up the name of Hagee and McCain today on Hardball. Wow, look what an article will do.
In an interview that will appear in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine, controversial televangelist Rev. John Hagee declares, "It's true that [John] McCain's campaign sought my endorsement."
McCain has attempted to distance himself from some of Hagee's views, much as Barack Obama is doing in relation to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But unlike McCain, Obama has not stood on stage with Wright and accepted his accolades this year.
Interviewed by Deborah Solomon, Hagee refused to discuss his statement that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for a gay rights parade in New Orleans, calling it "so far off-base."
Login or Register to post comments.
Those Gays in New Orleans should burn in hell..
In the name of Jesus..lol
So all the Catholics in this country and our clergy should be condemning McCain for his affiliation with Hagee. Oh, wait. McCain is NOW pro-life. Never mind. He need only agree on that one issue. The Church will figure out some basis to let parishioners know that he is the lesser of two evils.
I guess Mccrazy attended his church for 20+ years too.
The msm need to bring these things to the fore and loop them the 24 hr cycle like they did for Obama, to strike the contrast. because Obama is black his pastor's comments are interpreted as anti-american and these wingnuts get a free pass...
Obama needs an add featuring squeaky clean white supporters of reknown with working class cred voicing support for him. Vicky eisenhower, daughter and scion of Dwight's line and a repuber is supporting him. so is lincoln Chafee one of the few or only repubs who voted against the war....people like this who can vouch for his patriotism. and put that non-issue to rest.
they need to sound out that he is for all americans.he is not running for pres to give handouts to people who lack personal responsibility. but for all the stand up people who work hard. he is here to make the government work hard for them. to help them keep their jobs. to reward the military families and vets for their sacrifice and bring a sensible and reasoned end to the war..
they should say he is not running for an old divisive america. but an america that treats all people with respect. where everyone accepts and fulfills their responsibilty to themselves, their community, their family and their country and expects the same from their government.
he needs a slew of people like this... respectable and thoughtful people to appear in an ad for him and voice their support openly... so those nitwits who cannot think for themselves will see who the choice of the thoughtful and informed is. and maybe then we can put these non-patriot, black panther, manchurian muslim demons to bed.
McCain not having anything to say about Rev Wright wasn't because he was trying to run a different campaign after all...he knew what he had done going after an endorsement from Hagee . So much for McCain taking the high road
i am a 61 yr white man. it's time that everyone
white was removed from office in washington d c
govt. i personally have had my fill of the greed
that these entrenched white bastards and bitches
have and the damage they have wreaked on the
Constitution. it's time to severely restrict the
time in office for all who are elected. this is
the only way to help stop the powerful and
criminal activities of the lobbyists.
it is deeply tragic, that these people can pile on to someone, because of another's thoughts and words. GW invited rightwing crazies into his white house and had them shape his nutjob abstinence only policy and anti-science putsch. Obama does not drink from the coolaid jar of his pastor. but recognizes the man is a dinosaur.
On what grounds do they question his patriotism? What has he ever done in his life that would qualify him as any thing other than a patriot?
Given MCcains ´´past´´ perhaps he just simply forgot about his rubbing elbows with folks that love to hate and make money on doing so.
Just look at em, would you want to have a beer with em? let alone have him as a neighbor? The guys creepy all around.
Facing growing pressure to renounce the anti-Catholic bigotry of End Times Pastor John Hagee, John McCain resorted to that most Republican of accountability avoidance tactics, the Unpology. Desperate to reassure Catholic voters without alienating Hagee's evangelical followers McCain offered only the facade of contrition by conditionally repudiating Hagee's "if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics."
For the details, see:
"Pastor Hagee and the Unpology of John McCain."
I can neither download or stream your content.
I've seen the Wright sermon in its entirety and was not offended at all (I'm white). Rev Hagee is much more hateful and harmful.
That people actually go to church looking forward to hearing this kind of crap, sickens me and confuses me at the same time.
Am i banned? How come my posts aren't coming up? I'm totally behaving myself.
When are we going to see endless loops of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Parsley, Hagee...
Has anybodt else seen the entire Wright sermon? Its on the Youtube and is not offensive.
Leslie @ 12:
If you are asking when we will see it on faux, never, CNN, again never, MSNBC, maybe but I doubt it. Uhh, what's left?
Has anyone else seen the entire Rev.Wright speech?
Ron @ 13:
PBS?
EliteLemming @ 14:
Yes, and I hope you have.
EliteLemming @ 15:
Endless loops of cropped video. Nope, move on.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/21/mccain-airbus-merci/
Ron @ 16:
Yes, its on the Youtube and is hardly offensive.
Oh, I don't think the pols are going to like "What Did Your Pastor Say On Television?"
We've overturned a rock, here. Sure, okay, Falwell and Robertson...everyone knows they're a little, how shall one say it?, kooky. But, the thing is, they're not that far off.
See, because, and follow me here, RELIGION IS INSANE. It believes silly nonsense for no reason. There's no way to preach insanity without eventually running afoul of common decency.
To wit: Christianity is inherently unAmerican
America: humans are endowed with inalienable rights
Christianity: human rights come from God and he can take them away...making them inherently alienable
America: you have the right to freedom of speech, assembly and religion
Christianity: there is but one correct religion and if you don't follow it you will burn in hell. Even if you do follow it, you might burn in hell for impure thoughts or words.
America: you have the right to a public trial by a jury of your peers
Christianity: you are born guilty of the crimes of your ancestors and you will be judged on that basis by a superior entity, not your peers
America: you have the freedom of economic opportunity to seek to prosper to benefit yourselves and your families
Christianity: sell everything you own, disown your family, don't worry about tomorrow and follow Christ! Rich people don't get into heaven.
America: humans own themselves and are not the property of the state or the church
Christianity: god owns you
America: humans are to be held accountable for violations of the law and the rights of others and made to pay recompense to society and to their victims
Christianity: no matter what you do, you're okay as long as God forgives you. Your victims can suck eggs because they're dirty sinners, too.
And so on.
Christianity is anti-American spiritual fascism and the fact that they tart it up with talk of "love" doesn't mean this batshit crazy lunacy isn't lurking in the attic.
Red @ 18:
If Obama uses that in his campaign it should kill the GOP
.
Here's a little taste of CUFI, John Hagee's other cult.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig
Am I the only one who finds McCain's last name ironic that with all his flip flopping and rage.
I am not religious, but I always mistrust anything with "Cain" in it... YMMV.
Tyler Durden @ 23:
He has prove that he isn't Able or Abel.
JasonS I kinda like your rhetoric but what America are you living in? Humans can't be owned? People held accountable? A right to a trial? With charges and everything?
who cares
across the country, thousands of brackets have just been totally busted
if you chose sd over ucon....i salute you
They are discussing this relationship with Hagee today because it is a long holiday weekend and, naturally, they know most people aren't paying attention. I have a feeling this is just a cursory pass at this story. In other words, it's the old "move on, nothing to see here" story.
I finally turned the television on tonight to catch the NewsHour because I love Mark Shields because he doesn't embelish or fillibuster his opinions to death. Of course, his fellow panelist David Brooks hasn't seen the ball since the kickoff.
When the segment ended the tv went off. I may be alone but I want to send a message that I am sick of what the networks and the cable networks are spewing--especially that racist pig Pat Buchanan and Joe Screwborough.
Can you imagine if Barack Obama sought out the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan?
EliteLemming @ 25:
Well, I'm talking about our principles, not our practice :)
But it's interesting to note that all of the abuses of our system that have come up over the years (executive privilege, detention without charges, workplace safety and workers' rights, etc. etc.) would not be considered abuses under a truly "Christian" nation.
Unless God suddenly gives a shit about elections.
How many democratic elections are depicted in the bible?
How much governmental oversight is recommended?
What methods of trial and punishment are endorsed?
What rights of man are articulated (rights of woman clearly being too much to ask for?)
When is the consent of the governed invoked as a guiding principle for the fair city?
And it's not like these things hadn't been invented. Primitive and stumbling though they may have been, the Greeks had gotten a rough draft of this together before the time of Christ. Funny that the son of God didn't know about that.
Also, why is there no mention of germs in the Bible? There's a LOT of room dedicated to animal sacrifice, the slave trade and tribal warfare. Those lessons all got covered pretty well. But no mention of e coli, eh? Just content to let us keep burning each other as witches for a few more thousand years, eh? Thanks!
It's time to examine Hillary's Evangelical Faith.
Hillary's Elitist Evangelical Faith.
(The Nation) Hillary's Nasty Pastorate
by Barbara Ehrenreich
(Mother Jones) Hillary's Prayer: Hillary Clinton's Religion and Politics
By Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet
September 1, 2007
Jeff Sharlet's shocking exposé The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power
The snippet of Wright’s comments about 9/11, played endlessly by the MSM, were not Wright’s own words….he was quoting from one Ambassador Edward Peck. From KOS:
“The truth about the Reverend Wright controversy is now starting to be revealed: The media manufactured it for ratings. How else can one explain the fact that anyone who actually takes the time to watch any of the videos would have a different impression from the one being pushed by ABC/NBC/CNN/MSNBC and most especially FOX?
I decided to pull of the video of Reverend Wright’s sermon in which he allegedly made the comments blaming America for 9/11, and guess what I found? He was quoting Ambassador Edward Peck, who made those comments on FOX NEWS (oh, the irony) the day after the 9/11 attacks. Here is the evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ&feature=related
“Around the 3-minute mark, Reverend Wright asks the church members if they saw the ambassador on Fox News, and what he had said. Then he proceeds to pull out a sheet of paper, and read the words of ambassador Peck.
This is another example of how the media has manufactured a controversy in order to sway the American public. We all should be very concerned about the media in the country, because after all…this is the same crowd that gave us the Iraq war.”
KC @ 31:
Funny Obama never mentioned this.
dadams @ 6:
yes yes get lets get whitey !
Will MSM harp on this like they did with Wright? Yeah right. And this disclosure on Friday? The dump day of the week. Or I'm I just paranoid?
reverend wright rocks! who's with me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ&feature=related
You know what would be funny? Watching McCain do jumping jacks.
Yes he did solicit Hagee's endorsement.To be fair he just needed a traction mat to get The Straight Talk Express out of the slough of despond where it was mired.
dadams @ 6:
Time limits should be on all politicians. No more taxpayer welfare for life. If they can't get anything done in 8 years, kick their butts to the curb.
EliteLemming @ 25:
It is the quintessential American paradox. The founders articulated basic principles of liberty and equality, principles stated more eloquently and movingly than ever before, principles for which they laid down their lives, fortunes and sacred honors............principles which they immediately sought to undermine.
Our history was stained from the beginning. The very first compromise with the authoritarians in our midst allowed the practice of slavery. We have been fighting the authoritarian wing of America ever since.
ConcernedHusseinCanuck @ 38:
Even if they are competent or able they should still have to move on, this would bring a lot more diversity to the process and help lessen the power of special interests.
Well said Karen.
EliteLemming @ 40:
Yep. And a term limit would mean that maybe they would actually try to achieve their promises so they have some kind of legacy. Isn't that really what most of them want? A name in the history books?
EliteLemming @ 41:
True, but I look at it the other way. We already had slavery and male privilege and land robbery and the whole host of human failings prior to the founding.
It's not like the values of King George's England were sunshine and light.
When we have improved things, we've done it by invoking the principles articulated by the founders and pointing out that they and we have failed to live up to those principles. Most other countries have to undergo violent overturn of the previous regime.
Hopefully, in a few decades, the ban on gay marriage will be looked on with the same pangs of distaste as "coloreds only" drinking fountains. And that distaste will come from a closer adherence to the principles of Thomas Jefferson...and a further distancing from the PRACTICES of Thomas Jefferson :)
EliteLemming @ 40:
I respectfully disagree. I would rather we reform the electoral process than impose term limits on politicians.
Contrary to the hypothesis, term limits can actually increase the pull of special interests and worsen the state of democracy. As the representatives are retired or shuffled around, becoming "perpetual rookies," the behind-the-scenes players become more and more influential. They're the ones who know the legislative process. They're the ones who know the informalities of political deals. They end up giving advice to the representatives, who end up not knowing who to trust. And after a few years in office, they start to think, "Why bother learning? I have to quit in a couple years anyway." (At least this is what has happened in California. I worked for a wonderful 23-year member of the CA Assembly. Once term limits were installed, he had six more years before he was forced out. He watched the process degenerate during those six years.)
If we want truly to reform politics for the better, we must work for comprehensive electoral reform. We must change the very system by which we elect people. It is the mechanisms of our elections that cause insidious gerrymandering, spoiler effects, duopoly party government, the grip of special interests, etc. If we re-work the way in which we vote, we can transform the political process dramatically.
Yes to election reforms, Yes our pricibles and practices hardly ever coinside, i need to ponder term limits a liitle more, but they sound good to me. Loved the chat but gotta go to work have a good evening all.
JasonS @ 43:
Oh, indeed. I hardly meant to imply that we had little to be proud of. The founders who compromised on slavery knew full well that American freedom and equality would be a "process," of sorts. The Constitution's first sentence includes ". . . in order to form a more perfect union . . . " We will forever be approaching our principles asymptotically, and in an unfortunate saw-toothed pattern. (We're currently on one the "steps back" in the "two steps forward, one step back" thrust of our history.)
But in the long run, things do get better in America, and they get better quickly. (In geological time, at least.) It took just two centuries to go from black slaves to black senators. Has that ever happened in any country's history? Two centuries is a blink of an eye in historical terms. And barely a third of the way through our third century, a man of mixed racial heritage might be our next president.
Yet we will always fight the authoritarians here at home. They are loud. They are dangerous. They are many. The price of freedom, as Jefferson put it, is eternal vigilance.
JasonS @ 20:
This country was founded by Christians. The constitution was written by Christians
God gives us a choice. God gives us the right to believe in him or not
How come we have so many denominations? Each of those denominations have varying theological interpretations of the bible and the nature of God. Many of the differences are very vast. Visit pastors and theologians of a cross section of Christian denominations and get educated.
We are judged on the basis of the sinless Jesus, both a man and a person of the triune God, not our ancestors either forward or backward.
A rich man cannot get into heaven without being a Christian. Neither can a poor man. The issue is where your heart is. If you love earthly things more than God, you have problems. Commit your life and love to God and be truly free.
Christians give themselves to God. God gives you the right and free will to reject him.
God forgives freely. However, the bible teaches that every sin has a consequence. We just may never know what in this lifetime. A Christian who has the attitude that "victims can suck eggs because they're dirty sinners, too" is not really a Christian.
Go live in Saudia Arabia or Iran or somewhere that dictates how you should believe and experience real fascism.
Karen @ 39:
Excellent point. And what about the Alien and Sedition Act? Free speech? C'mon - not if you trash America....
Media Muncher @ 47:
Some of them were Christians. Some of them were not. Most of the famous ones were not Christians. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Paine -- agnostics and deists who explicitly renounced Christianity, Paine in the most stark of terms.
God gives us a choice. God gives us the right to believe in him or not
Why do you believe in god? I ask this not to be snarky or disrespectful, but sincerely. I do not believe in god. I see no evidence that warrants believing in god. Do you have evidence that can convince me?
How come we have so many denominations? Each of those denominations have varying theological interpretations of the bible and the nature of God. Many of the differences are very vast. Visit pastors and theologians of a cross section of Christian denominations and get educated.
First show me the evidence that any of these denominations has merit. And all of the other religions in this country and around the world. Why should I not believe in them, and believe in yours?
I don't believe in your Jesus, and I want to be judged by my own actions, not relative to someone else's.
I commit myself to logic, reason, liberty and equality. Why do you get to go to heaven for believing the right stories? How can you possibly have heaven while others burn in hell? How can you believe that you will have paradise knowing full well that other people you know and like will suffer eternally?
I know full well that America is not a theocracy like Saudi Arabia. And I would like to prevent it from becoming so.
A rich man cannot get into heaven without being a Christian. Neither can a poor man. The issue is where your heart is. If you love earthly things more than God, you have problems. Commit your life and love to God and be truly free.
Oh puh-LEEZ!!! Only "Christians" can enter "Heaven?" Fine. I don't want to spend eternity surrounded by smug, intolerant assholes, so I guess I'll just go to the "non-Christian Heaven" where those of all religions will live in harmony and peace.
Once again, a Christian shows his/her arrogance. No wonder the Muslims hate us.
Grrr.....formating
Media Muncher @ 47:
Some of them were Christians. Some of them were not. Most of the famous ones were not Christians. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Paine -- agnostics and deists who explicitly renounced Christianity, Paine in the most stark of terms.
Why do you believe in god? I ask this not to be snarky or disrespectful, but sincerely. I do not believe in god. I see no evidence that warrants believing in god. Do you have evidence that can convince me?
First show me the evidence that any of these denominations has merit. And all of the other religions in this country and around the world. Why should I not believe in them, and believe in yours?
I don't believe in your Jesus, and I want to be judged by my own actions, not relative to someone else's.
I commit myself to logic, reason, liberty and equality. Why do you get to go to heaven for believing the right stories? How can you possibly have heaven while others burn in hell? How can you believe that you will have paradise knowing full well that other people you know and like will suffer eternally?
I know full well that America is not a theocracy like Saudi Arabia. And I would like to prevent it from becoming so.
BTW - this nation was NOT FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION!!!!!! The founding fathers were people of many religions.
AND, there is NO mention of religion in the Constitution (other than that little passage about the separation of church and state.) This country was established as a SECULAR nation - you can believe whatever religion you want, JUST KEEP IT THE HELL OUT OF GOVERNMENT!!
You want a theocracy? Leave the United States of America.
Possible silver-lining to the MSM continuously looping the Wright video while ignoring McCain's active solicitation of wacko zealots Hagee and Parsley is that Wright-boredom (MSM, just give it a rest) will set in - while the media documentation of McCain figuratively and literally embracing his dual They-Just-Gotta-Be-Off-Their-Meds "spiritual guides" will be fresh news come this fall.
(Is this the point where Dubya would say, "Bring it on!"?)
Matt Hussein in Texas @ 52:
Just to be accurate, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. (I mention it because the religious right seizes upon statements like yours to distort your point.)
Moreover, people should learn that as the Constitution originally limited only the federal government from establishing a religion or abridging the free exercise thereof. The states were not so limited (under the jurisprudence back in the day). It wasn't until the Fourteenth Amendment came along that the states were also so limited.
And I mention this because so few people actually realize that. They don't realize that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states (as currently interpreted), and just how tenuous the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation of some -- yes, only some -- of our rights actually is! One more conservative justice on the Court, and we can kiss our freedoms goodbye!
Karen @ 49:
Point taken. However, I think some of those who are now described as deists may have been Christians. I can only put the matter in God's hands. Those folks certainly had many Christian values which we all admire.
I believe in the God as described in the King James translation of the bible, Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. I cannot prove to anyone that God exists, but I have a strong suspicion that on the last day, when we are judged, more on our trust and love in God, than our actions, that God will explain and show us that he has been all around us and the proof of his existence will be quite obvious. To me, the wonders of the earth and the universe cannot be completely explained by evolution or the big bang. I believe evolutionary processes do exist, just not on the grand scale that us humans claim.
I think everyone should examine their beliefs and look for a denomination that might have merit. Christians who blindly follow their church are often just as "blind" as a an unbeliever. You can only find the evidence that any of these denominations have merit on your own. No one can really do it for you. The search for the truth includes learning of the religions of those in the rest of the world as well. I cannot quote the scripture, but the new testament says that everyone should question what they are told to determine if they are being told the truth.
I believe that I will be judged by my own actions and thoughts. My actions stand on their own (mostly bad) whether they are relative to someone else's or not.
I think you are on the right track with logic, reason, liberty and equality. In fact, I think Jesus would say something similar. My beliefs say that I will not get into heaven for believing the right stories. My getting into heaven will be judged upon what is in my heart. Do I trust in Jesus? Do I believe that Jesus died to save my skin? I believe that there is nothing that I can do to get into heaven. It will be by the grace and love of Jesus. Not me, for I have no real qualities that make me deserving. As for hell, I can only trust that God provides and put myself in his hands.
Me too!
Karen @ 56:
You must be an attorney :) Yes, I'm familiar with the establishment clause (I was using shorthand), and I thank you for mentioning the 14th Amendment. Since you are apparently more versed in law than I (a compliment, not snark) how does the scenario you mentioned - another conservative justice - relate to Marbury v. Madison? I thought where federal and state laws contradict, that ruling established fed law as the law of the land. Please clarify. Thanks!
I have heard the tapes of Wright and read what he said , honestly the Hagee , Falwell and Robertson bunch are much more offensive not to mention idiotic . Wright is a 70 year old black man / preacher and from his perspective and from his life experience he probably has a right and is justified in what he some times would say , I can't say that he didn't have valid points , he sure did have but a lot of us White tribal Neanderthals just can't stand it . There's nothing wrong with criticizing your country , wrong is wrong and right is right no matter the country or the people or person . It's more damaging to just worship and praise your country and government regardless of what it does like my country can do no wrong , that's bullshit , that's the Nazi mentality . America , love it or leave it ! Bullshit , you leave , I want to make it better ! What we should be about is keeping our government in check and correcting the wrongs , making our country a country we can love and be proud of . I realize this is beyond the comprehension of those who are just too God damned stupid and simple minded , which include some of who have posted here in fact .
Matt Hussein in Texas @ 52:
I'm sorry if I sound arrogant. I was just trying to make the point that everyone, even you, is welcomed by Jesus to his home in heaven. In heaven there is no intolerance or smugness. Those are human qualities. Christians are not perfect. In fact we acknowledge being low down dirty rascals. It is only by Grace alone, Faith alone, and Scripture alone that we have any hope of salvation. In fact Grace alone, Faith alone, and Scripture alone are what give us harmony and peace. Not in the world, but in our hearts.
Y,know all this brewhaha about Pastor Wright, and somebody pointed out to me last night that the guy has three presidential commendations. All the journalists had to do was look it up. Of course nobody did.
Matt Hussein in Texas @ 58:
the constitution explicitly permits states to legislate whenever there is no explicit federal law on a matter. so the constitution explicitly states that a black man is 3/5 of a man, but does not explicitly permit or restrict the practice of enslavement of the black man. That was left to the states. I do believe the notion of "states' rights" came from that ability, granted by the constitution.
Here in Idaho we have a third of the population that base their religious belief upon golden tablets found (then lost) in upstate New York in the 1800's. Another 20% believe that the Pope gives the infallible word of God. The remainder believe that the white man is supreme, Christ was white, was a Republican and the John Birch Society is an instrument of God's - and is probably stationed in Boise. Reverend White has to go some to catch up with this bunch.
abarts @ 34:
he wasn't there but he did say that was not the man he knew now you know why he didn't denounce the man. and for all who wondered why he stayed and accused the man of being a hate monger based on some clips. maybe next time you'll look a little harder before jumping on a bandwagon.
The United States is a country full of cults that believe all sorts of weird and offensive things in the name of God or Christianity. McCain seeking the endorsement of cultist nuts like Hagee and Parsley is a wake up call to the nation and the world that he in no way deserves to be president, frankly the thought is laughable.
Matt Hussein in Texas @ 58:
Guilty as charged. ;)
I figured. I just didn't want a religious right troll to seize upon your statement. I thought I'd shock and awe them with some preemption.
It doesn't, really. Marbury simply officially legitimized judicial review as a concept. It basically said that if a court finds that a law conflicts with the Constitution, that that court has the duty to deem the law invalid and inoperative.
But Marbury dealt with a federal law -- which Chief Justice Marshall deemed unconstitutional under fascinating political circumstances (and largely to avoid deciding the case in front of him on its merits) -- not a state law.
State laws as well might violate the Constitution, and must be likewise struck down under Marbury if they do. However, Chief Justice Marshall also ruled, in Barron v. Baltimore, that although the original Constitution applied to the states, the rights listed in the Bill of Rights did not. Thus, a state that violates a right contained, say, in the First or Fourth Amendments, has not violated the Constitution under Barron, as those Amendments only limit the powers of the federal government.
Personally, I think Marbury is a brilliant decision, and that Barron is bullshit. But I'm not in charge. :)
Happy to clarify. No, all Marbury did was make judicial review of legislation official.
As for what to do when state and federal laws contradict, ugh. That's actually rather complicated. But here goes.....
The Constitution has three things to say on that: (1) The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land; (2) Federal Treaties made pursuant to the Constitution are also the Supreme Law of the Land; and (3) the federal government has a list of explicit powers delegated to it by the states' ratification of the Constitution.
So, a state law may never conflict with the Constitution, may never conflict with a federal treaty, and may never conflict with a law enacted pursuant to the express powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Any state laws that do are illegitimate laws.
Furthermore, if Congress explicitly writes into one of its laws something to the effect of, "The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction in this matter, and no state may do this," then the federal law preempts any state law (assuming Congress' law is itself Constitutional).
But.........
What happens if a federal law and a state law contradict each other, but neither the Constitution nor the federal statute make it clear that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter? Heh, then you follow these rules:
(1) If the laws are mutually exclusive, so that it's literally impossible for someone to comply with both laws at the same time, then the federal law wins, and the state law is invalid.
(2) If the state law somehow impedes a legitimate federal goal, then the federal law wins, and the state law is invalid.
(3) If Congress clearly intended for the federal law to win, then the federal law wins.
(4) Otherwise, both laws may stand, and will be applied in their respective courts.
;)
BaScOmBe whose saying "NO REPUGS" @ 62:
That's not quite correct. You refer to the Tenth Amendment. What it actually says explicitly is that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. It doesn't explicitly permit states to legislate whenever there is no explicit federal law on a matter. The difference being that your interpretation gives the states carte blanche to do whatever they want whenever they want it. They do not have such plenary powers.
That's correct. Though, of course, all that has since been amended.
Oh, it did indeed. That's exactly where the notion of states' rights came from, and we ought to call it what it is -- BULLSHIT!
States don't have rights. States have powers. People have rights. The Tenth Amendment does not give the states the power to violate the rights of their own citizens. Indeed, pernicious "states' rights" arguments have made that very case, and it's a sickening one, in conflict with the text of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Media Muncher @ 57:
Ok, let me get this straight. You do not have any evidence of your god's existence, nor do you have any logical argument to convince me of your god's existence, but you want me to believe in him anyway. In fact, you want me to put ALL of my trust in him anyway. You also want me to go out and learn of all these other religions out there, and then, on the basis of nothing, you want me to decide that yours is the proper one to follow.
You do not get into heaven for believing the right stories, but in order to get into heaven, you have to believe the stories that Jesus was at once human and divine and that he was sacrificed in order to give us salvation.
You must put your trust in Jesus in order to get into heaven, but there is no action you can take that will get you into heaven.
No matter how decent a person you are, Jesus, who loves you, might condemn you to eternal suffering. In fact, you will likely be condemned to eternal suffering, and since there is nothing you can do to deserve heaven, you can only pray that this loving/condemning human/divine father/son/ghost being will "provide."
Well, I don't begrudge you your beliefs, and fully support your right to them.
But that sounds like lunacy to me.
This explains Faux suddenly becoming a theater production entitled "Leave Barack Alone-Enough Already."
Hagee piece drops Sunday. That is called a pre-emptive strike my Faux and Friends.
(I am not going to quote the relevant posts as they are getting a bit long.)
Basically, I'm with JasonS and his original "religion is insane" statement. But for someone else, like the highly articulate Media Muncher, who has obviously thought all of this through at length, Christianity is a basis for living and for understanding the world and the people in it. I have nothing whatsoever against that.
My problem is that when Christians come out of their churches and enter the political sphere, they so often espouse the most extreme right-wing positions and policies. They do this despite the fact that right-wing rhetoric tends to be hateful and comdemnatory, the exact opposite of the nature and teachings of Jesus. Far from devoting themselves to the poor as Jesus spoke of, they mostly just ignore poverty, preferring to focus solely on abortion and gay sex, gay sex and abortion.
When I used to visit my parents in the Cleveland area, I sometimes listened to a local religious station I found on the AM dial while driving. During the day, they featured family-help programs and religious history lessons that I found genuinely interesting and insightful. But when the sun went down, holy sh*t! They would run these political programs that were nothing but fear, hate, more fear, and more hate. They called John Kerry a "card-carrying Communist" (this was in 2004). They unloaded with decidedly un-Jesuslike vitriol on any and every Democrat and liberal in the country. They were sputtering with outrage and hatred. It was vile, frightening, and unlistenable.
So what gives? Why the split personality? Why do Christians tend to talk so lovingly and piously in their churches, then turn into hateful, un-American bigots when they come outside? Why are they so sweet and nice on the daytime radio and yet so vicious and nasty at night on the very same station?
I guess you can tell from this that I just don't. Understand. Religious. People. Can anyone help?
Karen @ 68:
As a very educated and logical person, I have hope that you would make the decision and commitment to God based upon what you learn and what your heart then tells you, not what I believe or tell you. I can do nothing more than tell you what my faith is. You have to make the decision yourself.
That Jesus was at once human and divine and that he was sacrificed in order to give us salvation is God's plan. As a lowly human I cannot fathom why God chose this method. It is beyond my understanding and human sinfulness to explain.
I cannot answer your concerns right now about being condemned yet being a good person at heart. I'll have to think and pray on how to reply.
For a Christian, putting ALL of our faith in Jesus, is purely a matter of faith. That is what it is really all about. If faith is lunacy, then I'm guilty, and happy to be a lunatic.
Karen @ 56:
Yep. As I'm sure you're aware, Clarence Thomas doesn't believe the Establishment Clause has been incorporated. More of him, we don't need.
Mark in Ohio @ 70:
Christians still have the right to enter the political sphere and espouse their positions and doctrines. Also, in America, the majority still rules.
Does the rhetoric bothers your conscience? Is that what is really bothering you about it? How does right-wing rhetoric hurt you? You don't have to listen to it. You can ignore it. The bible teaches that God's word will achieve it's purpose. If right-wing rhetoric is not God's purpose or word, then that rhetoric will have no affect on God's plan and those spouting anything in God's name, that is contrary to His purpose, will have no affect. In summary, don't listen to what you find hateful and discriminatory.
Analogy: Some people in any group are whacked-out nuts. Even Denver Bronco fans. Some people are Bronco fans and want Raider fans dead. I don't. Do you fear my attachment to the Broncos because of these nuts? Maybe you don't really understand the Broncos.
Login or Register to post comments.