Amerika, zemlja velika

[Tribun_Populi]

Da, kreirao je normu, kreirao je ogrešenje o nju, i kreirao je pravni lek izvan zakonodavnog stuba vlasti.

Exactly. Lack of popular support je nešto što se (ti ćeš to bolje znati od mene) kad-tad obije o glavu.

[Prospero]

Arbajtmane, sutra da zalijemo!

 

As of Tuesday, with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie squeezing into the clown car that is the race for the Republican presidential nomination, 15 men and one woman are competing to carry the GOP standard.  Never before under modern nomination rules have so many plausible contenders been in the mix.

 

[Tribun_Populi]

Okej, uglavnom se vrtimo u krug, ali evo još jednom: ako početkom 20. veka žena nije mogla da nasledi radnju kad joj je umro muž, to je izmena suštine institucije.

 

Ne, jer to ne zadire u definiciju braka, već u nasledna prava. Žena u dobrom delu Evrope do 1945. nije imala ni pravo glasa, u Kraljevini Jugoslaviji ni potpunu poslovnu sposobnost (bila je izjednačena sa starijim maloletnikom). Pa to opet ništa ne menja u suštini braka.

 

I opet da naglasim, jedino što je sporno ovde jeste postupak i način tj. nedostatak legitimiteta i popularne podrške. Po pravilu se, posle nekog krupnijeg loma, nađe neko ko će se na to do besvesti pozivati, ergo bude kontraproduktivno.

[Weenie Pooh]

Tribune, i ti se praviš lud kao Gandalf pre tebe i Antonin lično pre njega. Prvi put ste digli glas na "nedostatak legitimiteta i popularne podrške" kod ove odluke, a kod svih prethodnih odluka SC, to nekako nije bio problem. Ponovo navodim svoj omiljeni primer, odluku o corporate personhood, odnosno pravu korporacija na neoigraničene političke donacije na osnovu ustavom zagarantovane "slobode govora". Preko 90% Amerikanaca smatra da je sistemska korupcija u politici najveći društveni problem - gde je tu bila popularna podrška za legalizaciju korupcije? Gde je tu bio legitimitet za "neizabrani komitet devetorice"?

[Prospero]

"Corporate personhood" postoji 200 godina
 

The charter granted by the British Crown to the trustees of Dartmouth College, in New Hampshire, in the year 1769, is a contract within the meaning of that clause of the Constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 10, which declares that no state shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts. The charter was not dissolved by the Revolution.
An act of the State Legislature of New Hampshire altering the charter without the consent of the corporation in a material respect, is an act impairing the obligation of the charter, and is unconstitutional and void.
Under its charter, Dartmouth College was a private, and not a public, corporation. That a corporation is established for purposes of general charity, or for education generally does not, per se, make it a public corporation, liable to the control of the legislature.

[Lrd]

Ne, jer to ne zadire u definiciju braka, već u nasledna prava. Žena u dobrom delu Evrope do 1945. nije imala ni pravo glasa, u Kraljevini Jugoslaviji ni potpunu poslovnu sposobnost (bila je izjednačena sa starijim maloletnikom). Pa to opet ništa ne menja u suštini braka.

 

Vidi, ti dekonstruišeš moj primer umesto poentu do koje taj primer treba da vodi. Poenta je da je pre brak bio zajednica u kojoj je muškarac bio "glava", a žena ta koja ga prati i sluša. Danas u modernom svetu to nije to, već je to zajednica ravnopravnih ljudi.

Ako misliš da to nije menjanje suštine braka, onda ne znam šta više da ti kažem.

 

Moje pokojne dede svakako bi se krstile i gledale sa užasom mene* koga žena izdržava i tu zajednicu u kojoj se selimo kako nju posao šalje. Oni bi svakako mislili da ja nisam ni muško ni čovek, niti bi našu zajednicu identifikovali sa bilo čime što oni nazivaju "brak".

 

* - fiktivno, uzeto samo za primer

[Dr Arslanagić]

Arbajtmane, sutra da zalijemo!

 

yesss

[hazard]

Čini mi se da si ovde malo slobodno postavio stvari. I GMO i gej brakovi su proizvod savremenog sveta i pisci ustava nisu nikako mogli da pretpostave da će bilo šta slično postojati. U oba slučaja je važno valjda (ne znam, nisam stručan) da se sačuva taj duh ustava, a meni se čini (opet, nisam stručan) da je zabrana zabrane gej brakova sasvim u duhu ideala individualnih sloboda u Americi.

 

Kao sto rece Tribun, i u 18. veku je postojao brak, a ja cu dodati - postojali su i homoseksualnost i homoseksualci i homoseksualne veze. Da su homoseksualci fenomen koji se pojavio u 20. veku, poredjenje sa GMO bi imalo smisla, ovako nema.

[hazard]

Tribune, i ti se praviš lud kao Gandalf pre tebe i Antonin lično pre njega. Prvi put ste digli glas na "nedostatak legitimiteta i popularne podrške" kod ove odluke, a kod svih prethodnih odluka SC, to nekako nije bio problem. Ponovo navodim svoj omiljeni primer, odluku o corporate personhood, odnosno pravu korporacija na neoigraničene političke donacije na osnovu ustavom zagarantovane "slobode govora". Preko 90% Amerikanaca smatra da je sistemska korupcija u politici najveći društveni problem - gde je tu bila popularna podrška za legalizaciju korupcije? Gde je tu bio legitimitet za "neizabrani komitet devetorice"?

 

Posto smo "mi" ovde, sta, americke sudije, politicari, pravni komentatori, profesori prava sa Harvarda i Jejla pa imamo obavezu da komentarisemo svaku odluku americkog VS? Ovo privlaci mnogo vise medijske paznje nego corporate personhood odluka npr., pa se eto zato o tome i vise diskutuje. Inace mislim da je ta presuda idiotska, tretiranje pravnog i fizickog lica jednako u demokratskim politickim procesima je jednostavno retardirano...ili zlonamerno.

[Weenie Pooh]

"Corporate personhood" postoji 200 godina

 

 

Veze to sa ovim nema. Pre nekoliko godina, SC je odlučio da korporativne donacije = politički aktivizam = sloboda govora, i zato ne smeju biti zakonski ograničene jer tako navodno kaže ustav. Svaki limit na količinu novca koja se sipa u džepove nekog kandidata bi prekršio ustavom zagarantovanu slobodu govora korporacije podmićivača™.

 

Posto smo "mi" ovde, sta, americke sudije, politicari, pravni komentatori, profesori prava sa Harvarda i Jejla pa imamo obavezu da komentarisemo svaku odluku americkog VS? Ovo privlaci mnogo vise medijske paznje nego corporate personhood odluka npr., pa se eto zato o tome i vise diskutuje. Inace mislim da je ta presuda idiotska, tretiranje pravnog i fizickog lica jednako u demokratskim politickim procesima je jednostavno retardirano...ili zlonamerno.

 

Mi ovde nemamo nikakvu obavezu, ali Scalia koji je za to izjednačavanje pravnog i fizičkog lica onda glasao i tako stavio poslednji pečat na sporu ali neumitnu legalizaciju korupcije IMHO nema mrvicu obraza kad posle ove nedavne odluke dovodi u pitanje legitimitet VS da pravi ovako široke korenite poteze i ovako slobodno tumači ustav. Od toga se i ovde krenulo, od Gandalfovih citata dissenting opinions koji demonstriraju vrhunsko licemerje sudija.

[Prospero]

Veze to sa ovim nema. Pre nekoliko godina, SC je odlučio da korporativne donacije = politički aktivizam = sloboda govora, i zato ne smeju biti zakonski ograničene jer tako navodno kaže ustav. Svaki limit na količinu novca koja se sipa u džepove nekog kandidata bi prekršio ustavom zagarantovanu slobodu govora korporacije podmićivača™.

 

Pravni koncept postoji 200 godina, i grana se na x strana, i SCOTUS je glasao i ovako i onako, poništavao i potvrđivao svoje ranije odluke.

 

Ono o čemu pričaš je Citizens United vs FEC, što je jedna od odluka SCOTUS-a u sklopu corporate personhood-a shvatanja (i koja je kasnije otvorila vrata for-profit pravnim licima da finansiraju kampanje)

 

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) the Supreme Court of the United States held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, overruling Austin (1990) and partly overruling McConnell (2003).

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, jedno household ime na CSA flag campaign button-u :D

 

[James Marshall]

Da ne protekne nezabilježeno, u silnim ovim "gej brak" zajebancijama

 

The Supreme Court’s Election Reform Ruling Is a Big F-ing Deal

In a serious blow to the forces of polarization, paralysis, and hyper-partisanship, the court ruled 5-4 that Arizona’s independent redistricting commission is constitutional.

This, in the words of Joe Biden, is a big fucking deal.

The Supreme Court’s vote on marriage equality and its refusal to gut health-care reform justly got the banner headlines over the last few days. But a less-publicized case on Arizona’s independent redistricting commission had those of us fighting for election reform holding our breath in the march toward the last day of decisions.

At stake was nothing less than the ability to fight back against the forces of polarization, paralysis, and hyper-partisanship in our politics. Out of 435 House seats, only 35 are considered competitive, and the rigged system of redistricting is to blame. It’s a process of collusion between the two parties that takes place every 10 years in state legislatures and draws the congressional district lines—a subversion of democracy where politicians pick their people rather than people picking their politicians.

The result is a screwed up incentive system where members of Congress are virtually guaranteed re-election as long as they don’t lose a low turnout partisan primary, which means they live in fear of offending the base rather than reaching across the aisle to solve problems.

Increasingly, the remedy for this corrupt status quo has been voters bypassing the state legislators with ballot referendums that create independent redistricting commissions. California has done it to great effect, dislodging 14 incumbents who decided to retire after the independent commission promised to make their re-elections less than rubber-stamped.

And that’s what Arizonans did in advance of the 2010 districting, which upset then-Governor Jan Brewer. First she tried to remove the independent commission’s chairwoman, Colleen Mathis, in a power grab that was overruled. Then Brewer decided to take the commission to court, arguing that the panel—composed of two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent—tried to “elevate ‘competitiveness’ over other goals.” Seriously.

“This isn’t anything more than Republicans trying to hold on to a majority in a state where they constitute less than a third of the voters,” explained former Phoenix mayor Paul Johnson at the time. But still the baseless, desperate, cynical case wound its way to the Supreme Court.

If the court decided that the voters’ attempt to impose a nonpartisan redistricting commission over the self-dealing of the Arizona state legislators was unconstitutional, the best mechanism citizens have to restore fairness to congressional mechanisms would have been removed.

The court concluded that Arizona voters sought to restore “the core principle of republican government,” namely, “that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.”

As Stanford law professor Nate Persily, the author of the new book Solutions to Political Polarization in America, explained: “Not only would many redistricting commissions, such as Arizona and California’s, have been thrown out, but any state regulation of congressional elections that was passed by initiative would have been legally vulnerable. This would have cast doubt, for instance, on California’s nonpartisan primary, Arizona’s voter ID law, and any number of other laws regulating voter registration, campaign financing, and ballot technology.”

It could have meant open season on election reforms of all kinds. But happily, by a narrow 5-4 vote, with Justice Anthony Kennedy serving in his role as the swing vote—possibly aided here by his roots in California, which has seen evidence of success in election reform—the Supreme Court decided to back the integrity of Arizona’s independent redistricting commission.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her majority decision (PDF): “We see no constitutional barrier to a State’s empowerment of its people.” She continued by pointing out that “‘[P]artisan gerrymanders,’ this Court has recognized, ‘[are incompatible] with democratic principles’” and attested to the fact that reforms like independent redistricting commissions have resulted in “districts both more competitive and more likely to survive legal challenge.” Quoting founding fathers from Madison to Hamilton, the decision concluded that Arizona voters sought to restore “the core principle of republican government,” namely, “that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.”

The decision is a big win for election reform and a defeat for those professional partisan forces that want to keep the rigged system of redistricting in place. Now the prospect for future nonpartisan election reforms remains open and inviting to more citizens who understand that when you change the rules, you change the game.

[Weenie Pooh]

Ono o čemu pričaš je Citizens United vs FEC, što je jedna od odluka SCOTUS-a u sklopu corporate personhood-a shvatanja (i koja je kasnije otvorila vrata for-profit pravnim licima da finansiraju kampanje)

 

No shit?

 

Samo da se ne zaboravi da je Supreme Court ne tako davno (2010) smatrao sebe za savršeno vlasnog™ da besramno legalizuje tu special interest korupciju. Čudo kako Scalia tada nije zakukao da jedan "neizabrani komitet" sve "slaveći slobodarstvo" otima ljudima pravo da bi ga dao oligarhiji u vidu "slobode govora" tj. efektivno neograničenih političkih donacija - oh hibrisa, oh sudskog li puča...

[iDemo]

Da ne protekne nezabilježeno, u silnim ovim "gej brak" zajebancijama

 

The Supreme Court’s Election Reform Ruling Is a Big F-ing Deal

In a serious blow to the forces of polarization, paralysis, and hyper-partisanship, the court ruled 5-4 that Arizona’s independent redistricting commission is constitutional.

This, in the words of Joe Biden, is a big fucking deal.

The Supreme Court’s vote on marriage equality and its refusal to gut health-care reform justly got the banner headlines over the last few days. But a less-publicized case on Arizona’s independent redistricting commission had those of us fighting for election reform holding our breath in the march toward the last day of decisions.

...

Ovo (u produetku) izgleda kao sama esencija multidvo-partijskih 'demokratija' diljem Zemljinog shara...

[Tribun_Populi]

Tribune, i ti se praviš lud kao Gandalf pre tebe i Antonin lično pre njega. Prvi put ste digli glas na "nedostatak legitimiteta i popularne podrške" kod ove odluke, a kod svih prethodnih odluka SC, to nekako nije bio problem.

 

Ne znam ko smo to mi, s vremena na vreme bacim pogled na temu o US of A, ovde sam pročitao argumentaciju suda pa mi je, kao nekome kome je to struka i posao, zasmetalo par činjenica u vezi cele priče - argumentovao i zašto. Pri svemu tome, u suštinu odluke se nisam ni upuštao, samo u formu, s ciljem da ukažem na moguće posledice. Drugo, sve što zalazi u domen normativnog uređivanja ličnih odnosa uvek nailazi na jak odijum u javnosti i ostavlja dugoročni pečat (my point), budući da se neposredno tiče najvećeg broja ljudi tj. da je far-reaching, dok problem in case kod toga što navodiš neposredno dodiruje uzak krug političkih aktivista. U tom smislu svaka mana u donošenju takvog propisa se kasnije višestruko multiplicira. Obzirom da ne pratim rad US SC i da me se, kao the citizen & resident of Serbia ne tiče mnogo, smer primedaba ti je u mom slučaju žešće pogrešan.

 

Vidi, ti dekonstruišeš moj primer umesto poentu do koje taj primer treba da vodi. Poenta je da je pre brak bio zajednica u kojoj je muškarac bio "glava", a žena ta koja ga prati i sluša. Danas u modernom svetu to nije to, već je to zajednica ravnopravnih ljudi.

Ako misliš da to nije menjanje suštine braka, onda ne znam šta više da ti kažem.

 

Pa i ne moraš ništa da mi kažeš, jer pokušavaš da do beskraja proširiš priču u smeru koji sa suštinom mojih istaknutih primedaba nema veze. Jasno sam naglasio da kvalitet bračne veze, odnosi unutar nje i ravnopravnost partnera u samoj toj vezi kao i van nje nemaju nikakve veze sa samom definicijom da je brak bila zajednica života muškarca i žene, o čemu smo i diskutovali. A tvoja poenta vodi u potpuno drugom smeru.