Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The mathematics of marriage, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Is that a constitutional requirement, or he just does?
He just does. It is a tribal custom of some sort.
-
p.s. has anyone asked Louisa Wall *why* she opposes state recognition of polygamous relationships? I tried in a Facebook thread (where she had responded to my South Africa point), but didn't get a reply.
-
Hard News: The mathematics of marriage, in reply to Emma Hart,
If people like McCoskrie were being forced to articulate an argument in favour of discrimination – if the framing of the argument was “why discriminate” rather than “why change”, there’s no footing to start the Slippery Slope argument from.
McCoskrie doesn’t think it is discriminatory.
I also don’t think he’d have any problem articulating a slippery slope argument from that basis.
-
What Wall demonstrated when she compiled her mutually exclusive lists of the 11 countries that permit same-sex marriage and the 50 that recognise polygamous relationships is not that extending marriage rights to same sex-couples can’t lead to recognition of polygamous or polyamorous relationships, but that it thus far hasn’t.
South Africa has some level of recognition of polygamous marriage (the President has four wives, for example), as well as recognising same-sex marriage.
Wall's list has taken a particular definition of recognition of polygamous marriage that excludes some forms of such recognition. Of course, even in that country, recognition of same-sex marriage came much later.
-
Hard News: On Freedom, in reply to BenWilson,
Seriously? Every law student I know was terrified of being busted, because it would preclude them from the bar, so they said. Did this change (this was the 90s), or were they just wrong? If so, it was Law School itself telling them the porkies.
It might get in the way of getting a job, but while you have to declare it when you apply, the the chance of something like that actually standing in your way is remote. The things to be be avoiding were dishonesty convictions.
I can't rule out that in the years before I was admitted these things were treated differently, but I'm confident of the time I was at university and since.
-
Hard News: On Freedom, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Also, would be fair to say that if it was fully and equally applied some of the folks Collins worked with before she entered Parliament might have had considerable difficulty getting a practising certificate?
And the answer to this fair question is that it probably wouldn't have made a difference. A drug possession conviction will not prevent you from being admitted as a lawyer.
-
Hard News: Cultures and violence, in reply to David Hood,
Of course historically, the Supreme Court has tended to feel that the 2nd ammendment applies to militias, not individuals.
My understanding is that the Court rather assiduously avoided the issue for a very long time.
-
Hard News: Cultures and violence, in reply to Bart Janssen,
No. It isn’t mistaken. Congress et al can and has at various times defined what reasonably constitutes “arms”. Nobody in the US is allowed to own an attack helicopter fully loaded with all the weaponry, they are not “arms” for a well regulated militia.
I am not claiming that no regulation of arms is constitutional.
I am asserting that the fact that the second amendment doesn't define arms is not a basis for concluding that the Congress can do whatever it wants.
-
Also, the second amendment does not include the word "properly".
-
Hard News: Cultures and violence, in reply to Bart Janssen,
That is not true. The 2nd amendment does not define “arms”. It would relatively little political effort to make handguns and semiautomatic weapons of any sort illegal. Leaving hunting rifles and single action shotguns as the only legal “arms”.
Your understanding on US Constitutional law is mistaken. It simply doesn't work like that.
This first amendment doesn't define speech, but that doesn't mean that the Congress is empowered to say that flag-burning is not speech and therefore not protected.