Saying "Democrats" or "Republicans" in a historical setting is mostly useless. There's no denying that had I been born in a different time period, I would likely be a "republican".
I'm talking about this administration, whatever label they are currently using. This administration is NOT conservative, is NOT historically republican. This administration is, mostly, opportunistic.
We've done alot of stupid things in the history of our country, there's no denying that. And whatever the original writers of the Constitution may have actually intended themselves, they set up the Constitution to be a document that would change as America changed - one of their more brilliant ideas - and one of the things that's been refined is the idea of church and state being separate. And as someone not christian, it's something I believe rather strongly in.
As for Zimbabwe and Lebanon, you're missing the point. I believe that it is entirely appropriate for us to look to Peer Countries (first world, industrialized, etc.) for legal standards. This does not negate our taking a stand should we choose to, but I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "the rest of the modern world thinks X is bad and so do we."
Most of your comment has nothing to do with the actual proposition above. You have one paragraph saying that Congress has the right to do this. But you don't really say...do you think it's a good idea to remove jurisdiction in cases where one party says "God is the law"?
(And by the way, this is not written in the "heat of the moment". I'm not trying to be aggressive or confrontational. The trouble with online discourse is you can't always tell. So I'm telling you. I'm still conversational.)
no subject
I'm talking about this administration, whatever label they are currently using. This administration is NOT conservative, is NOT historically republican. This administration is, mostly, opportunistic.
We've done alot of stupid things in the history of our country, there's no denying that. And whatever the original writers of the Constitution may have actually intended themselves, they set up the Constitution to be a document that would change as America changed - one of their more brilliant ideas - and one of the things that's been refined is the idea of church and state being separate. And as someone not christian, it's something I believe rather strongly in.
As for Zimbabwe and Lebanon, you're missing the point. I believe that it is entirely appropriate for us to look to Peer Countries (first world, industrialized, etc.) for legal standards. This does not negate our taking a stand should we choose to, but I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "the rest of the modern world thinks X is bad and so do we."
Most of your comment has nothing to do with the actual proposition above. You have one paragraph saying that Congress has the right to do this. But you don't really say...do you think it's a good idea to remove jurisdiction in cases where one party says "God is the law"?
(And by the way, this is not written in the "heat of the moment". I'm not trying to be aggressive or confrontational. The trouble with online discourse is you can't always tell. So I'm telling you. I'm still conversational.)