Im an old bastard and I find it hard to vote for the GOP. I am registerd as a republican. I find it my duty to vote in the primarys to keep the religious fanatics out.

Perhaps it is time to exit the tea bible thumpers corruption and join the Libertarian Party?

From what Ive seen so far the rebups have handed the election to the dems. And I dont like them either.

It does seem like they are going to run an George McGovern/Tom Egaleton ticket. Perhaps they need to and self destruct to kick the Dixiecrats out of the party.

---

And I find it very... interesting... that the SAME People that decry the Supreme Court having the power to decide these issues when they do NOT agree with the decision seem to have a joygasm of glee when they DO approve of the decision.

Hypocrites.

+1

It leads to the despotism of an oligarchy.

Like cabinet officers deciding what the law says and funding or not based on their interpretation. Or say 535 people out of 318+million.

Some oligarchy is a necessity. Some individual or group must make decisions. We can't have direct democracy for every decision. Can you imagine it for something simple like a building permit? All we ever would do is vote. That is why we have a representative form of government. You just don't like the way the 9 representatives are picked or their length of service.

As to the rest of your statements, I agree.

As to what I have put in bold, you have that correct... in spades... That is the entire issue. I do NOT like that the SCOTUS declared itself to have the right to declare legislation unconstitutional on the basis of taking an oath to support the Constitution.

Do you know how many people have taken essentially the SAME oath?

Every member of both the Federal and the States' Judicial branches.
Every member of both the Federal and the States' Legislative branches.
Every member of both the Federal and the States' Executive branches.
Every member of the US Military.
And I think that every (or at least MOST of them) police officer has done so as well.

There are doubtless others, but already we are into the MILLIONS of People currently under the Oath.

This *WEAK* justification Marshall used is, in my opinion, one of the greatest stains on his tenure as Chief Justice.

Uhh... No.

The Supreme Court of the United States was NOT granted that power by the Constitution. They declared on their own that that they have that power.

Uhhh...yes. It was granted that power under the constitution. If it wasn't, the Supreme Court would not be able to declare laws unconstitutional because that very act would be unconstitutional. However, the court can delcare laws unconstitutional, as has been argued by the Court and reaffirmed over and over again in subsequent case law. It just took them a while before they figured out they had this power.

Sorry, but that is a rather wimpy justification. If the oath of office to support the Constitution is the ONLY justification, then a GREAT MANY people have the authority to so declare a law unconstitutional. Even I have had to take that oath as a consequence of being appointed to a position in the Executive branch of the Texas State Government many years ago.

Well that is a wimpy justification, but that isn't the actual justification given why the SCOTUS can do this.

Well then, if not judicial review, what then *IS* the job of the US Supreme Court under the Constitution?

Article 3 deals with the Supreme Court:

(quote in full, with emphasis added)

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The part in bold described judicial review. It literally says that the courts job is to interpret the law. It also says that it has the authority (the "arising under this Constitution") to interpret the constitution. It is also from that bit that the SCOTUS decided in the Marbury v. Madison case that in a situation where a federal law came into conflict with the constitution, it could void the federal law. It reasoned essentially that if two federal laws conflicted with each other, it was up to the Court to decide which law applied and which law doesn't, so that it logically follows that if a law conflicts with the constitution, and the constitution is the highest law in the land, they can decide that if the law indeed conflicts with the constitution they can void that law by declaring it unconstitutional. Makes logical sense and really it is just written down there in the constitution itself.

So, the US Supreme Court was NOT given the explicit authority by the Constitution to decide if a law was Constitutional.

True, but it was given the explicit authority to review the laws when they conflict with each other and that again, explicitly includes the constitution. From there it logically follows that the court can decide that something is unconstitutional.

This is a murky gray area in the structure of the US Federal Government. No person or institution of the US Federal Government was given the explicit authority by the Constitution to decide these questions.

Again, it just logically follows from what is explicitly in the constitution. On top of that, there is no higher court or authority that can overrule the Supreme Court. Even if what they did was unconstitutional, what can you do about it other than to toss the rule of law out of the window? And say that the court did not have such power. Then who would be the arbiter in cases involving the constitution? Congress? Yeah thats a good idea, they could literally pass any law and say that their law is completely in line with the constitution, even if it was blatantly opposed to it. The States themselves then? Well that would be the end of the Federation, as states would just pick and choose what laws they deem constitutional and what laws are to much of a hassle.

The US Supreme Court HAS other duties defined by the Constitution.

The US Supreme Court has this power because they, themselves say they have this power. While support for the Supreme Court having this power has been quite widespread, it has NOT been universal.

The US supreme court has not granted themselves this power because they can't grant themselves power. They had this power all along, because it logically follows from whats written in the constitution. Again, if you have the explicit powers of judicial review and that explicitly includes the constitution, then it logically follows you can declare laws unconstitutional.

As far as who might legitimately have this power, one must look at the Constitution. The 10th amendment to the US Constitution reserves all powers not expressly granted to the Federal Government to the States and the People.

Irrelevant because the power has been granted to the Supreme Court. Also irrelevant because by now it has become well established case law.

Since the Constitution gives the State Governments SOLE authority to change the text of the Constitution, perhaps it makes sense that deciding the meaning of the text of the Constitution should also reside with the State Governments.

Again, that would be the end of the Federation as each state would just apply whatever law it wants at whatever moment it wants. The constitution as you and others have pointed out over and over again was designed to limit the power of the government. Granting the government, even if its just the state government, the power to interpret the law means that the constitution becomes more like a polite list of suggestions, instead of the ultimate hard limit on power. You can't trust the government to review its own behavior in a fair and impartial manner, because it will always declare that its own behavior is in accordance with the law.

Perhaps there might be no better option than the US Supreme Court having the power to decide Constitutionality of laws, BUT in one respect Jefferson was indisputably right...

It leads to the despotism of an oligarchy.

Hardly. The Supreme Court cannot make laws, it can only interpret them, or in some cases declare them void. It remains to the democratically elected parts of government to make laws and if they are half competent at their job, they make sure their laws are in accordance with the constitution, lest their work gets stricken down.

And I find it very... interesting... that the SAME People that decry the Supreme Court having the power to decide these issues when they do NOT agree with the decision seem to have a joygasm of glee when they DO approve of the decision.

Hypocrites.

Meh, I'm just here pointing out that saying the SCOTUS is acting unconstitutionally is factually incorrect.

Disregarding the silly, uninformed, unthinking, childish, name calling Left (as all thinking people should):

MajorKong...

Marbury v. Madison (1803), was a necessary decision. In my opinion.

SCOTUS, in that decision, became a 'Council of Wise Men'. As many Cultures in History had, and was/is necessary.

Without this: All disputes would collapse into chaos, within the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government, and the Individual States.

The Legislative and Executive Branches, of The Federal Government, and the Individual States, in 1803, could have 'disregarded' Marshall's decision. But wisely chose not to.

Has SCOTUS gone 'too far' in some decisions, over the past 200+ years? Of course they have.

Are they, or a similar Institution, needed?

I believe, yes.

We may possibly disagree.

Clyde,

As I said in post 1696606,

Perhaps there might be no better option than the US Supreme Court having the power to decide Constitutionality of laws,

We disagree on the above less than you might think...

But, it would have been a NICE thing (it still is, in my opinion) if this could have been formalized in a Constitutional Amendment, of course with appropriate limits on it.

Furthermore, I find the Supreme Court's ruling on the case of Marbury vs. Madison VERY ironic. Effectively, the entire mess was VERY screwy, US partisan politics at its finest between the lame-duck President Adams (a member of the Federalist Party) and the incoming President Thomas Jefferson (a Democratic-Republican).

Marshall, even though appointed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Adams, was ALSO Secretary of State under President Adams... at the same time.

It was Marshall who failed to deliver ALL of the commissions on the so-called 'midnight judges' appointed by Adams right before Adams' term expired. Marbury was one of the newly-appointed judges whose commission did NOT get delivered.

Due to personal involvement in the case, it is highly surprising that Marshall did NOT recuse himself when the Supreme Court heard and decided on the case when Marbury went to the Supreme Court and requested a writ of mandamus to force James Madison (Jefferson's Secretary of State, primary author of the US Constitution, author of the Bill of Rights, and Jefferson's successor as President) to deliver the rest of the commissions even though Jefferson considered the undelivered ones void and had ordered Madison to not deliver them.

The Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Marshall, ruled that Marbury had a legal right to his commission (therefore his Appointed and Confirmed position as a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia), and that the laws of the US gave him a legal remedy, but threw the case out.

The Supreme Court threw the case out by declaring Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be unconstitutional, arguing that the Congress did not have the Constitutional authority to extend the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to include such 'writ of mandamus' cases (a power NOT granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution) as Marbury filed. But to do so, the Supreme Court had to extend its OWN authority to include declaring a Federal Law to be Unconstitutional, a power NOT granted to it by the Constitution.

In so doing, Marshall set the stage for today's state of affairs...

The true power in the US Government is an unelected group of 9 (currently) individuals:

1. Who hold office for life, with no way to force them out.

and

2. Who get total authority to decide the meaning of the US Constitution, including totally inventing out of thin air various rights and authorities which they claim are in the Constitution. Even though the Constitution is totally silent on the subject. And in so doing violate the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution which says that such rights and authorities on which the Constitution is silent are retained by the States and the People.

ANYONE else in Government can either be fired, impeached, recalled, or thrown out of office at the next election. But not this group of 9 (currently).

Beginning to see why I (along with MANY others, both past and present) use the phrase 'tyranny of an oligarchy' in reference to the SCOTUS?

That said, I will repeat my earlier statements on the subject of this thread. I think it is the right thing to do to allow homosexual 'marriage'. I think it is the right thing to do to remove religious aspects from the 'civil marriage'. But I do NOT support the way this decision was done.

The Supreme Court of the United States has become WAY too powerful, with virtually NO checks and balances on it anymore.

ANYONE else in Government can either be fired, impeached, recalled, or thrown out of office at the next election. But not this group of 9 (currently).

What you are advocating for here is something that we generally only see in authoritarian states, namely a situation where the judiciary and legislative/executive branches of government are not separated from each other. Guess what that results in? The politicization of law, where judges are beholden to the government and where their position depends on the ideological leanings of whoever is in government. Would you want a situation where judges can get fired because their interpretation of the law does not stroke with the whoever is in government?

Beginning to see why I (along with MANY others, both past and present) use the phrase 'tyranny of an oligarchy' in reference to the SCOTUS?

Yeah, makes no sense given that the SCOTUS can't make laws, at best break them, and only then because it feels that they are incompatible with the constitution, which is supposed to be the ultimate check on the power of the government. They are one of the best lines of defense you have against an overbearing, tyrannical government.

ANYONE else in Government can either be fired, impeached, recalled, or thrown out of office at the next election. But not this group of 9 (currently).

What you are advocating for here is something that we generally only see in authoritarian states, namely a situation where the judiciary and legislative/executive branches of government are not separated from each other. Guess what that results in? The politicization of law, where judges are beholden to the government and where their position depends on the ideological leanings of whoever is in government. Would you want a situation where judges can get fired because their interpretation of the law does not stroke with the whoever is in government?

Beginning to see why I (along with MANY others, both past and present) use the phrase 'tyranny of an oligarchy' in reference to the SCOTUS?

Yeah, makes no sense given that the SCOTUS can't make laws, at best break them, and only then because it feels that they are incompatible with the constitution, which is supposed to be the ultimate check on the power of the government. They are one of the best lines of defense you have against an overbearing, tyrannical government.

OK, I will respond to your 2nd point first.

... SCOTUS can't make laws, ...

But that is EXACTLY what they are (Unconstitutionally) doing. Instead of only declaring a law unconstitutional and sending it back to the legislative body that passed it for rework to address SCOTUS' concerns over it, SCOTUS is more and more frequently after declaring a law Unconstitutional, they are saying how things are going to be, effectively 'legislating from the bench', directly bringing about the situation which you raise in your first point:

something that we generally only see in authoritarian states, namely a situation where the judiciary and legislative/executive branches of government are not separated from each other.

The situation where the SCOTUS could declare laws Unconstitutional would be just fine *IF* there were limits placed on it that would restrain them to, as you say in your 2nd point:

SCOTUS can't make laws, at best break them, and only then because it feels that they are incompatible with the constitution

But, since the SCOTUS has declared themselves as the sole, ultimate authority on the meaning and contents of the US Constitution, and that the SCOTUS is increasingly highly agenda-driven, discovering 'new rights' they claim are in the US Constitution, but in reality the Constitution is silent on the subject and effectively the SCOTUS is pulling these 'new rights' out of their own backsides, what we effectively have now in the USA is quite truely a (wait for it...)

tyranny by an oligarchy.


Sorry, but I do disagree with you.

And I find it very... interesting... that the SAME People that decry the Supreme Court having the power to decide these issues when they do NOT agree with the decision seem to have a joygasm of glee when they DO approve of the decision.

Hypocrites.

+1

It leads to the despotism of an oligarchy.

Like cabinet officers deciding what the law says and funding or not based on their interpretation. Or say 535 people out of 318+million.

Some oligarchy is a necessity. Some individual or group must make decisions. We can't have direct democracy for every decision. Can you imagine it for something simple like a building permit? All we ever would do is vote. That is why we have a representative form of government. You just don't like the way the 9 representatives are picked or their length of service.

As to the rest of your statements, I agree.

As to what I have put in bold, you have that correct... in spades... That is the entire issue. I do NOT like that the SCOTUS declared itself to have the right to declare legislation unconstitutional on the basis of taking an oath to support the Constitution.

Do you know how many people have taken essentially the SAME oath?

Every member of both the Federal and the States' Judicial branches.
Every member of both the Federal and the States' Legislative branches.
Every member of both the Federal and the States' Executive branches.
Every member of the US Military.
And I think that every (or at least MOST of them) police officer has done so as well.

There are doubtless others, but already we are into the MILLIONS of People currently under the Oath.

This *WEAK* justification Marshall used is, in my opinion, one of the greatest stains on his tenure as Chief Justice.

Add to the list "every naturalized citizen".

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Add to the list "every naturalized citizen".

Sorry, that one slipped my mind. Thank you.

But that is EXACTLY what they are (Unconstitutionally) doing. Instead of only declaring a law unconstitutional and sending it back to the legislative body that passed it for rework to address SCOTUS' concerns over it, SCOTUS is more and more frequently after declaring a law Unconstitutional, they are saying how things are going to be, effectively 'legislating from the bench', directly bringing about the situation which you raise in your first point:

Thats not how it works. What the court does is not passing laws, what the court does is applying existing laws and case law, and from there comes to the logical conclusion that gay marriage should be possible under the protection granted by the 14th amendment.

The situation where the SCOTUS could declare laws Unconstitutional would be just fine *IF* there were limits placed on it that would restrain them to, as you say in your 2nd point:

What you want are limits on the consequences that these kind of things have. Sadly, thats not how law works. It is utterly impossible to limit the consequence of law. It just can't be done, because law is logic. Not logical, but logic. That means that all laws are build upon one another, they form logical chains. Change a part of that chain, and it will have consequences. And when it comes to deciding whether something is constitutional or not, well then you just know that the consequences are going to be big, because the constitution is the basis on which all law is build.

But, since the SCOTUS has declared themselves as the sole, ultimate authority on the meaning and contents of the US Constitution, and that the SCOTUS is increasingly highly agenda-driven, discovering 'new rights' they claim are in the US Constitution, but in reality the Constitution is silent on the subject and effectively the SCOTUS is pulling these 'new rights' out of their own backsides, what we effectively have now in the USA is quite truely a (wait for it...)

tyranny by an oligarchy.


Sorry, but I do disagree with you.

No, the SCOTUS did not declare themselves to be the ultimate authority on the constitution, the constitution did that for them. Are they highly agenda driven? No, because they don't have an agenda, at least not one that they can influence. They can only rule on cases brought before them, and they don't have any control over that. Those rights they discover are simply logical consequences of what happens when you put several interlocking laws together. Laws made by the legislative branch of the government. And the legislature can, if it so desires, change everything around and ensure that new laws are created that void the whatever the SCOTUS decided.

That said, I will repeat my earlier statements on the subject of this thread. I think it is the right thing to do to allow homosexual 'marriage'. I think it is the right thing to do to remove religious aspects from the 'civil marriage'. But I do NOT support the way this decision was done.
The Supreme Court of the United States has become WAY too powerful, with virtually NO checks and balances on it anymore.

MajorKong...
We do agree regarding this issue.
After 200+ years. Has SCOTUS become too powerful, in a Lawful and Representative Government?
Yes it has. But... Now what?
The USA appears to be following, as History Instructs, a Normal Progression to Unlawful Tyranny.
If one follows the 'progression' of the Roman Republic/Empire (which is strikingly similar to The American Republic/Empire in its thinking and culture): A similar 'time frame' emerges, regarding a descent into a Powerful Oligarchy, With only the 'Trappings' of Law and Governance remaining.

Texas says no to SCOTUS.
Attorney General Ken Paxton: Public officials may deny same-sex marriage licenses.
http://kxan.com/2015/06/28/attorney-general-ken-paxton-public-officials-may-deny-same-sex-marriage-licenses/

Roman Republic/Empire laws are strikingly similar to many Western countries as well:)

Texas says no to SCOTUS.
Attorney General Ken Paxton: Public officials may deny same-sex marriage licenses.
http://kxan.com/2015/06/28/attorney-general-ken-paxton-public-officials-may-deny-same-sex-marriage-licenses/

Obviously, this Attorney General, doesn't understand the Free Exercise of..., applies to Individuals, and their Small Businesses. Not The Government, nor its Agents.

Obviously Ken Paxton haven't read this.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence.[1] The phrase gives three examples of the "inalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/rough.htm

Texas says no to SCOTUS.
Attorney General Ken Paxton: Public officials may deny same-sex marriage licenses.
http://kxan.com/2015/06/28/attorney-general-ken-paxton-public-officials-may-deny-same-sex-marriage-licenses/

Obviously, this Attorney General, doesn't understand the Free Exercise of..., applies to Individuals, and their Small Businesses. Not The Government, nor its Agents.

Obviously Ken Paxton haven't read this.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence.[1] The phrase gives three examples of the "inalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/rough.htm

The United States Declaration of Independence is not the Foundation Law Document.
The Constitution is.
The Declaration of... is the Foundation of The Constitution.
One step removed.

But what have religous beliefs with the constitution to do?
Are not the US a secular country?

Attorney General Ken Paxton released a statement Sunday on the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling stating that county clerks, justices of the peace, judges and their employees may object to issuing same-sex marriage licences due to their religious beliefs.

But what have religous beliefs with the constitution to do?
Are not the US a secular country?

Accommodates both Secular and Religious Beliefs.

Actually Sweden didn't separate the Church from the state until the 90's.
Marriages could however be engaged either in Church or in the townhall.
So we could choose what we like.
Same sex marriage.

In Sweden it is possible to enter into such marriages bourgeois since the Riksdag gender-neutral marriage law took effect on 1 May 2009. [8] [9] For religious gendered marriage requires a decision in each church or denomination. Within the Swedish Church is, after the General Synod's decision, from 1 November 2009 possible to get ecclesiastical same-sex marriage. The decision also means that no single priest is obliged to officiate at same-sex marriage.

Attorney General Ken Paxton released a statement Sunday on the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling stating that county clerks, justices of the peace, judges and their employees may object to issuing same-sex marriage licences due to their religious beliefs.

He also put a fine print line in that statement saying if you do they may prosecute/fine/jail your behind, but we have pro-bono lawyers. In other words he blew steam. Oh and a public official doing that on the taxpayers dime should lose his job and pension. Not for the opinion, but for putting out a personal statement using the taxpayers dime.

---

... SCOTUS can't make laws, ...

But that is EXACTLY what they are (Unconstitutionally) doing. Instead of only declaring a law unconstitutional and sending it back to the legislative body that passed it for rework to address SCOTUS' concerns over it, SCOTUS is more and more frequently after declaring a law Unconstitutional, they are saying how things are going to be, effectively 'legislating from the bench', directly bringing about the situation which you raise in your first point:

Unfortunately damn near every law passed in recent years has a severability clause. That results in the declaration of being unconstitutional leaving the rest of the mess in place, frequently without any damn way to make it work, or leaving things in a worse mess that before. Unfortunately someone has to decide what to do and with our do nothing legislature decades of damage can be done before they act. I suppose POTUS could legislate via his cabinet what to do, however there is no reason to suspect in many cases that he would decide on something constitutional.

Sometimes we get lucky and some low level federal judge put a stay on the law before it took effect. Those cases are much easier to handle as nothing has started so bureaucrats can wait for congress. Then SCOTUS can simply make a suggestion as how to word it and congress usually quickly passes a revision.

Yes the system is imperfect, but mostly because there are too damn many cases and too damn many laws and it is breaking under the weight. Might help if congress filled all the open judge positions.

---

A private members bill will be put before the Australian parliment on aprrox August 12th the next sitting of government . It is being proposed buy the Labor and Greens and Independents .

Unlike other country's we don't need a Referendum to allow same sex marrage to be legal , only a passage of Law .

The second in command under P.M Tony Abbot , Warren Truss said on the @ABCNEWS24 interview said we all here about America's Courts giving gay rights to gays but we have not herd off the Italy Courts disallowing it in Italy .

There has been some news witch will air these next few days about the Italian Mafia and links to the Australian Liberal Party (Tony Abbots) whom is a catholic .
Ireland is a strong catholic country . I think Truss forgot that ! , however they to have allow'd same sex marriage .

So will Australia allow it or will the Pope be allow'd to stop it !!!!!!!

Stay tune'd to see a bigot and Facist in action the P.M of Australia..........

---

ALL, including Roman Catholic's, in a Free Country, have the 'Right' to be heard, and attempt to influence events.

Correct?

Incorrect. Falun Gong have no right to be heard. ISIL has no right to be heard. Roman Catholic's in Church of England times. Christians in Rome. Jews in Saudia Arabia. Why there is no such thing as a free country. Because for so long in our history, country meant religion.

Even in the USA, there are far to many who scream it is a Christian country; only tolerating a smattering of other religions, then only if they don't get uppity!

---

After all, I (along with Clyde) believe it's naive to think we are not going to fail as a nation. Look at history! All nations eventually fail.

Oh, that's what Clyde's been saying?
Thanks for sharing ... what I figured out by age 18.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSTct2FFamw

Welcome back the guy with no name and a deleted posting history.

I suspect that there was a major breach of the Seti Forum database when
User ID: 7787259 decided to become a referee in this playground and
edited all of his posts up to june 3, 2014. The posts weren't hidden, but
rather changed. That's not nice.

Noticed that about a year ago. Totally agree. INCRRDIBLY SCUMMY.

In a Free and Democratic Country:

"and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

ALL, including Roman Catholic's, in a Free Country, have the 'Right' to be heard, and attempt to influence events.

Well Clyde that is why Labor has put the bill up to be passed by parliament , however P.M Tony Abbot will and is trying to block it from getting into the parliament to be debate'd .

So we don't have a right to be herd if it never get's to parliament to be debate'd .

I was also inferring Clyde that the Liberal Party are being infuenced by the Italian Mafia . ie . Abbot is truly a fascist and a crook .

---