|
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Admittedly, Opus, I am not up to speed on this subject matter. What kind of pork is attached to this bill? |
Well admittedly, I haven't read the bill in full. From what I have read, however, it was a bill that first gives a full apology to those and their families who suffered lynching in the past. It then passes an anti-lynching law, which though I don't know the details, I think it's pretty straightforward (uh, don't do it?). As for the pork going with it - can't see any here at initial glance.
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Actually now that I'm actually thinking about it - why is this a FEDERAL government issue - criminal law is the realm of the states (i.e. chosing death penalty and sentances).... I'd think it might set a dangerous precendent otherwise.
So in this case Frist is smart as he can be because he is obviously trying to stop this from going to vote. Its basically a lose-lose situation (if they vote for it we lose, if they vote against it, they lose our vote).
Its a loaded-question/vote.
No one wants to go on record being "for" lyncing - but passing such a bill would be sloppy and most likely unconstitutional. |
Hmm, interesting angle. However I'm not exactly sure that follows for the following reasons. First, not all criminal law falls onto the States now does it? Surely there's a number of criminal laws that are Federal (IOW, you break them, you go to federal court for prosecution). So I don't think that applies necessarily, and would most certainly not be unconstitutional.
Second, I have yet to hear one Republican Senator who failed to sign this bill state this as a reason. Rather, they have dodged saying anything about it whatsoever - which is damn suspicious in of itself. Take Senator Alexander from Tennessee, for example:
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs...EWS02/506160421
Now I think some of these Senators have openly stated that they "support" the bill, but yet they still refuse to sign it.
And finally, in regards to Frist - you're attempting to justify his actions, which is fine. However, his words contradict his actions. Rather than stating a rationale that you depicted (which I think is a bit shaky regardless), he turns around and tries to blame 2 Senators from either side of the aisle in vetoing the bill - a statement which is patently false. IOW, he's lying through his teeth. Not good.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
