Home » Posts tagged "issues"

Q&A: What do you think are the MAIN issues that qualify as National Security concerns?

Question by Serenity08: What do you think are the MAIN issues that qualify as National Security concerns?
Someone has said (as an answer to a prev question) that only terrorist threat is a National Security concern.

How about dependence on foreign oil? How about China and India’s fast growing demand for oil, putting pressure on supply…and leading to rapid price increases? Isn’t that a National Security concern?

How about our debt to China?

How about border security?

How about the outsorucing of certain jobs that deal with our safety and security?

Please add to the list…

How much attention should we give to these issues and others?

Best answer:

Answer by Gig Al Bore
An outstanding list, add the Iranian situation and you have a very full baske indeed.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

How can Obama become better on national security issues?

Question by : How can Obama become better on national security issues?
“Just 23% of Mainstream voters give Obama good or excellent ratings on his handling of national security issues.” (R.Poll,4/3/11)

Best answer:

Answer by Jack Schitt
Quit

Give your answer to this question below!

California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement as Proposition 8 Passes in the State

California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement as Proposition 8 Passes in the State











Los Angeles (PRWEB) November 5, 2008

As reported today by the Wall Street Journal California voters passed Proposition 8. According to California Family Law Attorney Veronika Melamed of the law offices of Feinberg & Waller, A.P.C., the measure amends the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California. Now that the voters of California have passed Proposition 8, and amended the State’s Constitution, what does this mean for the state and for the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages that have been solemnized since June 17, 2008? And, what can proponents of same-sex marriage do now?

The voters of California have chosen to amend the state’s Constitution to explicitly provide that, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Coming in reaction to the state’s Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex marriage in California, opponents of same-sex marriage sought assurance that no future court decisions would again grant same-sex marriage rights in California.

The California Supreme Court is delegated with the task of upholding the state’s Constitution and assessing whether the laws enacted by the Legislature and the voters comply with the Constitution. In carrying out this task, the Supreme Court’s decision in May 2008, granting same-sex couples the right to marry, was based on its interpretation of the California Constitution and whether Family Code Sections 300 and 308.5, defining marriage as, “between a man and a woman” comported with the Equal Protection Clause of the state’s Constitution.

In the course of its analysis, the California Supreme Court ruled that Family Code Sections 300 and 308.5 were in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, and that same-sex couples could marry in California. The Supreme Court’s decision was based solely on constitutional analysis, and centered on the fact that the prohibition against same-sex marriage was a law, and that it violated the Constitution. This, then, became the foundation for Proposition 8: unlike the state’s previous attempts to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman through the enactment of legislative provisions, such as with 2000’s Proposition 22 which added Family Code Section 308.5, this year opponents of same-sex marriage placed an initiative on the ballot to actually amend the California Constitution.

The difference is significant: while the Supreme Court may strike down laws for being in violation of the State’s Constitution in performing its job of enforcing the Constitution, the Supreme Court lacks the power to overrule a constitutional provision. By making Proposition 8 an amendment to the Constitution, the law ensures that the Supreme Court must enforce the provision, and must now ensure that other laws comply with this Constitutional provision.

And now the questions begin: with a Constitution that may now prohibit marriage between same-sex couples, through its definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, what will happen to those same-sex marriages that were solemnized when marriage between same-sex couples was “legal?” And, if the public wants another change, what can be done to “undo” Proposition 8? The question of what happens to current same-sex marriages has no easy answer, nor is the passage of Proposition 8 the last California may hear on the topic of same-sex marriage.

One of the main issues that must be resolved in answering the question of what will happen to current same-sex marriages is whether the new constitutional amendment is retroactive in its application; that is, does it now invalidate the same-sex marriages that occurred following the Supreme Court’s ruling in May 2008? As reported in the Los Angeles Times, some constitutional scholars believe that the new amendment will only affect prospective same-sex marriage, leaving intact those same-sex couples that married before Proposition 8 passed. The experts base their opinions on judicial history where courts have traditionally made constitutional amendments retroactive only if they were explicitly written that way, resisting an abrogation of people’s rights and freedoms unless directly mandated to do so. In support of the argument that Proposition 8 is not intended to apply retroactively, scholars point out to the Los angeles times that nothing in the proposed language states that the constitutional amendment will be retroactive in its application. Furthering the argument against retroactive application is California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s statement issued through his office on August 4, 2008, that Proposition 8 will be prospective in its application, leaving intact the same-sex marriages entered into prior to its passage.

Others say that the retroactive application of Proposition 8 will depend on whether the Proposition was intended by the voters to be retroactive, and point to the language contained in the California Voter Guide which states that, “A ‘YES’ vote on this measure means: The California Constitution will specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Those who believe that Proposition 8 will be retroactive in nature argue that the language in the California Voter Guide expressly states, and informs the voting public, that passage of the proposed amendment will affect the validity and recognition of same-sex marriage, and will apply regardless of when or where the marriages were performed. The implication in this interpretation of the Proposition goes beyond California’s borders: in addition to invalidating same-sex marriages performed in California, the State and its agencies and offices will be prohibited from recognizing or validating same-sex marriages performed in any other state or country, even if legal and recognized where performed.

Ironically, as both positions have legal validity, it will be up to the California Supreme Court – the same court whose ruling allowed same-sex marriage – to interpret whether Proposition 8 was intended to be retroactive or prospective. And until such time as this question is decided, same-sex married couples will be in a “legal limbo” waiting for third parties to determine their fate. If it is eventually determined that Proposition 8 was, in fact, retroactive, then same-sex couples will find their marriages to be of no legal effect in California, and they will be denied the rights and expectations they had enjoyed until Proposition 8 was passed. If, however, Proposition 8 is found to be prospective in its application, then there will be a group of same-sex couples who will continue to be married, most likely forfeiting that appellation only in the event that they should ever divorce.

What options are available to those who still oppose Proposition 8 , and what can be done about the constitutional language in the future? If the language proposed by Proposition 8 is part of the California Constitution, one of the alternatives for proponents of same-sex marriage is to change the Constitution. Proponents will need to draft language proposing a repeal of any newly-enacted amendment or an altogether new amendment to be included in the Constitution. They will then need to raise the requisite 694,354 signatures to have the amendment certified for the next electoral ballot. California will then go through the same battles and arguments as it did during this election, with the voters again determining whether the Constitution will be amended on the issue of same-sex marriage.

The other alternative is further legal battles. Opponents of Proposition 8 may argue to the courts that passage of the amendment is violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits any group from being treated differently than any other. Opponents may also argue that passage of Proposition 8 is violative of the U.S. Constitution’s Contracts Clause prohibiting states from enacting laws that impair contracts, and that marriage is, after all, nothing more than a contract. Both of these arguments will likely be undertaken in the federal courts, and may eventually end up being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, if it chooses to hear these arguments.

For the full history of same-sex marriage in California go to the article Same sex Marriage in California at http://www.Feinbergwaller.com/CM/Custom/family-law-Publication.asp

###





















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







Related The Constitution Press Releases

California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement on Supreme Court Proposition 8 Ruling

California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement on Supreme Court Proposition 8 Ruling











Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) June 2, 2009

California Family Law attorney Mary Ellen Waller says the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court on the validity of Proposition 8 is a dangerous ruling for all minorities. The following is a statement by Waller analyzing the decision:

The Court has handed the mob a loaded weapon that can too easily be used to pursue inappropriate discriminatory goals and agendas. The ruling undermines the judiciary’s authority to protect minority rights and it substantially alters the California Constitution as a document of independent force and effect.

In its ruling, the Court has altered the procedural process regarding Constitutional initiatives having to do with civil rights. They have done so by removing the procedural requirement that initiatives affecting only individual liberties go through the more rigorous, deliberative process known as Constitutional revision (as opposed to Constitutional amendment). The implications of this ruling have a far-reaching and chilling effect on state constitutional rights as this ruling has eased constraints on the ability of the majority interests in our State to discriminate. Indeed, it has been a hallmark of our State Constitution, our Federal Constitution, and the very fabric upon which our political and social systems in this nation were formed that we operate on a system of majority rule with protection for minority rights. Great and honorable steps against “tyranny of the majority” have been undertaken throughout our history, and sweeping policy attitudinal changes and reforms have been imposed to protect the rights of the minority in society.

This is why, for example, it is against the law to refuse to hire an individual because of their race or ethnic origin; why it is illegal to deny equal access to government based on a suspect classification (such as race, gender, religion, etc). These issues are very often hotly contested and debated, yet to our credit as a people very often we have been able to rise above our own individual prejudices and dislikes. We have enacted laws that are designed to protect the members of a minority group, members of, in Constitutional parlance, a “suspect class.” Race is generally considered to be the most easily recognizable example of a suspect classification, and there are indeed many others as well.

This assessment of the high Court’s “invitation to discriminate” falls far short of mere speculation or conjecture; a discriminatory pattern of behavior by the majority towards minorities is a well-documented reality throughout history. Let us recall that Nazi Germany started with German citizens being stripped of their rights for no reason other than their religion, Japanese-Americans of this country went from curfew to internment, women were not allowed to vote, and blacks were “separate”, “but equal,” a concept that is all too blatantly adopted by the Proposition 8 ruling. The Proposition 8 ruling opens the door for a majority of California voters to adopt future measures designed to gradually reduce or eliminate fundamental rights of vulnerable minorities. Click here to read more http://www.TheCaliforniaFamilyLawBlog.com

Mary Ellen Waller is a family law attorney licensed in California and New York. She is a shareholder of Feinberg & Waller, APC, a firm practicing exclusively in the area of family law with offices in Calabasas and Beverly Hills, California. The Daily Journal, the State of California’s legal newspaper, recently published an article by Waller entitled, “Whatever the Prop.8 Outcome, Some Families Will Be Stuck in Legal Limbo”. An in-depth analysis and report on the Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 can be found at http://www.TheCaliforniaFamilylawBlog.com

###





















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







More The Constitution Press Releases

ConstitutionFacts.com Issues Challenge to Americans to Test Their Constitution IQ With an Interactive Quiz

Chicago, IL (PRWEB) August 8, 2006 –

Quick… what is the maximum number of years a United States president can serve? What part of the constitution is the Bill of Rights?

Right now, ConstitutionFacts.com is challenging Americans to test their Constitution IQ at http://www.constitutionfacts.com. Between now and Constitution Day on September 17th ConstituionFacts.com is asking people to take the ten question Fascinating Facts Quiz, then pass the quiz on to ten friends, asking them to pass it on to ten friends in turn. The goal is to raise constitutional awareness using a fun and interactive tool.

“The Constitution serves as the fabric of our society, and today, more than ever, is the right time for all Americans to examine and understand it,” says Keir Walton, founder of ConstitutionFacts.com. “With Constitution Day quickly approaching we want to make sure that everyone in America knows ten basic things about their constitution.”

With civics class a distant memory for most and the constitution reduced to a mere political football, many Americans have tuned the document out. And that’s too bad, because without a thorough working knowledge of the document it’s impossible to participate in the democracy as a fully informed American citizen.

“By leveraging the power of email people can challenge friends and family with the Fascinating Facts Quiz to test their knowledge and see how they scored against others.” The quiz has all the right elements – it’s fast, fun, educational, easy to use and best of all helps you learn more about the greatest legal document ever created,” Walton said.

About Constitution Facts:

At Constitution Facts we make it fun and easy to learn about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Constitution Facts began with a simple idea — to publish an informative pocket size guide to the U.S. Constitution. Soon people across the country, from U.S. Supreme Court Justices to students and teachers, caught the craze for The U.S. Constitution & Fascinating Facts About It. Today, more than one million copies have been sold in both English and Spanish language editions—and millions more are educated each year by visiting ConstitutionFacts.com – a companion website to the book and central resource for educators and students worldwide.

For more information visit http://www.constitutionfacts.com.

Contact:

Keir Walton

630.922.1627

###



Q&A: What are the similarities of the church & state issues vs. science & religion?

Question by RBLee: What are the similarities of the church & state issues vs. science & religion?
Brainiacs untie! 😀 Think hard. Avoid speculation or defense.

In the exacting, evidence requiring nature of science has there ever been any evidence to disprove evolution and the convictions of the state from their own perspective?

By the same token, by the faith, scriptural & biblical acheological based perspectives of the church & religion (religion,not in the label definition, but in the broad term of the denominational umbrella) has there ever been more contradictiion by their own evidence than fact?

Try to answer that without an emotional response!

Best answer:

Answer by Mesperanto
Try to answer that? I had a problem trying to understand it. Could you rewrite it in atheist please.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Are issues on the environment freedom equality or freedom order?

I am doing a research paper on Liberals vs. conservatives views on the environment issues. and also any ideas on how liberals compare to conservatives about the environment. Thanks