So, you refute the General's position. He's wrong, and you're right. His real-world experience must be nothing compared to your vast military experience. I see...
I don't refute it; the studies I posted refute it, and your own article cites a source that also refutes him. I would tend to believe multiple sources, two of which are generated reports by multiple researchers, than the opinion of one General.
Um... That was the counter-position submitted by American Psychological Association. I'm sure that their military expertise is top-notch! Nice spin by the way... I'll leave the final word with the General.
You're taking the word of one
American General on the reasons for the failure of the
Dutch army to prevent the
Russians and
Germans from attacking Muslims in
Bosnia. This was a military conflict in which America was not involved (as far as actual combat goes) until after the 1995 massacre, yet you think that his military knowledge somehow informs him of why the Dutch failed in this particular conflict?
Let's not forget that his military experience is from a country's military that does not allow homosexuals to openly serve. When you combine this with the fact that the Dutch suffered no negative consequences subsequent to lifting the gay ban the first time, this General's opinion fails to be very authoritative. It doesn't take an experienced military genius to see that. The fact that multiple other sources also refute his opinion doesn't help.
I'm also confused by the fact that you initially would not accept my sources and would not cite sources of your own because if you blindly relied upon the research and conclusions/opinions of others, then you'd "believe in global warming, extra-terrestrials, second-hand smoke, poverty causes crime, Santa Claus and the Tooff Fairy." Yet you've mysteriously developed the urge to cite to the opinion of this American General and defend it adamantly despite your previous statements.
Unbelievable... Let's try this. You're contending that the Constitution's reference to a "right to vote" implies that the right exists without having to explicitly state that it is as a right.
The Constitution expressly refers to the "right to vote." It either expressly refers to something that exists, or it expressly refers to something that doesn't exist. Either way, there is no implicit reference; it's very explicit.
Do you believe that any right can be implied? Is an "implied right" as protected as an explicit right? I don't buy it, and a lot of other folks don't either.
Read
Roe v. Wade. You won't find the "right to privacy" expressly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, yet the Supreme Court determined that it was an implied right. Read
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. You won't find the "right to die" expressly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, yet the Supreme Court determined that it was an implied right.
The Court's stance on implied rights not mentioned in the Constitution is supported by the text of the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Therefore, the Constitution acknowledges that there are rights which are not expressly enumerated in the Constitution, and it indicates that even those implied rights should be protected.
In case you also don't completely buy this response either, then you might want to look to the founding father who proposed the inclusion of the Ninth Amendment:
James MadisonIt has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
But of course, all of this discussion about implied rights is irrelevant, as the Constitution expressly makes mention of the "right to vote." Something isn't implicit if it's expressly named. Nonetheless, even if you attempt to reject the argument that the right to vote is expressly within the Constitution, the above information shows that implied rights do exist. Considering that the Court has acknowledged a right to vote, it would at the very least be an implied right, just as the right to privacy and the right to die are implied rights due to the Court's rulings.
And, I don't completely buy into your response to the court case. The states can define the qualifications for voting. Those qualifications can't violate the Amendments that you have referenced, but the states can further qualify or deny voting as they see fit. Again, there really isn't a Constitutional right to vote, just protections from certain qualifications or discrimination.
The states can not deny voting rights to a group of people for any reason they want; it must be a legitimate one. Read
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections. The Court explains that the denial of the right to vote must meet constitutional standards, and it must not be either racially discriminatory or indefensible as
rational policy. It's worth noting that in this particular case, the Court determined that Virginia could not single out the poor and remove their right to vote.
You'll also be interested in reading the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It requires some states to seek federal approval before altering their voting rules. Broadly declaring that a state can deny voting rights as they see fit is ignoring the federal oversight involved via the judicial branch's ability to determine constitutionality and the federal approval required by legislation.
You're nuckin' futs! You've just contradicted yourself again!!! You claim to have not said anything about transgenders, cross-dressers and pedophiles, then you follow up with your statement above.
I'm not trying to be an ass here, but please work on your reading comprehension. Not once did I state that I never said "anything" about any of those individuals. See the following:
But hey, way to fabricate a strawman argument about me supporting pedophiles and cross dressers. You have a knack for utilizing tactics that you incorrectly call me out on.
You were under the impression that in some point in time I had made an argument (or otherwise would make an argument) for supporting pedophiles in their attempts to be employed as teachers. Yes, I did mention pedophiles, but no, I never once made any sort of statement that I supported them in
anything. Nor did I ever deny not mentioning pedophiles at all; I simply denied making an argument in support of them for anything.
. . . who defines the "legitamte reason(s)" for the denial of anything? I know that you're willing to apply this to all subgroups, and I also know that there are legitimate reasons for denying certain things to certain subgroups.
You're asking a question that can be answered by looking at the basic structure of our government. The legislative branch develops the laws. Ultimately, however, the judicial branch is who decides if the law serves a legitimate purpose (or as the Court put it, it must be rational policy) or if it is a Constitutional violation.
Now, you're just plain wacko... Really going off the deep-end here.
Yes, I'm so crazy that I forgot that you can magically determine if someone is a pedophile before they actually commit a crime against a child. School boards should look into hiring you so that they don't have to rely on criminal background checks to classify individuals as drug dealers, rapists, pedophiles, etc. before they even commit a crime.
