3 ms·

The statute you refer to was overturned five years ago.

thrownaway2424 13y ago
Sure, by a federal court. The state, under the same governor who is still in office today, went to court and argued that Texas had a compelling interest in preventing people from having sex for reasons other than procreation.
- cobrausn 13y ago
  Yeah, it's an example of government as envisioned by the founders working as intended - when someone at the state level overreaches, a federal court strikes it down (I'm hoping the same thing happens to this absurd law regarding dealer sales). This happens in more places than just Texas. Doesn't change the fact that your first statement is not factual anymore. Given time I think we (Texans) can eventually stop / vote out all these morons who think legislating morality is their job - we've been headed that way last few elections anyway.
  - socialist_coder 13y ago
    Well, your current governor is Rick Perry so your recent track record on electing non-morons is pretty bad. Austin != Texas.
    - krapp 13y ago
      That's Governor Goodhair to you.
    - cobrausn 13y ago
      I don't live in Austin, and Austin isn't as special as it thinks it is. I will repeat myself - I live in the fourth largest city in the United States, which happens to be in Texas, is not Austin, and has a homosexual mayor, who is (all things considered) a fairly conservative Democrat. Some people are just pragmatic.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    Glad to hear it. Just consider this poor bastard, who was recently sentenced by said morons to 50 years for the entirely non-violent act of shoplifting a package of ribs. www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/willie-smith-ward-rib-theft_n_3365554.html That's "justice", Texas style. Better than the Taliban's, I suppose. But not by much.
    - cobrausn 13y ago
      It seems he was sentenced not for stealing ribs, but because the threatened the store owner that confronted him, which is, in fact, a violent act. It also appears he was somewhat of a habitual offender, having been convincted of various violent and non-violent crimes many times previously. The sentence is somewhat harsh (eligible for parole in 12.5), but your comparison to the Taliban is absurd. EDIT: somewhat harsh in relative comparison to normal American sentencing standards, since the goal is apparently to single out Texas as some horrible place where sentencing is too harsh. I will now point out draconian three-strikes laws in other more progressive states that would have had him in jail for life. Make no mistake, I think American criminal courts and sentencing are too harsh in general and our prisons are horrible travesties of justice. But the singling out of this state is what I'm calling absurd - all of American criminal sentencing is broken.
      - jbooth 13y ago
        SOMEWHAT????????????
      - bobwaycott 13y ago
        The clarification here on the details is certainly nice to have. However, are you seriously suggesting that 50 years imprisonment is only somewhat harsh?! Taking 12.5 years at the minimum before being eligible for parole for stealing $35 ribs and "threatening" someone? By the way, saying "I've got a knife" and calling that a threat is both a stretch of what it means to threaten and what it means to call something a "violent act". $35 food theft != 50 years imprisonment. That is fucking insane, not somewhat harsh.
        13y ago
  - Androsynth 13y ago
    > Yeah, it's an example of government as envisioned by the founders working as intended - when someone at the state level overreaches, a federal court strikes it down Jeffersonian democrats certainly were against that idea, as evidenced by nullification, which was in issue up until the civil war. Maybe the federalists, but it sounds extreme even for them. It sounds like something that the northern politicians had in mind in the late 19th century or maybe early 20th century. i know its OT, but could you expand on that idea?
    - encoderer 13y ago
      Washington and Hamilton -- the Federalists you mentioned -- desperately wanted a strong federal gov't with supremacy over state laws. Washington wanted the powers of the federal gov't enumerated in the constitution (and many of them), and his desire was for a unicameral legislature with direct popular representation. That our constitution ended up vague on these issues-- and the existence of the Senate with its state-appointed representitives-- is owed to negotiation and comprimise. Of course, Washington presided over the congress on these issues, he was not himself a delegate, so you don't have a lot of direct quotes on these topics but what we know has been pieced together over the years from his (limited) correspondence and 2nd party accounts.

Sure, by a federal court. The state, under the same governor who is still in office today, went to court and argued that Texas had a compelling interest in preventing people from having sex for reasons other than procreation.

cobrausn 13y ago
Yeah, it's an example of government as envisioned by the founders working as intended - when someone at the state level overreaches, a federal court strikes it down (I'm hoping the same thing happens to this absurd law regarding dealer sales). This happens in more places than just Texas. Doesn't change the fact that your first statement is not factual anymore. Given time I think we (Texans) can eventually stop / vote out all these morons who think legislating morality is their job - we've been headed that way last few elections anyway.
- socialist_coder 13y ago
  Well, your current governor is Rick Perry so your recent track record on electing non-morons is pretty bad. Austin != Texas.
  - krapp 13y ago
    That's Governor Goodhair to you.
  - cobrausn 13y ago
    I don't live in Austin, and Austin isn't as special as it thinks it is. I will repeat myself - I live in the fourth largest city in the United States, which happens to be in Texas, is not Austin, and has a homosexual mayor, who is (all things considered) a fairly conservative Democrat. Some people are just pragmatic.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Glad to hear it. Just consider this poor bastard, who was recently sentenced by said morons to 50 years for the entirely non-violent act of shoplifting a package of ribs. www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/willie-smith-ward-rib-theft_n_3365554.html That's "justice", Texas style. Better than the Taliban's, I suppose. But not by much.
  - cobrausn 13y ago
    It seems he was sentenced not for stealing ribs, but because the threatened the store owner that confronted him, which is, in fact, a violent act. It also appears he was somewhat of a habitual offender, having been convincted of various violent and non-violent crimes many times previously. The sentence is somewhat harsh (eligible for parole in 12.5), but your comparison to the Taliban is absurd. EDIT: somewhat harsh in relative comparison to normal American sentencing standards, since the goal is apparently to single out Texas as some horrible place where sentencing is too harsh. I will now point out draconian three-strikes laws in other more progressive states that would have had him in jail for life. Make no mistake, I think American criminal courts and sentencing are too harsh in general and our prisons are horrible travesties of justice. But the singling out of this state is what I'm calling absurd - all of American criminal sentencing is broken.
    - jbooth 13y ago
      SOMEWHAT????????????
    - bobwaycott 13y ago
      The clarification here on the details is certainly nice to have. However, are you seriously suggesting that 50 years imprisonment is only somewhat harsh?! Taking 12.5 years at the minimum before being eligible for parole for stealing $35 ribs and "threatening" someone? By the way, saying "I've got a knife" and calling that a threat is both a stretch of what it means to threaten and what it means to call something a "violent act". $35 food theft != 50 years imprisonment. That is fucking insane, not somewhat harsh.
      - 13y ago
- Androsynth 13y ago
  > Yeah, it's an example of government as envisioned by the founders working as intended - when someone at the state level overreaches, a federal court strikes it down Jeffersonian democrats certainly were against that idea, as evidenced by nullification, which was in issue up until the civil war. Maybe the federalists, but it sounds extreme even for them. It sounds like something that the northern politicians had in mind in the late 19th century or maybe early 20th century. i know its OT, but could you expand on that idea?
  - encoderer 13y ago
    Washington and Hamilton -- the Federalists you mentioned -- desperately wanted a strong federal gov't with supremacy over state laws. Washington wanted the powers of the federal gov't enumerated in the constitution (and many of them), and his desire was for a unicameral legislature with direct popular representation. That our constitution ended up vague on these issues-- and the existence of the Senate with its state-appointed representitives-- is owed to negotiation and comprimise. Of course, Washington presided over the congress on these issues, he was not himself a delegate, so you don't have a lot of direct quotes on these topics but what we know has been pieced together over the years from his (limited) correspondence and 2nd party accounts.