I’m especially looking forward to Glenn Greenwald’s responses & commentary …

The Bellinger conversation continues through the rest of the week. The discussion has so far represented one of the more thoughtful and open discussions between the administration and its academic critics (and supporters) on the range of international law issues arising from the GWOT. I encourage any students who are interested to take a look. We will also post an archive of the discussion for future reference on the blog.

Best,
Peggy McGuinness

I agree with you that neither the Founders nor the Constitution contemplate(d/s) a large professional military the likes of which we have today.

A quick overview of American history shows a lack of a large “standing army” during peacetime up until the late 1940’s. Even after the Civil War and WWI, the US military reverted to a small sizes. After WWII, the containment policy of the Cold War meant the keeping of large, combat-ready “peace-time armies” (there was even a peace-time draft in the 50’s after the Korean War … that’s how Elvis was drafted).

So, after the Cold War ended, why did the United States continue to have such a large (albeit professional, non-conscripted) military? I think Ike had the prescient answer.

Voter fraud is a very real problem in the United States, but it’s in the form of registration fraud and fraud in absentee voting. The Missouri legislature neglected addressing these forms of fraud when enacting this piece of legislation. If it was serious about improving the the integrity of elections, its main concern would have been to crack down on the forms of fraud that are actually occurring.

I truly believe it was an attempt to impede a class of Missouri voters (the elderly and the poverty-stricken) from getting to the polls.

The Missouri Supreme Court was right on the money in their decision.

The suspicion that the VT legislative findings were “fit in” in order to make the act more broadly palatable certainly has validity.

I guess my point (imperfectly expressed) was more that the state finds it in its interest to foster many kinds of activities and relationships in many different contexts. Any law necessarily is imbued with a state interest. (Even at the very basic level of basic contract enforcement, there is a state interest in fostering commerce and business that would be impossible save for the state’s authority to compel the performance of private duties.) The state interest imbued upon a law may be imprudent or impractical, but nevertheless it is always there.

I guess you’re suggesting that the state’s interest in fostering a certain type of relationship through statutory marriage/civil union are not prudent or practical. Do you think they were ever prudent or practical, or is this a recent, 30-year development?

As I look over the past thirty years, I fail to see how the government has been able to achieve “strong families and stable households” through marriage particularly in the light of the number of divorces. To me, those goals seem more like something “fit in” to make the statute appeal to a broader sect of the community who would otherwise not accept such a statute.

Julia:

I intended to use the familiar term “Church” in the broadest sense possible. If it’s a Church, a completely non religious organization, whatever, it’s all a matter of personal choice. For most Americans that’s going to be a choice. But for the 5 to 10% that are athiests, it could be any type of secular institution, or in fact, no institution at all. The point is, it’s up to you to call it, and treat it as you like. I fail to see why the government issuing a “marriage” paper means all that much.

Like it or not, marriage isn’t necessarily a religious ceremony.

Atheists are gettin’ hitched!

Still, there may be more secular, dare I say, Caesarian interests than simple contract enforcement involved. Promoting strong families and stable households isn’t necessarily a religious goal. Check out this bit from the legislative findings section of VT’s civil union act:

The state’s interest in civil marriage is to encourage close and caring families, and to protect all family members from the economic and social consequences of abandonment and divorce, focusing on those who have been especially at risk.