|
|
Post by libralamb7pf on Feb 24, 2014 0:06:12 GMT -5
Bought it! Love it! Can't wait for Tuesday! |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2014 0:07:15 GMT -5
Have a question. I'm unsettled. When I go to iTunes to see 'I Believe In a Thing Called Love' for sale, it also lists the 'ten top albums or tunes' from other shows. 'Marry the Night' isn't one of them. Then, I click on the name 'Adam Lambert' on the sidebar, and it goes to numerous albums and singles, including ones not supported by many fans. 'Marry the Night' is not there, either. I thought 'MTN' was in the top three. ??? I don't see it anywhere. Can someone enlighten me? Maybe you're thinking of YouTube views? Adam's MTN is #4 on the list of most-watched videos from this season of Glee. The only Glee S5 videos that have a higher view count are 2 videos from "The Quarterback" episode (farewell to Finn/Corey Monteith) and "Roar" from "A Katy or a Gaga" episode. |
|
|
|
Post by momtomany on Feb 24, 2014 0:17:50 GMT -5
Have a question. I'm unsettled. When I go to iTunes to see 'I Believe In a Thing Called Love' for sale, it also lists the 'ten top albums or tunes' from other shows. 'Marry the Night' isn't one of them. Then, I click on the name 'Adam Lambert' on the sidebar, and it goes to numerous albums and singles, including ones not supported by many fans. 'Marry the Night' is not there, either. I thought 'MTN' was in the top three. ??? I don't see it anywhere. Can someone enlighten me? Maybe you're thinking of YouTube views? Adam's MTN is #4 on the list of most-watched videos from this season of Glee. The only Glee S5 videos that have a higher view count are 2 videos from "The Quarterback" episode (farewell to Finn/Corey Monteith) and "Roar" from "A Katy or a Gaga" episode. Thanks to both you and Q3 for the explanation. I get so caught up in this amazing man I feel he should rule the world. (fixed by Q3  ) |
|
|
|
Post by momtomany on Feb 24, 2014 0:20:28 GMT -5
Well, I messed that up, didn't I?
Sorry, iridium. Still learning, after all these years.
iridium's post is the last three lines. My reply to her explanation is above hers. Does that make sense? Obviously, it's time for me to call it a day!
|
|
|
|
Post by Craazyforadam on Feb 24, 2014 0:22:14 GMT -5
4Msrmyn 
 Glad to see you're back. Please come and play - you were missed.
================
Regarding this Arizona, Tennessee stuff that is going on, may I cautiously ask a few questions, that as foreigner living in the US are kind of unclear to me. Sorry, if these questions are kind of simple, but I really don't get it.
a) how can the executive branch of a state legally create new laws that fundamentally violate the constitution? Is the executive branch of government not sworn to uphold the constitution?
b) Assuming that these laws will be legally contested, are they officially law while the legal tic-tac-toe plays out between the different branches of government?
c) I understand that in this country, as well as others around the world, we have a need to address or redefine certain boundaries between the need to protect the conscience of the individual and its freedom, and on the other hand the law that at least in theory expresses the consensus of the people. But, when it comes to the topic of systemic discrimination by a business through denying its services to a certain group of customers, has this topic not been exhaustively been covered when it came to race discrimination?
ETA: huh, have no idea why this post reformatted itself ??
|
|
|
|
Post by Q3 on Feb 24, 2014 0:29:41 GMT -5
The new thread is up.
**
On the MTN question -- the Katy and Gaga album and MTN tracks are still on sale on iTunes.
MTN is #112 out of 931 tracks on the GLEE tracks popularity list.
The #1 track from Season 5 is "Season of Love" at #64 (Cory Monteith Tribute), MTN is#2 from this season.
All the top tracks are from the first 3 seasons of GLEE.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2014 0:37:18 GMT -5
4Msrmyn
Glad to see you're back. Please come and play - you were missed.
================
Regarding this Arizona, Tennessee stuff that is going on, may I cautiously ask a few questions, that as foreigner living in the US are kind of unclear to me. Sorry, if these questions are kind of simple, but I really don't get it.
a) how can the executive branch of a state legally create new laws that fundamentally violate the constitution? Is the executive branch of government not sworn to uphold the constitution?
b) Assuming that these laws will be legally contested, are they officially law while the legal tic-tac-toe plays out between the different branches of government?
c) I understand that in this country, as well as others around the world, we have a need to address or redefine certain boundaries between the need to protect the conscience of the individual and its freedom, and on the other hand the law that at least in theory expresses the consensus of the people. But, when it comes to the topic of systemic discrimination by a business through denying its services to a certain group of customers, has this topic not been exhaustively been covered when it came to race discrimination?
I don't know or understand exactly what Arizona has done, but I'll take a stab here at generally answering your questions. a) The executive branch of any government cannot make laws. The only thing the executive branch can do is make administrative rules as to how existing law is carried out. The executive branch is indeed sworn to uphold constitutional law but in areas where no constitutional law exists -- as in this case -- actions may indeed be taken that are constitutionally questionable, often with the intention of creating a test case. It is important to remember that federal law does not always rule the states. States have certain rights, and in cases where federal law is silent, state law prevails. b) See above. A law is a law until it is overturned or repealed. For example, a few years back a high court ruling overturned the Texas sodomy law, which had been on the books for a century though seldom was there an attempt to enforce it. The executive branch determines how aggressively a law is enforced. Another example, in my city the government chooses not to enforce laws against panhandling, and the city is a mecca for homeless people. In this Arizona case, for example, it is doubtful a local authority would go to a business to act on a complaint from a gay person that someone was refusing to serve them. They would just have to tell the person to take their business elsewhere. c) It seems clear that the higher courts are indeed following precedents set by civil rights law as they begin to rule on the test cases coming before them, but where no legal precedent exists, the cases must make their way through the courts. It's pretty clear where this is headed but there is a legal process. In addition the courts may rule narrowly -- say, overturning a law in Montana would not always overturn a law in Arizona or Texas -- or sweepingly as they finally did on interracial marriage in the '60s. It was federal law that settled the public accommodation question in the '60s and no federal law exists covering this issue. Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
Post by Craazyforadam on Feb 24, 2014 0:52:55 GMT -5
yes, this does help. Thank you for your answers.
For me, the biggest takeaway is that there seems to not be a federal law to disallow systemic discrimination of a group by denying service. I thought, that this bridge had already been crossed.
Sorry for bad expression on my part otherwise. Yes, of course, executive does not createthe law....silly me - bad phrasing...I was referring to what is being approved by Arizona executive branch at the moment.
Have many questions, but do not want to take up too much of this forum on a side topic, so I'll just leave it at that.
But thanks for what you clarified for me. I appreciate it a lot. Hope, it was helpful for a few other folks too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Craazyforadam on Feb 24, 2014 0:58:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Q3 on Feb 24, 2014 1:02:21 GMT -5
Just a bit of a clarification on precedent -- the Civil Rights Law does not set any precedent. Prior court rulings are used as precedent. *** Here is what happened in Arizona: Arizona's Legislature has passed a bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers. The bill, which the state House of Representatives passed by a 33-27 vote Thursday, now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican and onetime small business owner who vetoed similar legislation last year but has expressed the right of business owners to deny service. If Jan Brewer vetoes this bill it will not be law because there are not enough votes to override the veto (the House and Senate could override the governor's veto with a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber). *** Law is formed both by Legislation and by court rulings. *** Similar legislation to the nasty and useless bill passed in Arizona did not pass in 4 other states -- including Tennessee. www.buzzfeed.com/tonymerevick/lgbt-discrimination-bills-fail |
|
)
