The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Gaius Mucius Scaevola Sinistra
Japher: "crap, did I just post in this thread?"
"Bloody hell, Lefty.....number one in my list of persons I have no intention of annoying, ever." Bugs ****ing Bunny
From a 6th grader who readily adpated to internet culture: "Pay attention now, because your opinions suck"
Originally posted by Sava
BTW, I don't know if Sikander is lumping me with the "living document" crowd. I really don't have that strong an opinion on the matter.
I just hate Scalia because he is scum.
No, I lumped you into the ad hominen crowd.
He's got the Midas touch.
But he touched it too much!
Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!
No it does not- take abortion- a strict consitutionalist would reverse it in a second, since the Constitution says nothing about that right- it says nothing about a lot of things. It is the fastest way to ignore everything that has gone on in the last 30 years, and say we need to go back to before all these "activist liberal judges". With the living constitution method, you have to acknowledge the changes in society that have occured thanks to many of those decisions.
If anything, the notion that its the majority politics of the time that will determine laws is basically what Scalia says when he says the way to make laws is to convince the majority of their need. If the majority hates gays, well, than that's how it should be, and a scrit constitutionalist, seeing nothing in the document about gay people, will say this is A OK.
He says nothing about "how it should be", other than that a significant enough majority should write the laws, assuming that those laws don't conflict with the constitution. He also seems to favor a judiciary which is less tainted by the ideology wars than it is currently so that it can more effectively protect the constitution, which itself acts to protect the minority more often than not.
A strict constructionalist might have a look at the amendments dealing with equal opportunity under the law and strike down legislation which is aimed at homosexuals (as happened in Colorado a few years back), while a judicial activist social conservative (the type that the Christian right so desperately wants Bush to nominate) might strike down gay rights legislation for any reason they want, including citing the bible as the basis for our system of laws.
Judicial activism simply has too few controls / checks / balances to be a viable and safe form of making law, while it saps the power of the arguably most democratic of our institutions, the legislature. If we want to be ruled by an oligarchy which serves for life, we should at least devise a system where we can elect them directly.
He's got the Midas touch.
But he touched it too much!
Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!
" You think slavery is a good idea: persuade your fellow citizens and adopt it. You think it's a bad idea: persuade them the other way and eliminate it."
--- Justice Scalia's spiritual forebearers, "Bleeding Kansas," 1855
Perfect example. Slavery was legal and state-determined until an amendment (not a judicial fiat) changed that.
Tweet
Comment