federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendments

Re: federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendmen

Brandon9000 wrote:

No, I'm looking at that [the Fourteenth Amendment] really hard and I don't see anything about laws not being based on ethics. I guess you mean you won't waste your time on an argument over a position you can't support.

Brandon9000:

You can't see, because you're wearing blinders. You base your entire argument on the fact that you're wearing blinders.

Help, help . . . I can't see . . . you proclaim as you poke around the Fourteenth Amendment with your white cane.

You cannot be enlightened nor can you be helped to understand the Fourteenth Amendment until you stop playing the deaf, dumb, and blind game. Why don't you raise you blindfold a little bit and take a peek at this:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1334631#1334631

Learn or not learn about what it means to be a citizen of this great country. It's up to you whether you remain willfully blind or whether you will wrap your mind around fundamental concepts of liberty secured from state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment.

You can lead a horse to water . . . .

1 Reply

Re: State's Rights

Debra_Law wrote:

The issue of states' rights does NOT embrace the right of the moral majority may use the power of the State to enforce their views on the whole society through the operation of state laws.

Then we had better start eliminating all those laws that make things like murder, rape, arson, theft, etc.. illegal because the only rationale for having them is that the majority of people find those acts to be morally wrong.

Quote:

People like Brandon claim they do not see (or understand) how the Fourteenth Amendment can be applied to prevent the moral majority from passing laws based on their perceptions of right or wrong.

Maybe you ought to try reading what Brandon ACTUALLY wrote of what you THINK he wrote. His comment was: "You can amend state Constitutions for reasons of morality. Where exactly does it say in the Federal Constituion that you can't be motivated by moral concepts? I must have missed that clause. Half the things in the law come from peoples' ideas of right and wrong anyway." and he's 100% right.

He asked a simple question which you side-stepped and then added qualifiers to. When are you going to answer his question about where it's stated in the US Constitution that State's can't pass amendments based on moral concepts? Since you used the condition of "if it violates the 14th Amendment", What happens when a state amends their Constitution on moral reasoning and it doesn't violate any of the provisions of the Federal Constution? Is your professional legal opinion that that the amendment would still be invalid? If so, on what grounds?

I find it somewhat comical that you claim that morals can't be used a as rationale for law yet at the same time the entire argument for repealing state laws that prohibit gay/lesbians from marrying are because treating gays/lesbians differently is immoral.

0 Replies

Re: federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendmen

Debra_Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
No, I'm looking at that [the Fourteenth Amendment] really hard and I don't see anything about laws not being based on ethics. I guess you mean you won't waste your time on an argument over a position you can't support.

Brandon9000:

You can't see, because you're wearing blinders. You base your entire argument on the fact that you're wearing blinders.

Help, help . . . I can't see . . . you proclaim as you poke around the Fourteenth Amendment with your white cane.

You cannot be enlightened nor can you be helped to understand the Fourteenth Amendment until you stop playing the deaf, dumb, and blind game. Why don't you raise you blindfold a little bit and take a peek at this:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1334631#1334631

Learn or not learn about what it means to be a citizen of this great country. It's up to you whether you remain willfully blind or whether you will wrap your mind around fundamental concepts of liberty secured from state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment.

You can lead a horse to water . . . .

Your argument consists mostly of some kind of personal references to me, which have no relevance to Constitutional law. The fact is that the Constitution nowhere discusses the advisability of basing laws on ethics, and therefore also never prohibits it.

Someone can quote:

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

and then claim that it means that everyone should be forced read the Bible every day, because they consider it to be in the interests of the welfare of their souls, but it's nonsense because the document doesn't say that. I don't care about your million word proof that the Constitution says laws can't be related to ethics. It doesn't say it.

0 Replies

Re: State's Rights

fishin wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
The issue of states' rights does NOT embrace the right of the moral majority may use the power of the State to enforce their views on the whole society through the operation of state laws.

Then we had better start eliminating all those laws that make things like murder, rape, arson, theft, etc.. illegal because the only rationale for having them is that the majority of people find those acts to be morally wrong.

You are wrong, fishin. All people are supposed to be EQUAL in the eyes of the law. The purpose of government is to SECURE the rights of ALL. States may regulate or criminalize injurious or harmful conduct. My fundamental rights to life and liberty protected against state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment do not embrace any "right" to injure or harm other persons. Other persons are entitled to protection under the laws the same way that I am entitled to protection under the laws.

If you murder, rape, steal, or burn down someone's house, you are engaging in conduct that harms and injures other people. That conduct can be prohibited and punished by the state.

If you are an adult and you engage in private, consensual sexual relations with another adult of the same sex, how can you possibly be engaging in conduct that harms or injures other people?

Living as citizens of the United States requires us to use reason and logic. Your argument possesses neither.

Quote:

People like Brandon claim they do not see (or understand) how the Fourteenth Amendment can be applied to prevent the moral majority from passing laws based on their perceptions of right or wrong.

fishin wrote:

Maybe you ought to try reading what Brandon ACTUALLY wrote of what you THINK he wrote. His comment was: "You can amend state Constitutions for reasons of morality. Where exactly does it say in the Federal Constituion that you can't be motivated by moral concepts? I must have missed that clause. Half the things in the law come from peoples' ideas of right and wrong anyway." and he's 100% right.

He asked a simple question which you side-stepped and then added qualifiers to. When are you going to answer his question about where it's stated in the US Constitution that State's can't pass amendments based on moral concepts? Since you used the condition of "if it violates the 14th Amendment", What happens when a state amends their Constitution on moral reasoning and it doesn't violate any of the provisions of the Federal Constution? Is your professional legal opinion that that the amendment would still be invalid? If so, on what grounds?

I find it somewhat comical that you claim that morals can't be used a as rationale for law yet at the same time the entire argument for repealing state laws that prohibit gay/lesbians from marrying are because treating gays/lesbians differently is immoral.

Fishin:

I read ALL of Brandon's posts and he clearly claimed he could not see anything in the Fourteenth Amendment that would limit the rights of the majority to pass laws based on their perceptions of right or wrong. He is wearing blinders; he refuses to give any of the clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment any substance whatsoever. I did not sidestep his "help me, I can't see" arguments. The concepts of life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, and equality under the law have SUBSTANCE. He doesn't grasp the "substance" of the Fourteenth Amendment any more than you do.

The fundamental right to liberty becomes an amorphous, meaningless concept if the majority of the people can simply take away the rights of the minority of the people through the power of the state. If you're not intellectually mature enough to grasp that elementary principle, then any further attempts to educate you are futile.

Brandon's arguments (help, help, I cannot see) are based on willful blindness. Ignorance is not a disease. It can be cured with education. But the student must desire to learn.

Frankly, I find your strawman argument to be comical. I never argued: "morals can't be used a as rationale for law yet at the same time the entire argument for repealing state laws that prohibit gay/lesbians from marrying are because treating gays/lesbians differently is immoral."

I told you what the Supreme Court said:

Quote:

It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in Bowers was making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 850 (1992).

The Supreme Court ruled:

1. The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.

2. Individual decisions concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Contrary to your wild assertion, I never argued that it was immoral for people to base laws on morals. You mischaracterized the substance of my arguments which are based on Supreme Court precedent. Please educate yourself concerning Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

The equal protection clause is not a one way "street". For example, is one State has lower standards for drivers licenses or gun laws, that does not require another State, that may have higher standards, to recognize the other States standards.

Just because the State of Mass allows homosexual Marriage, and marry John and Jerry in Mass., does that automaticlly mean the resident State of John and Jerry, must their marriage?

No, it does not.

There is a legal question about this woiyo.

Courts have ruled that states must recognize marriage and divorce from other states based on the US constitution. They must afford the same rules to those marriages and divorces as they do to any in their own state. They can't ignore contracts from other states just because the majority in their state feels they should. That violates the US constitution. Because one state has a 30 day waiting period for marriage does not mean they can ignore a wedding with no waiting period from Las Vegas. Nor can a state refuse to accept a divorce from another state just because it doesn't meet the same standard that they require.

Can a state be forced to accept a marriage of a same sex couple from another state? That hasn't been legally answered yet. Certainly they can't make them second class citizens compared to their own citizens under US Constitution.

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

tommrr wrote:
Chrissee wrote:
It is still a long, uphill rights to get the same rigths most people take for granted but we shall overcome one day.

So if here in CA, you were to finally get the same rights, but it was under the title of civil unions, would that be a victory, or only if it called marriage? Not looking for an argument, just your point of view.

It would be better than nothing. Kinda like telling blacks in the fifties, Ok we will designate most public accomodations and employment open to all races but we will still reserve a few jobs, housing etc for white folks only.

I have to admit, I never really thought of it that way, but that makes a lot sense. So it could be compared to the old Separate but Equal way of thinking. My past thinking has been, well, if there is such an uproar over calling it "marriage", why not give them the rights given to married couples, but just call it something else. You have now blown that theory apart to me. Guess that puts me fully on your side of the issue now. Thanks for giving me a good perspective of this.

0 Replies

Re: federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendmen

Brandon9000 wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
All those moral majorities that raced to the polls to amend their state constitutions to ban same sex marriage ought to be ashamed of themselves. It doesn't matter if they make discriminatory, oppressive laws or amend their state constitutions to be discriminatory and oppressive. They may not impose their morals on others through the power of the state. Since they are not smart enough to figure that out, I guess the federal judiciary must do its duty.

Oh yeah. I'm sure the moral majority will scream "judicial activism." But the fact remains that the U.S. Constitution does NOT ALLOW them to impose their views on others unless they have a compelling reason for doing so -- a compelling reason unrelated to their moral disapproval....

You can amend state Constitutions for reasons of morality. Where exactly does it say in the Federal Constituion that you can't be motivated by moral concepts? I must have missed that clause. Half the things in the law come from peoples' ideas of right and wrong anyway.

What are you arguing Brandon? Deb only is arguing this case of morals in law is unconstitutional. She doesn't say all instances are.

It is unconstitutional to pass a law, based on morals, that is discriminatory and oppressive. That was Deb's statement as I understood it.

0 Replies

And that is why there is a separate branch of gov't dedicated to deciding just these sort of things. Otherwise people WOULD get these sort of moral judgements into the books.

0 Replies

Re: federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendmen

Brandon9000 wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
No, I'm looking at that [the Fourteenth Amendment] really hard and I don't see anything about laws not being based on ethics. I guess you mean you won't waste your time on an argument over a position you can't support.

Brandon9000:

You can't see, because you're wearing blinders. You base your entire argument on the fact that you're wearing blinders.

Help, help . . . I can't see . . . you proclaim as you poke around the Fourteenth Amendment with your white cane.

You cannot be enlightened nor can you be helped to understand the Fourteenth Amendment until you stop playing the deaf, dumb, and blind game. Why don't you raise you blindfold a little bit and take a peek at this:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1334631#1334631

Learn or not learn about what it means to be a citizen of this great country. It's up to you whether you remain willfully blind or whether you will wrap your mind around fundamental concepts of liberty secured from state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment.

You can lead a horse to water . . . .

Your argument consists mostly of some kind of personal references to me, which have no relevance to Constitutional law. The fact is that the Constitution nowhere discusses the advisability of basing laws on ethics, and therefore also never prohibits it.

You didn't read the link that I provided, did you? My argument does not consist of your willful blindness. My argument is based on Supreme Court precedents.

The Fourteenth Amendment has several clauses.

1. Privileges and Immunities clause. States are prohibited from infringing upon the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States.

2. The Due Process Clause. There are two types of due process: substantive and procedural. Under substantive due process, there are some fundamental rights that the states are prohibited from infringing, denying, disparaging, or abridging regardless of the amount of procedure provided.

3. The Equal Protection Clause. Unless a state has a compelling or legitimate interest in treating classes of persons differently, the state is prohibited from making or enforcing laws that discriminate.

When a state makes and enforces laws that violate any of the clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment, that law is unconstitutional. Did you read the Lawrence v. Texas case? Do you understand that individual LIBERTY is protected by Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Do you understand that the majority of the people may not use the power of the state to infringe upon an individual's protected liberty interests unless there is a compelling state interest? Do you understand that views with respect to morality (or immorality) alone are never sufficient to justify an infringement upon a fundamental liberty interest?

Quote:

Someone can quote:

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

and then claim that it means that everyone should be forced read the Bible every day, because they consider it to be in the interests of the welfare of their souls, but it's nonsense because the document doesn't say that. I don't care about your million word proof that the Constitution says laws can't be related to ethics. It doesn't say it.

You are contradicting yourself, Brandon.

If you're arguing that the state should be allowed to make laws based on people's opinions of right and wrong . . . then why can't a state make a law that requires people to read the bible every day? If the majority of the people believe it is right, moral, and ethical to read the bible everyday, why can't it pass a law to effectuate that view? Under your reasoning, that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't prohibit these kind of laws, why is it nonsense?

What prohibits the states from making a law that requires people to read the bible every day?

Well . . . we're back to the Fourteenth Amendment . . . the same amendment that you claim doesn't prohibit the state from making laws based on morality, views of right & wrong, or ethics.

Believe it or not, Brandon, the Fourteenth Amendment has substance and it does prohibit the states from enacting laws that serve only to oppress.

0 Replies

Re: federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendmen

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
All those moral majorities that raced to the polls to amend their state constitutions to ban same sex marriage ought to be ashamed of themselves. It doesn't matter if they make discriminatory, oppressive laws or amend their state constitutions to be discriminatory and oppressive. They may not impose their morals on others through the power of the state. Since they are not smart enough to figure that out, I guess the federal judiciary must do its duty.

Oh yeah. I'm sure the moral majority will scream "judicial activism." But the fact remains that the U.S. Constitution does NOT ALLOW them to impose their views on others unless they have a compelling reason for doing so -- a compelling reason unrelated to their moral disapproval....

You can amend state Constitutions for reasons of morality. Where exactly does it say in the Federal Constituion that you can't be motivated by moral concepts? I must have missed that clause. Half the things in the law come from peoples' ideas of right and wrong anyway.

What are you arguing Brandon? Deb only is arguing this case of morals in law is unconstitutional. She doesn't say all instances are.

Kind of sounds like it:

Debra_Law wrote:

...But the fact remains that the U.S. Constitution does NOT ALLOW them to impose their views on others unless they have a compelling reason for doing so -- a compelling reason unrelated to their moral disapproval. ...

0 Replies

tommrr wrote:

Chrissee wrote:
tommrr wrote:
Chrissee wrote:
It is still a long, uphill rights to get the same rigths most people take for granted but we shall overcome one day.

So if here in CA, you were to finally get the same rights, but it was under the title of civil unions, would that be a victory, or only if it called marriage? Not looking for an argument, just your point of view.

It would be better than nothing. Kinda like telling blacks in the fifties, Ok we will designate most public accomodations and employment open to all races but we will still reserve a few jobs, housing etc for white folks only.

I have to admit, I never really thought of it that way, but that makes a lot sense. So it could be compared to the old Separate but Equal way of thinking. My past thinking has been, well, if there is such an uproar over calling it "marriage", why not give them the rights given to married couples, but just call it something else. You have now blown that theory apart to me. Guess that puts me fully on your side of the issue now. Thanks for giving me a good perspective of this.

Wow! This completely blows me away! I was almost half asleep when I composd that analogy and i rewrote it two or three times before posting it AND YOU GOT IT! You know what I never thOUGHT OF IT THAT WAY EITHER until this morning!

Thank you so much for making me think!

0 Replies

Re: federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendmen

Debra_Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
No, I'm looking at that [the Fourteenth Amendment] really hard and I don't see anything about laws not being based on ethics. I guess you mean you won't waste your time on an argument over a position you can't support.

Brandon9000:

You can't see, because you're wearing blinders. You base your entire argument on the fact that you're wearing blinders.

Help, help . . . I can't see . . . you proclaim as you poke around the Fourteenth Amendment with your white cane.

You cannot be enlightened nor can you be helped to understand the Fourteenth Amendment until you stop playing the deaf, dumb, and blind game. Why don't you raise you blindfold a little bit and take a peek at this:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1334631#1334631

Learn or not learn about what it means to be a citizen of this great country. It's up to you whether you remain willfully blind or whether you will wrap your mind around fundamental concepts of liberty secured from state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment.

You can lead a horse to water . . . .

Your argument consists mostly of some kind of personal references to me, which have no relevance to Constitutional law. The fact is that the Constitution nowhere discusses the advisability of basing laws on ethics, and therefore also never prohibits it.

You didn't read the link that I provided, did you? My argument does not consist of your willful blindness. My argument is based on Supreme Court precedents.

The Fourteenth Amendment has several clauses.

1. Privileges and Immunities clause. States are prohibited from infringing upon the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States.

2. The Due Process Clause. There are two types of due process: substantive and procedural. Under substantive due process, there are some fundamental rights that the states are prohibited from infringing, denying, disparaging, or abridging regardless of the amount of procedure provided.

The Constitution doesn't necessarily protect anything anyone cares to claim as a right.

Debra_Law wrote:

3. The Equal Protection Clause. Unless a state has a compelling or legitimate interest in treating classes of persons differently, the state is prohibited from making or enforcing laws that discriminate.

I think the idea of these laws is that all citizens are equally forbidden from same sex marriages.

Debra_Law wrote:

When a state makes and enforces laws that violate any of the clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment, that law is unconstitutional.

Prohibiting same sex marriage is not forbidden by anything the 14th Amendment actually says.

Debra_Law wrote:

Did you read the Lawrence v. Texas case?

I guess maybe only lawyers are allowed to interpret the Constitution. Yeah, I'm sure that's what the Founders had in mind.

Debra_Law wrote:

Do you understand that individual LIBERTY is protected by Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Yes, but not anything you care to define as liberty.

Debra_Law wrote:

Do you understand that the majority of the people may not use the power of the state to infringe upon an individual's protected liberty interests unless there is a compelling state interest?

Yes, this was foremost in Madison's mind when he worked on the Constution.

Debra_Law wrote:

Do you understand that views with respect to morality (or immorality) alone are never sufficient to justify an infringement upon a fundamental liberty interest?

Seems to me it ought to be a balance between liberty and ethics, but, again, just because you claim a right doesn't mean it is a right. As far as I know the Founders never said anything at all in support of same sex marriage.

Debra_Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
]Someone can quote:

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

and then claim that it means that everyone should be forced read the Bible every day, because they consider it to be in the interests of the welfare of their souls, but it's nonsense because the document doesn't say that. I don't care about your million word proof that the Constitution says laws can't be related to ethics. It doesn't say it.

You are contradicting yourself, Brandon.

If you're arguing that the state should be allowed to make laws based on people's opinions of right and wrong . . . then why can't a state make a law that requires people to read the bible every day?

First of all, I never said that they couldn't. I said that you can't twist the term "promote the general welfare" to mean that the Constitution mandates daily Bible reading. I was making a comparison to twisting the 14th Amendment to mean things it doesn't say. However, since you bring it up, just parenthetically, such a law would violate the First Amendment.

0 Replies

When people make a choice to be with someone of the same sex then we should not be forced to accept it. Being gay isn't the same as being black because black people don't have a choice where's gay people do.

Don't try and tell me it is more then about sex, because if there were true then you could love anyone and marry anyone. If it weren't about sex then I could marry my best male friend because we get alone so well, but the issue of sex will come up in very short order. Gay people can't see themselves having sex with someone of the opposite sex so therefore it is about sex and not just love.

0 Replies

Re: federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendmen

Brandon9000 wrote:

The Constitution doesn't necessarily protect anything anyone cares to claim as a right.

Provide a citation to authority that would substantiate your vague claim.

I can provide thousands of citations to authority that refute your vague claim. I've already provided ample United States Supreme Court authority that refutes your vague claim.

See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas: "Individual decisions concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Debra_Law wrote:

3. The Equal Protection Clause. Unless a state has a compelling or legitimate interest in treating classes of persons differently, the state is prohibited from making or enforcing laws that discriminate.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I think the idea of these laws is that all citizens are equally forbidden from same sex marriages.

Marriage is a fundamental right. See Loving v. Virginia. The state may not infringe upon a fundamental right unless it has a compelling interest in doing so and the means used are necessary and narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest.

The state does not have a compelling interest interest in prohibiting an individual from getting married (engaging in a fundamental right) based on the gender of his/her intended spouse.

A state prohibition on same sex marriages violates both the substantive due process clause and the equal protection clause.

Debra_Law wrote:

When a state makes and enforces laws that violate any of the clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment, that law is unconstitutional.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Prohibiting same sex marriage is not forbidden by anything the 14th Amendment actually says.

Yes. Prohibiting same sex marriage violates both the substantive due process clause and the equal protection clause. See above.

Debra_Law wrote:

Did you read the Lawrence v. Texas case?

Quote:

I guess maybe only lawyers are allowed to interpret the Constitution. Yeah, I'm sure that's what the Founders had in mind.

You didn't read the case. Our forefathers intended that the Supreme Court shall have judicial power to interpret and apply the Constitution to all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution. Check out the Federalist Papers.

Believe it or not, the naive and uneducated interpretation of the Constitution according to Brandon9000 means nothing, but the interpretation and application of the Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court to cases and controversies means everything.

Debra_Law wrote:

Do you understand that individual LIBERTY is protected by Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Yes, but not anything you care to define as liberty.

I don't define liberty.

The Supreme Court defines liberty.

If you read the case, you would know that. The Supreme Court said: "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code."

Debra_Law wrote:

Do you understand that the majority of the people may not use the power of the state to infringe upon an individual's protected liberty interests unless there is a compelling state interest?

Quote:

Yes, this was foremost in Madison's mind when he worked on the Constution.

Very good. We've made some progress with respect to your understanding of the Constitution. However, Madison (1751-1836) did not write the Fourteenth Amendment (1868). The first eight amendments are limitations on the power of the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment is a limitation on the power of state governments.

Debra_Law wrote:

Do you understand that views with respect to morality (or immorality) alone are never sufficient to justify an infringement upon a fundamental liberty interest?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Seems to me it ought to be a balance between liberty and ethics, but, again, just because you claim a right doesn't mean it is a right. As far as I know the Founders never said anything at all in support of same sex marriage.

Marriage is a fundamental right, yet it is not enumerated in the Constitution. The enumeration of some rights retained by the people cannot be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people. See the Ninth Amendment.

The concept of Liberty encompasses a broad range of human conduct and interaction. "Individual decisions concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Lawrence v. Texas.

Debra_Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
]Someone can quote:

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

and then claim that it means that everyone should be forced read the Bible every day, because they consider it to be in the interests of the welfare of their souls, but it's nonsense because the document doesn't say that. I don't care about your million word proof that the Constitution says laws can't be related to ethics. It doesn't say it.

You are contradicting yourself, Brandon.

If you're arguing that the state should be allowed to make laws based on people's opinions of right and wrong . . . then why can't a state make a law that requires people to read the bible every day?

Brandon9000 wrote:

First of all, I never said that they couldn't. I said that you can't twist the term "promote the general welfare" to mean that the Constitution mandates daily Bible reading. I was making a comparison to twisting the 14th Amendment to mean things it doesn't say. However, since you bring it up, just parenthetically, such a law would violate the First Amendment.

Brandon:

The Constitution provides that no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. It doesn't say what constitutes cruel or unusual punishments. So, how do we know what punishments are allowed and what punishments are prohibited?

The fact that the Constitution does not spell out every form of cruel and unusual punishment that is prohibited only begs the question. The prohibition has SUBSTANCE and it's the Court's duty to define what is and what is not cruel and unusual punishment based on the cases and controversies presented for a decision.

Similarly, the Fourteenth Amendment does not spell out all the ways a state can violate the privileges and immunities clause. The Fourteenth Amendment does not spell out all the ways that the state can violate the due process clause. The Fourteenth Amendment does not spell out all the ways that the state can violate the equal protection clause.

Your argument that the Fourteenth Amendment "doesn't say" that a state violates the Fourteenth Amendment when it infringes upon the fundamental right to marriage based on the gender of one's intended spouse ONLY BEGS THE QUESTION.

Now let's look at your example. The majority of the people in the state believe it will promote the general welfare if every person within the jurisdiction of the state reads the bible every day. They believe it is right, moral, and ethical to read the bible every day. They believe it is wrong, immoral, and unethical if a person fails to read the bible every day. The State passes a law that effectuates the view of the majority.

You claim that this law would violate the First Amendment. But, have you read the First Amendment? It only applies to CONGRESS. And we all know that Congress is the legislative body of the FEDERAL government.

How would the First Amendment prohibit a STATE legislative body from passing such a law?

Think it through.

0 Replies

Re: federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendmen

Debra_Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
The Constitution doesn't necessarily protect anything anyone cares to claim as a right.

Provide a citation to authority that would substantiate your vague claim....

How is it vague to say that the Constutution doesn't protect anything anyone claims is a right? That seems kind of clear and specific to me. Do you believe that the Constitution does protect anything anyone claims is a right?

Look, your arguments are not very hard to defeat, but your posts are long, and it does involve a certain amount of typing. I don't much have the interest in going back and forth on this forever, since it is not really one of my issues. If you're provocative enough, I guess I will continue, but otherwise, I will just say that I don't think the Constution says what you think it does.

0 Replies

Re: federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendmen

Brandon9000 wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
The Constitution doesn't necessarily protect anything anyone cares to claim as a right.

Provide a citation to authority that would substantiate your vague claim....

How is it vague to say that the Constutution doesn't protect anything anyone claims is a right? That seems kind of clear and specific to me. Do you believe that the Constitution does protect anything anyone claims is a right?

Look, your arguments are not very hard to defeat, but your posts are long, and it does involve a certain amount of typing. I don't much have the interest in going back and forth on this forever, since it is not really one of my issues. If you're provocative enough, I guess I will continue, but otherwise, I will just say that I don't think the Constution says what you think it does.

You haven't defeated anything. You're not putting any educated thought into your replies. I never said that whatever anyone wants to claim as a right is protected by the constitution. Your response had absolutely no relationship to the discussion on the Fourteenth Amendment.

Individuals have fundamental liberty interests that are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. We were not discussing all the possible things that a person could claim as a right that are not "necessarily protected" by the constitution. It would help if you would get on the same page.

I don't want you to continue responding if all you're doing is a "certain amount of typing" without putting any thought into what you're saying. The point isn't to labor on your typing skills; the point is to labor on your thinking skills.

The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. I have provided you with Supreme Court rulings to support every point I have made. And this is the best you can come up with: I don't think the Constitution says what you think it does?

Why don't YOU try to be "provocative."

0 Replies

nicely done, debbie. you da' (wo)man!

a concise and cogent analysis of the issue. i was shocked when bowers came out, I held exactly with justice stevens' minority reasoning, and expected it eventually to be overturned (lawernce v. texas).

Like you, i am worried that the overwhelming majority of american people do not understand the meaning of the constitution. and it is not merely that that most do not understand or have even read the actual text, but have almost no knowledge of 200 plus years of historical consititutional law.

marbury v. madison is under attack as we speak, for in the House there are numerous bills which would forbid the judiciary from involvement in cases that stem from religious issues. Imagine that? madison and jefferson would spin in their graves if they heard of this.

you should wear brandon's reprobation as a badge of honor, i too have been accused of "typing" for bringing up facts inconvenient to his positions, so buck up gal. if he cannot counter the facts, he is quite willing to attack the way they are presented.

brandon: i have read every word of this thread and it appears to me that you have reached your conclusions based upon personal opinion and ignorance of the law and the concepts accepted by 200 years of constitutional jurisprudence. that is okay, ignorance can be overcome with knowledge. however, you have reached conclusions that can not be supported by the facts and have brushed aside anything debbie has presented as irrelevent, when in fact, what she has presented is fundamental to understanding this issue.

you are, of course entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. and it should be noted that you have assidiously avoided countering her facts with those which would support your position.

Debbie has attempted to support her conclusions from well established constititutional principles and has no fear of following them to their logical conclusions, wherever they lead. she has "faith" in the law. on the other hand you have shown an overwhelming propensity to fear the unknown and apply meaning to words for which you have no supportable evidence

when basic facts and truths are inconvenient to their positions the radical right ignores them. you have once again done so here.

debbie, the more posts of yours i read the more i want to bear your children.

0 Replies

Re: federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendmen

Brandon9000 wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
The Constitution doesn't necessarily protect anything anyone cares to claim as a right.

Provide a citation to authority that would substantiate your vague claim....

How is it vague to say that the Constutution doesn't protect anything anyone claims is a right? That seems kind of clear and specific to me. Do you believe that the Constitution does protect anything anyone claims is a right?

Look, your arguments are not very hard to defeat, but your posts are long, and it does involve a certain amount of typing. I don't much have the interest in going back and forth on this forever, since it is not really one of my issues. If you're provocative enough, I guess I will continue, but otherwise, I will just say that I don't think the Constution says what you think it does.

Nice strawman Brandon. Deb was pretty clear about what rights the constitutiont protects. You continue to misrepresent her argument as you did from the very beginning. When Deb QUOTES the constituiton, I think it is pretty clear that it says what she thinks it does. The words are there for all to read.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Quote:

Kind of sounds like it:

Debra_Law wrote:

Quote:
...But the fact remains that the U.S. Constitution does NOT ALLOW them to impose their views on others unless they have a compelling reason for doing so -- a compelling reason unrelated to their moral disapproval. ...

Doesn't even come close to sounding like it if you read it in context. "their views" pretty specifically refers back to a them and a view. It is not universal in nature. To quote you on your argument in this one...
"You have a tendency to zero in on one rather irrelevant portion of a post that you think contains an exploitable flaw, when you find yourself unable to address the general meaning that the poster was conveying." (Brandon9000)

0 Replies

Yep, Brandon, have to agree with the masses here, the lawyer has kicked your argument all over the place, and its obvious that you are just arguing to argue.
Hats of to Debra. If I had any part of the 14th that I didn't understand, you have explained them away and it should perfectly clear to anyone.
kuvasz wrote:

Quote:

Like you, i am worried that the overwhelming majority of american people do not understand the meaning of the constitution. and it is not merely that that most do not understand or have even read the actual text, but have almost no knowledge of 200 plus years of historical consititutional law.

I agree 100% with you on this. And to me, this is the most dangerous form of ignorance that we can have. How is someone to know if their rights are actually being abused or taken away if they don't really know what they are to start with.

0 Replies

Re: federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendmen

Debra_Law wrote:

No. You cannot amend your state Constitution "for reasons of morality" if doing so violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. If you have overlooked the Fourteenth Amendment in your constitutional studies, it's time for you to take a good look. You need to learn what lines government may NOT cross when legislating on the basis of peoples' ideas of right and wrong.

Debra,

The historical truth is, the 14th Amendment was adopted with the legislative intent to prohibit state adopted legislation based upon race color or previous condition of slavery, and, to preclude the power of the state to be used in such a fashion as to impose unequal burdens or treatment based upon race color or previous condition of slavery.

The legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was never intended to apply to state laws which make distinctions based upon criterion other than race, color or previous condition of slavery.

As to a federal judge striking down Nebraska’s same sex relation amendment, his decision appears to be bad law and an abuse of power because the plaintiffs, as far as I can determine, never challenged the amendment in Nebraska’s court system, i.e., the plaintiffs did not pursue Nebraska’s “due process” available to them within Nebraska‘s judicial system, and so, the claim to a denial of state “due process” in a federal court under the 14th Amendment is totally without merit.

This of course is not to argue that Initiative 416, (Article I, Section 29 of the Nebraska State Constitution) ought to be upheld by Nebraska’s Courts or that the initiative does not violate the legislative intent of a provision of the federal constitution. Fact is, Initiative 416 not only violates the legislative intent of Article 4, Section 4 of the federal constitution [a guarantee to a Republican Form of Government and protection against “democracy” (mob rule vote) ], it also violates unalienable rights and protections secured to individuals under Nebraska’s Constitution, in that Nebraska’s Constitution was instituted to protect, among other things, the right of individuals to contract with one another. The law blatantly precludes state recognition of contracts between same sex individuals.

The law reads:

Quote:

Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska.

Freedom to contract which is a very broad and fundamental inalienable right of mankind was never intended by the adoption of Nebraska’s constitution to apply only to people of opposite sex.

Although the state of Nebraska may recognize contracts and classify them by different criterion [marriage, civil union, domestic partnerships, business partnerships, etc.] and set public policy based upon specific criterion, it would be an attack on the liberty of people to contract and the state’s obligation to recognize contracts should it refuse to recognize a contract between two people simply because they are the same sex.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to download the opinion of U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon and my opinion is based solely upon various news stories which I have read.

JWK

0 Replies

federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendments

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know