federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendments

[quote="Brandon9000"]The Constitution doesn't necessarily protect anything anyone cares to claim as a right.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

I see a serious ass-kicking coming Brandon's way soon. I will let Debra have the pleasure. It will be fun to watch although I am puzzled why anyone would have such gluttony for punishment.

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.[

Quote:

No... I don't think so. And you provide the proof yourself.

Quote:

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.

And why exactly is it that all people are supposed to be treated equeally under the law? Because it would be immoral not to do so!

Quote:

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.

Quote:

What?? That conduct can be prohibited? But you've been claiming that it can't be.

Quote:

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

Logic requires a chain of consistant thought all pointed to the original premise - something you keep trying to change.

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.

I don't see Brandon making that claim at all. What he claimed was that there is no statment in the Constitution or the 14th Amendment that specifically states that morals can not be the basis for law.

Debra_Law wrote:

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.

I understand it just fine thank you. You DID side-step Brandon's questions just like you side-stepped the very direct and specific questions I asked.

Quote:

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.

That's good Deb because you can't teach what you yourself don't understand. You started this line of comments with your claim that laws can not be based on morality and you continue to try and maintain that when you know full well it is 100% wrong. Our entire Constitution is based on morality - the morality that violating someone elses rights is wrong (i.e. immoral).

Debra_Law wrote:

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 never said YOU did so if there is a strawman there iit's your's. It was a general comment on the overall theme.

Debra_Law wrote:

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.

lmao. So you NEVER stated that people can't pass laws based on morality???? That is EXACTLY what you stated Deb. Let me quote you again for your own clarification: "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."

It's fairly simple for anyone to go back in this thread and find your original post. I admit that you did change the wording later on to cover yourself with a few qualifications of the statement but that was the original statement that both Brandon and I challenged and that you have been unwilling to admit is flat out wrong. Instead of correcting your post and admitting you generalized you've gone on and on adding your precious citations that prove an entirely different point.

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."

The fact remains that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court, the Supreme Law of the Land, says it is.

Chrissee wrote:

The fact remains that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court, the Supreme Law of the Land, says it is.

So we have a tyranny by a few while the majority suffer at their hands. The SC are allowed to make law if they say the Constitution says it does. Nice to know you love vote, because what you are saying is that it doesn't matter how we vote or what laws are passed by the LAW MAKERS, if the SC doesn't like it or fit with what they think the Constitution says, they can over rule it.

Chrissee wrote:

The fact remains that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court, the Supreme Law of the Land, says it is.

So we have a tyranny by a few while the majority suffer at their hands.

Wondered when a member of the Federalist Society would wander by.Welcome John W K,

and I agree with some of your first post and none of your second.
I have preached for a while that homosexual marriage bans would run afoul of freedom to engage in contracts. When has anyone ever been prevented from participating in a contract because of the state of selfhood of another competent, adult party? Bob can marry Eve, but not Steve. It is a property of Steve’s selfhood, his sex that restricts Bob’s freedom to engage in a marriage contract? How its that reconciled with the idea of inalienable rights of the individual based upon human selfhood

As to “Original Intent:” Sorry, but on this we stand apart. “Original Intent” is an interesting approach, but intellectually clearly is more a political stance for anti-populist conservatism masquerading as judicial fealty to dead white men.

kuvasz wrote:

Wondered when a member of the Federalist Society would wander by.Welcome John W K,

A bit presumptuous are you?

kuvasz wrote:

and I agree with some of your first post and none of your second.
I have preached for a while that homosexual marriage bans would run afoul of freedom to engage in contracts. When has anyone ever been prevented from participating in a contract because of the state of selfhood of another competent, adult party? Bob can marry Eve, but not Steve. It is a property of Steve's selfhood, his sex that restricts Bob's freedom to engage in a marriage contract? How its that reconciled with the idea of inalienable rights of the individual based upon human selfhood

Let me suggest that although a state is obligated to recognize contracts lawfully engaged in within its borders between individuals as a function of government, a state is not obligated to abandon it's authority to classify contracts, nor prohibited to adopt public policy based upon the classification of contracts.

kuvasz wrote:

As to "Original Intent:" Sorry, but on this we stand apart. "Original Intent" is an interesting approach, but intellectually clearly is more a political stance for anti-populist conservatism masquerading as judicial fealty to dead white men.

Sorry you disagree with one of the most fundamental rules of contractual agreements___ enforcing the intent with which that contract [our constitutions, state and federal] came into existence. But those who would ignore this most fundamental rule seem to always obscure their motives, which I have generally found to be is a masked desire to use the force of government to impose their whims and fancies upon others.


JWK

"one of the most fundamental rules of contractual agreements_(is)__ enforcing the intent with which that contract [our constitutions, state and federal] came into existence.

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body'

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.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

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

Debra_Law wrote:

[quote="Brandon9000"]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. [/b]

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.

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.

Baldimo wrote:

Chrissee wrote:

The fact remains that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court, the Supreme Law of the Land, says it is.

So we have a tyranny by a few while the majority suffer at their hands.

The Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of the rule of law and the ultimate check to see that the rule of the law is followed is now called a "tyranny by the few" by a young man who apparently considers himself a conservative and a patriot. Folks, this is astounding.

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....

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

I don't have an issue with the Constitution; I have a problem with the SC telling us what they think is the law according to the Constitution. They make things up to fit what they think. According to some here the term pursuit of happiness means we can have SS and welfare. I didn't know happiness meant free money from the taxpayers.