federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendments

Quote:

And the reason I disagree with you is that I don't want fundamental change in society to depend on what nine unelected people, unaccountable to anyone, happen to think.

The members of the SC are fully accountable to Congress. In the fifties, Impeach Earl Warren billboards were prevalent in the South.

I wonder? Would there ever have been a Civil Rights Act of 1964 had there been no Brown v. the Board of Education first? Waiting for the majority to vote in rights for a oppressed and hated minority is not acceptable.

0 Replies

Re: federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendmen

Brandon9000 wrote:

I have given, faithfully, the first two sentences in her post.

The first sentence in her post is to quote me as saying:

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

The second sentence in her post is:

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

I have omitted nothing. These are the very first two things in that post. There is nothing before them or in between them.

She quotes me as making an assertion, then asks me to substantiate my claim. If she is not asking me to substantiate what she just quoted, what is she asking me to substantiate?

ROFL

YOU OMITTED THE ENTIRE CONTEXT:

*************

Recap:

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....

Brandon wrote:

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.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1333556#1333556

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.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1333562#1333562

Brandon wrote:

Sorry, but I don't see where this [the Fourteenth Amendment] says that you can't base laws on morality. Human laws have always been based on (1) codification of people's ideas of right and wrong, (2) issues of practicality in running society.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1333566#1333566

Debra Law wrote:

[Highlighted language in Fourteenth Amendment]

You don't see? In case you can't see the relevant language, I have placed an emphasis on the language above.

If you can see it, but you don't UNDERSTAND it, then that's a different story. If you desire assistance to understand the Fourteenth Amendment, I will help you. If you desire to be obtuse or naive, then I won't waste my time.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1333587#1333587

(playing the deaf, dumb, and blind game) Brandon wrote:

No, I'm looking at that 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.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1333726#1333726

Debra Law wrote:

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 . . . .

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1334681#1334681

Brandon wrote:

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.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1334694#1334694

Debra_Law wrote:

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?

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1335334#1335334

***********

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1335365#1335365

You were responding to my argument. If I had argued that the Constitution protects anything anyone cares to claim as a right, then maybe your rebuttal would have made sense. Since it did not make sense in the context, I asked you to substantiate your vague statement.

Now, answer the question. How does your rebuttal that you've been defending rebut anything within the context in which you offered it?

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

The members of the SC are fully accountable to Congress. In the fifties, Impeach Earl Warren billboards were prevalent in the South.

I wasn't there at the time, and I'm sure that was impressive rhetoric from the opponents of Brown. But is there any historical example where a Supreme Court judge was actually impeached for the decisions he reached? Or even close enough that judges today would consider it before reaching a decision? I haven't researched the question, so don't know.

Chrissee wrote:

I wonder? Would there ever have been a Civil Rights Act of 1964 had there been no Brown v. the Board of Education first?

There is no way of knowing, of course. But looking into America's constitutional history, I see that the fourteenth amendment was passed for the explicit purpose of making the Civil Rights Act of 1866 constitutional. I have a vague memory that parts of the act were copied and pasted verbatim into the amendment. With this in mind, I don't see why it shouldn't work that way in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Chrissee wrote:

Waiting for the majority to vote in rights for a oppressed and hated minority is not acceptable.

When I first heard this argument, my gut response was to agree. But then I changed my mind because what's sause for the goose is sauce for the gander. And how would you respond to a Christian fundamentalist who contended that human embryos are such a minority, and that the Supreme Court must take a hard line on their "right to life" even if a vast majority of Americans disagree with this line of reasoning?

0 Replies

Thomas

Quote:

No justice has ever been removed through this process, and only one justice of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached. In 1805 Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in the House by his political enemies, but the Senate failed to convict when it became apparent that Chase's opponents were after him not because he had committed any wrongdoing but because they disagreed with his decisions. The possibility of impeachment may have been a factor in the resignation of Justice Abe Fortas, who left the Court in 1969 after allegations surfaced that he had accepted a questionable fee from a private foundation. Some conservative groups rallied for the removal of Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1960s, but their efforts failed.

source

0 Replies

Re: federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendmen

Debra_Law wrote:

Now, answer the question. How does your rebuttal that you've been defending rebut anything within the context in which you offered it?

I just respond to what's actually written in your post, not what you might have meant by it. Apparently I'm stupid for not seeing, in clear statements in the Constitution, what they don't say, and in your posts what you didn't write but had in your mind. I will continue to respond to what you say, not what you might mean by it. If your post says:

Debra Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
X = 2

What rot! Prove it!

I'll comment on your request that I prove X = 2, not something the post doesn't say. I think that you have a little problem with logical, linear thought, and make up for it by restatement of your authority and alleged expertise.

0 Replies

Re: State's Rights

Thomas wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
The lesson learned from Lawrence v. Texas clearly informs us that there are certain lines that the states may NOT cross when legislating on matters of majoritarian opinions of right and wrong. The Court told us:

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.

Interesting. The lesson I learned from Lawrence v. Texas was that gay rights are not a settled issue of constitutional law, given that the Supreme Court overruled a precedent only 17 years old, given that three judges in Lawrence disagreed with the majority overruling it, and given that the next round of Supreme Court appointments is more likely than not to turn this minority opinion into the majority opinion again.

The newly freed slaves fought for over 100 years to obtain equal rights in society despite the existence of constitutional provisions and federal laws that should have made their civil rights movement unnecessary. The "separate but equal" doctrine announced in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was not overruled for 58 years. Even after the Court announced its ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), blacks continued to struggle for state recognition of their civil rights. In some states, blacks were forbidden by law to marry whites until those laws were declared unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia (1967).

Some people can react with dismay and exclaim, "gosh darn, the ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick was only 17 years old . . . how could the Court overrule it so soon?" Perhaps you would be comfortable if it had taken the Court a half-century or a century to overrule Bowers v. Hardwick, but I think it is a mar on our history that this case reigned supreme for 17 years and continued to allow state oppression of homosexuals. I am thankful that the Court was wise enough to rule that the doctrinal underpinnings of the Bowers case were invalid and that state laws that criminalized private consensual conduct only served to oppress in violation of the Due Process Clause.

It is highly unlikely that a change in the Court's membership will change the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. If you take a look, the current membership of the court consists of conservative justices. Some are more conservative than others--but all are conservative. And homosexuals will continue their civil rights movement and struggle for equality in the eyes of the law. The Court may be in a position to curtail the movement, but whether it takes a half-century or a century, homosexuals will eventually prevail in their struggle for state recognition of their civil rights.

I am ashamed of the people in this country who oppressed and denigrated black people solely on the basis of their skin color with their lynch mob mentality. I am equally ashamed of the people in this country who oppress and denigrate homosexuals solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. Perhaps you do not appreciate the lessons contained in Lawrence v. Texas--but as a citizen who cherishes liberty and equal rights for all--I appreciate the ruling. It gives me hope that this country will not always be tainted by hate and moral disapproval of others and that liberty and equal rights will be extended to all.

Thomas wrote:

But even assuming that Lawrence v. Texas settled the issue of gay sex, I don't see how it settles the issue of gay marriage. It is one thing not to criminalize people for having an intimate relation with one another; it is another issue not to change the traditional definition of marriage to make it cover same-sex relationships. One is about punishing something, the other is about (not) rewarding something with claims on the rest of society. To this interested layman, this distinction seems substantial enough to potentially turn around two of the 'swing voters' on the Supreme Court who, in Lawrence, voted for overturning Bowers. Therefore, while I disapprove of the anti-gay-marriage amendments to various state constitutions, I remain unpersuaded by your argument that the amendments were unconstitutional.

Lawrence v. Texas was not written on a blank piece of paper. The decision relied heavily on past precedents. Perhaps to many it does not settle the issue of same sex marriage, but it should. The traditional definition of marriage that favors opposite sex couples only serves to oppress same sex couples. Moral disapproval of same sex couples is not an interest compelling enough to deny same sex couples the right to marry any more than moral disapproval of mixed-raced couples served to deny them the right to marry.

In case you forgot, it was a criminal offense in some states for mixed-race couples to marry before the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia. Your criminal vs. civil distinction is without merit. Civil laws can be just as oppressive as criminal laws. Simply stating that society will no longer punish homosexuals for their conduct through criminal laws, but will not "reward" them by granting them legal recognition to marry through civil laws doesn't alter the fact that society is engaging in unconstitutional oppression and discrimination.

Marriage is not a "reward" that is bestowed upon people. Marriage is an inalienable, fundamental right. Who cares about your so called "claims on the rest of society" when society automatically bestows the obligations of marriage on any opposite sex couple that marries. There are no legal restrictions on marriage based on "claims on the rest of society." If Joe marries Jane, he's entitled to include Jane on his family health insurance plan--and he pays for the family plan rather than the single plan. Why should it make any difference to society if Joe marries John instead of Jane and includes John on his family health insurance plan? Why should the gender of one's intended spouse make any difference whatsoever with respect to your so called "claims on the rest of society?"

Discrimination and oppression effectuated by state laws based solely on moral disapproval is unconstitutional. You may not be convinced of that fact; but I am.

0 Replies

Re: federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendmen

Thomas wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
It isn't always prudent to go back 200 years and consult those who are rotting away in their graves--those who thought it was an acceptable compromise to count blacks and 3/5th of a person. That type of oppressive and discriminatory treatment would not be tolerated today.

Which is why the United States passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. The emancipation of blacks was not achieved by changing the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

The passage of the post-civil war amendments did not effectuate liberty and equality for blacks:

1865 Thirteenth Amendment (Abolition of Slavery)

1868 Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process, Equal Protection)

1870 Fifteenth Amendment (voting rights--race)

1896 Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal doctrine)

1954 Brown v. Board of Education (Plessy overruled)

1967 Loving v. Virginia (Anti-Miscegenation Statute unconstitutional)

Any hope that the constitutional amendments would be effective to protect civil rights was shattered by the Plessy decision. The Blacks had to fight for over a hundred years for constitutional protection of their civil rights. The Supreme Court's belated interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1954 and 1967 finally bestowed upon blacks the liberty and equal rights they should have had already for decades.

Quote:

Later, the suffragettes persuaded public opinion in America that it was wrong to deprive women of the right to vote -- so the United States passed the 19th Amendment. Again, the emancipation of women was achieved by the suffragettes persuading public opinion that women's rights were a good idea, and having them vote for Congressmen who would change the constitution -- not by having the Supreme Court change its opinion of what the 14th amendment meant. (Which is how it presumably would be done if the same issue was coming up today.) From your arguments here, you appear to think that updating the constitution the hard way is a bad idea, and that those changes should have been brought about through changes of opinion within the Supreme Court.

1920 Nineteenth Amendment (Women's right to vote)

Look back over the history of Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence with respect to blacks. The Fourteenth Amendment should have protected the civil rights of blacks as well as the civil rights of women--but it didn't because the Supreme Court was unwilling to give the Fourteenth Amendment any effective teeth. The Nineteenth Amendment became necessary because the Court was NOT upholding the Fourteenth Amendment.

Thomas wrote:

If so, our disagreement is not about the desirable amount of civil rights. It isn't about whether gay marriage is a good idea, which I think it is. It isn't about whether the constitution ought to be kept up to date. Of course it ought to! Our disagreement is that I, and presumably JWK, think it ought ot be kept up to date through public debate, voting, and legislation, while you seem to prefer the approach of persuading the Supreme Court to change its interpretation of the constitution's words. And the reason I disagree with you is that I don't want fundamental change in society to depend on what nine unelected people, unaccountable to anyone, happen to think. This tiny group is a single point of failure in the workings of society. Changing the constitution through amendments, not re-interpretations, is a straightforward and workable way of avoiding this point of failure.

It is the Supreme Court's duty to interpret and apply the Constitution to cases and controversies arising under the Constitution.

No state shall deprive any person within its jurisdiction of equal protection of the laws means exactly what it says. It's the Court's duty to uphold the Constitution. The fact that the Court failed in its duty for approximately 100 years to give the Fourteenth Amendment effect does not justify throwing the Fourteenth Amendment out the window. It is not a democratic decision whether homosexuals should be granted equal rights under the law; it's a constitutional mandate.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

parados wrote:
Baldimo wrote:

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.

So your problem is that you have an issue with the constitution because the Constitution gives the USSC the power to do what you have a problem with.

The Constitution says the USSC gets to decide the meaning of the constitution. It can't be much simpler than that. (Your strawman argument about "free money" not withstanding.)

The problems lies with the SC and their interpertation of the Constution. They have invented rights that do not exist. Welfare isn't a Constitutional right and neither is abortion or SS.

When did the Court state the SS was a constitutional right? When did it say that welfare was a constitutional right? You are doing NOTHING but strawman arguments.

Abortion is covered under the right to privacy. People have a right to keep things to themselves. One of those is their medical treatments.

0 Replies

Re: federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendmen

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:
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....

The above post is here

One must presume from the fact that you quoted me that this is the claim you are referring to. You ask for a citation to support it. If you want me to support it, that means you must think it might be wrong. If you do not think it might be wrong, why would you ask me for a citation to support it? If the statement:

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

is wrong, then the only possible alternative is that the Constitution does protect anything anyone cares to claim as a right. That is such an absurd idea that I need not provide a citation to refute it.

Interesting how you left out the entire argument leading up to your statement to try to win a debating point Brandon.

I have given, faithfully, the first two sentences in her post.

The first sentence in her post is to quote me as saying:

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

The second sentence in her post is:

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

I have omitted nothing. These are the very first two things in that post. There is nothing before them or in between them.

She quotes me as making an assertion, then asks me to substantiate my claim. If she is not asking me to substantiate what she just quoted, what is she asking me to substantiate?

If I quote someone as saying:

Joe said: "X = 2."

And I then say:
"What rot! Prove it!"

who on Earth is going to think that I am asking Joe to prove anything other than what I quoted him as saying? The quotation that she seems to ask for a citation for is, to say the least, self-evident. If she wants a citation for some different thing than what she quoted, she need only say so.

You did leave out the entire context of her statement. You took her statement as if it stood completely alone. It doesn't. It is in context of the entire conversation to that point.

Suppose I say x is the sum of 1 and 1 in one post then I say x=2 in another post. If you simply take the x=2 post and ignore the previous posts then you ARE leaving out part of the discussion. Your statement was in response to a statement made by Deb. SImply because she did not quote the entire argument so far does not make her statement stand alone. The quotation IS SELF-EVIDENT. It is EASY to go back and read the previous post to see the context. You are deliberately making the statement mean something out of context to try to win a debating point.

0 Replies

Re: State's Rights

Debra_Law wrote:

Huh? A violation of the equal protection clause is IMMORAL? I thought a violation of the equal protection clause was simply UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You make all your absurd arguments on the erroneous premise that our Constitution is a MORAL CODE. It's not.

Really? It isn't? What is the purpose in outlining specific rights then? And why the specific rights that have been outlined? Are you going to try and tell me that the arguments for passing the just about every single Amendment to the Constitution weren't based on moral reasoning???

When Gov. Morris stood up and spoke at the ratifying convention for your precious 14th Amendment weren't his words that slavery was a "nefarious institution, the curse of heaven on the states where it prevailed." a moral weighing of the issue of slavery?

When George Mason spoke at that same convention and said slavery "produces the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant.... Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when they see it performed by slaves.... I hold it essential ... that the general government should have the power to prevent the increase of slavery." wasn't he making a moral argument for passage of the Amendment???

When Alexander Hamilton wrote ""To bereave a man of life (says he) or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person by secretly hurrying him to goal, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government." And as a remedy for this fatal evil, he is every where peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls "the BULWARK of the British constitution."[/i] in Federalist paper 84 did he not intend for people to consider the moral implications of people suffering "unkonw and forgotten"? Are "gross and notorious" not moral measurements??

Yes, the Consitution sets the legal lines but each and every one of them are based on a moral rational.

Quote:

We the people have inalienable rights. Among those rights are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. TO SECURE these rights, we formed our government.

The Preamble of the Constitution sets forth the purposes for which "we the people" established and ordained the Constitution. It was the intent of our forefathers to SECURE the blessings of liberty to themselves and their progeny. Accordingly, our forefathers established a government of limited and enumerated powers with built in separations of powers among the three branches of government to serve as checks and balances against tyranny and oppression. The first eight amendments to the Constitution are also limitations on Government power designed to secure the blessings of liberty to the people against governmental oppression.

You're the one who argues that it would be IMMORAL for government to violate the Constitution. You can put a moral slant on it if you want. However, my argument is that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL (against the Supreme Law of the Land) for Government to deny or disparage fundamental liberty interests which includes the right to equal protection of the laws.

Contrary to you silly assertions, I would argue it is both unconstitutional and immoral.

Quote:

I never said it was IMMORAL for a state to pass laws based solely on morality--you're the one who wants to replace the word "unconstitutional" with the word "immoral."

No, you didn't. You said "They may not impose their morals on others through the power of the state." and I specifically asked you for your professional legal opinion if that would continue to hold true if the law based on morals was also Constitutional yet you totally ignored that question and tried to run away from your original statement with diversions and claims that any question put to you is a strawman argument.

Quote:

You are creating a ridiculous strawman argument by claiming that I'm arguing that it's immoral for the governing majority to pass laws based on morals. Whether it's moral or immoral for the state to pass unconstitutional laws is not the issue.

I have done no such thing. I very specifically quoted your original comment and asked questions directly reataed to that statement. You, on the other hand, have run off in 15 different directions trying to maintain that the original statement is true. You've avoided answering very direct questions that were asked for clarification because you know damn well if you answer them truthfully the original comment doesn't hold water.

The one and only statement of yours that started this line of questioning was "They may not impose their morals on others through the power of the state."

Your protests that I'm claiming you've argued anything else is complete and utter bullshit. All of my other commnets have been in response to your silly diversions.

Quote:

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

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

It's not my fault that you can't understand the difference between fundamental liberty interests protected by the Constitution and criminal behavior that is not protected.

All my statements with respect to the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent are consistent. On the other hand, you create ridiculous arguments, attribute those arguments to me even though I never made those arguments, and then you call those arguments ridiculous.

I understand the difference just fine thank you.

Your statments have been consistant???? Really???

Quote:

DebraLaw wrote:

They may not impose their morals on others through the power of the state.

DebraLaw wrote:
...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.

DebraLaw wrote:
You cannot amend your state Constitution "for reasons of morality" if doing so violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Can you really not see that the first of those 3 comments of yours is significantly broader than the latter 2? Does that 1st statement still hold absolutely true if the "unless" and "if" conditions of the last 2 are met???? Why do you keep running away from this one very simple question?

Quote:

Debra_Law wrote:
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:
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.

You disagree with me by saying exactly what I said. Go figure that one out.

No, I didn't. But your reading skills are apparently so poor that you can't make the distinction. There is no direct statement in the 14th Amendment (which is what Brandon asked to begin with). You yourself have made it veryy clear that the prohibition comes not from the Amendment itself but from the USSC rulings on cases brought to them on 14th Amendment grounds.

One is looking at the text of the document. The other is looking at the Court rulings based on that text. The two are very different beasts.

Quote:

Brandon suffers from the same affliction that you suffer from: The inability to understand that fundamental liberty interests are constitutionally protected against state infringement. You are unable to discern the difference between fundamental liberty interests that are protected and crimes that are not protected.

Perhaps. But I am able to discern the difference between what is written in the text of the Amendment and what came from a USSC opinion. Now if you had had that ability this thread would be 4 pages shorter.

Debra-Law wrote:

The Constitution is not a moral code. You're the one who is wrong.

Again, the Supreme Court ruled as follows:

"[T]he 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; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack."

I have based my arguments on Supreme Court precedent. Therefore, I am 100 percent right when I quote the Supreme Court with respect to the interpretation and application of the Constitution.

Yes, you have based your argument on Supreme Court rulings - not one single person here has questioned that. What you haven't done however, is directly answer the questions asked. If you had simply answered the original questions truthfully you wouldn't have had to do all the quoting you've done.

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.

Fishin wrote:

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."

Again, I will recite the Supreme Court precedent:

Quote:

lmao Once again, you quote the USSC instead of answering the question that was asked! Thanks! I read it the 1st 4 times you posted it. It still doesn't change the question though!

DebraLaw wrote:

Everyone can go back through the thread and see that all my posts are consistent and based on the law.

And as I already showed above - they aren't.

DebraLaw wrote:
I think it's absurd that I should even have to point out your idiocy on this matter.

Not near as absurd as you posting 6 pages of crap instead of just answering the few simple questions that were originally asked.

0 Replies

Parados:

Quote:

When did the Court state the SS was a constitutional right?

Helvering v. Davis (1937)

Quote:

When did it say that welfare was a constitutional right?

I'm sure if it were to be pulled the ACLU would take the govt to court and the SC would rule in favor of the lazy among us.

Quote:

You are doing NOTHING but strawman arguments.

I'm raising valid points. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them strawmen.

Quote:

Abortion is covered under the right to privacy. People have a right to keep things to themselves. One of those is their medical treatments.

I didn't know murder was a legal right. If that were so then taking my child to the Dr. to have him killed should be covered under the same "right" now shouldn't it? Women don't get pregnant by themselves, this supposedly happened only once and hasn't happened again. Why is it that the father of the child has no choice in the manner? Isn't it part of the father as well as part of the mother? If they want the money to support the child then father should also have a say in the death of the child.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Parados:

Quote:
When did the Court state the SS was a constitutional right?
Helvering v. Davis (1937)

Helvering v Davis does not make SS a right. It only says that the tax for SS is not unconstitutional and that Congress has the power to lay the tax and create the benefits. It does not declare it a right granted to US citizens. Strawman it is on your part since the court never declared SS a right.

Quote:

Quote:
When did it say that welfare was a constitutional right?

I'm sure if it were to be pulled the ACLU would take the govt to court and the SC would rule in favor of the lazy among us.

Quote:
You are doing NOTHING but strawman arguments.

I'm raising valid points. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them strawmen.

Hardly a valid point if it doesn't exist when you claim that the court has done it. It is a strawman argument. Claiming something that was never done as proof that they are out of bounds is not valid, it is a strawman.

Quote:

Quote:
Abortion is covered under the right to privacy. People have a right to keep things to themselves. One of those is their medical treatments.

I didn't know murder was a legal right. If that were so then taking my child to the Dr. to have him killed should be covered under the same "right" now shouldn't it? Women don't get pregnant by themselves, this supposedly happened only once and hasn't happened again. Why is it that the father of the child has no choice in the manner? Isn't it part of the father as well as part of the mother? If they want the money to support the child then father should also have a say in the death of the child.

Is your contention that no man has ever had a say in an abortion? That seems to be your strawman here. Am I understanding you correctly? Or is your strawman your contention that abortion gives the right to kill children after they are born? It does not. You continue to misprepresent what the other side has said and done. That is a strawman argument.

0 Replies

Re: federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendmen

parados wrote:

...Suppose I say x is the sum of 1 and 1 in one post then I say x=2 in another post. If you simply take the x=2 post and ignore the previous posts then you ARE leaving out part of the discussion. Your statement was in response to a statement made by Deb. SImply because she did not quote the entire argument so far does not make her statement stand alone. The quotation IS SELF-EVIDENT. It is EASY to go back and read the previous post to see the context. You are deliberately making the statement mean something out of context to try to win a debating point.

No, I'm just arguing like a sane person. If someone says:

Quote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
X = 2
I believe this to be false.

the apparent meaning is that the quotation is the object of the criticism. If they do this, but mean something different, they are posting in a highly misleading way. I await your million lines to show me that 1 plus 1 = 3.

0 Replies

Re: federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendmen

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:
...Suppose I say x is the sum of 1 and 1 in one post then I say x=2 in another post. If you simply take the x=2 post and ignore the previous posts then you ARE leaving out part of the discussion. Your statement was in response to a statement made by Deb. SImply because she did not quote the entire argument so far does not make her statement stand alone. The quotation IS SELF-EVIDENT. It is EASY to go back and read the previous post to see the context. You are deliberately making the statement mean something out of context to try to win a debating point.

No, I'm just arguing like a sane person. If someone says:

Quote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
X = 2
I believe this to be false.

the apparent meaning is that the quotation is the object of the criticism. If they do this, but mean something different, they are posting in a highly misleading way. I await your million lines to show me that 1 plus 1 = 3.

Your analogy isn't valid. Since there was no statement made that your statement was FALSE.

Go read Deb's statement. It is obvious in context of what went before. She never claimed your statement was false.

Brandon -

Quote:

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

Deb -

Quote:

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

So lets do a simple change in your example to use Deb's words -

Brandon - X=2
Deb - Provide a citation to authority that would substantiate your vague claim....

Hmmm.. seems a LOT different from your claim above. A whole lot. The only way you can make your argument is to change the words that were actually said. The only one claiming that 1+1 = 3 is YOU. I don't have to go any farther than using the exact words on this thread. You are the one resorting to examples that aren't related to the actual discussion. Your claim was VAGUE based on what it responded to. You can argue this all day and I am sure you will. You can't admit you are wrong even when it is obvious you are.

0 Replies

Re: State's Rights

fishin' wrote:

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:

You created the "entire argument" that you claimed to be comical. That's a classic strawman argument. Try to talk you way out of it, but we know better.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Parados:

Quote:
When did the Court state the SS was a constitutional right?

Helvering v. Davis (1937)

The Court did not rule that social security is a constitutional right.

0 Replies

Re: federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendmen

parados wrote:

Brandon - X=2
Deb - Provide a citation to authority that would substantiate your vague claim....

Brandon - How is that vague? I can't think of a more specific possible statement.

Your claim that one is trying to pull something by responding to what was actually said is absurd. Normal people respond to what is actually said to them, not what they saw in a vision that the person must have meant.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
Parados:

Quote:
When did the Court state the SS was a constitutional right?

Helvering v. Davis (1937)

The Court did not rule that social security is a constitutional right.

If that's not what it said, then what did it say? That the taxs on them are not unConstitutional? That being said wouldn't that in turn make SS Constitutional?

0 Replies

Debra --

As I understand it, the legal concern you raised in your initial post to this thread (as opposed to the moral concerns you also raised) is that the state constitutions' anti-gay-marriage amendments are bad because they are inconsistent with the federal constitution. Hypothetically, what if this inconsistency was resolved by adding an anti-gay-marriage amendment to the federal constitution? As a matter of jurisprudence, this fix should make you happy by restoring consistency. As a matter of ethics though, it should outrage you because gay people's liberty of association would be further constrained, and because the law would continue refusing to acknowledge gay relationships as equal to straight relationships.

On balance then, would this 'solution' make you happy or outrage you? I would have betted high odds that it would drive you up the wall! If that's true, this would be evidence in my opinion that your concerns are essentially about ethics, not law. This is fine with me. On that basis, I would even agree with most of what you say. I just wish you would call your concerns what they really are.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Parados:

Quote:
When did the Court state the SS was a constitutional right?

Helvering v. Davis (1937)

The Court did not rule that social security is a constitutional right.

If that's not what it said, then what did it say? That the taxs on them are not unConstitutional? That being said wouldn't that in turn make SS Constitutional?

It doesn't make it a RIGHT if it is constituitonal. It is constitutional for Congress to collect income tax. That doesn't mean I have a right related to those taxes.
Constitutional rights are rights guaranteed to the PEOPLE. If Congress has the power to do something under the constitution it doesn't grant anything to the people as a right.

0 Replies

federally UNCONSTITUTIONAL state constitutional amendments

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know