Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[martybegan]

sounds more like you are arguing over conservative constructionists versus liberal constructionists. there is nothing strict in your strict

would you allow the label strict vegan, for a person who claims to be a strict vegan and admits to sometimes drinking soups made with beef stock?

It is far more strict than the living constitution view.

and on your 2nd case, that person isn't a vegan at all, so the point is moot.

the point isn't moot.

this isn't a law class and YOU are NOT a law professor, no matter how many times you pose as one online

I have never claimed any legal education, just and Engineering Education.

 

[martybegan]

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

it says the people can have additional rights, it says nothing about the method of using federal power to protect or enforce them.

It explicitly contradicts your insistence that explicit enumeration defines all rights. Again, read it:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You've insisted that ONLY enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people. The 9th amendment contradicts you, stating the exact opposite.

And when I ask who you're citing in your claim that ONLY enumeration establishe rights.......you've got nobody.

Marty....its the same shit with every argument. You make up something, pulled sideways out of your ass. And then you insist that all of the law, the constitution, the courts, the very concept of rights itself is bound to whatever you just imagined.

Laughing.....um, no.
My position is that the federal government can only enforce rights it is explicitly told it can interact with.

Then I guess if I declare pissing into a storm drain in front of your house a right, the 9th makes the government protect me when I want to do it.

Well that is about on level with the rest of your legal claims.[/QUOTE]

An exaggeration to be sure, but exaggerations are useful when trying to use an example. Please answer the question.

 

[martybegan]

144 pages, basically the thread has devolved into this:

This thread was in the sewer from the OP.

Up to 150+, keeps you coming back.

 

[martybegan]

it says the people can have additional rights, it says nothing about the method of using federal power to protect or enforce them.

It explicitly contradicts your insistence that explicit enumeration defines all rights. Again, read it:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You've insisted that ONLY enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people. The 9th amendment contradicts you, stating the exact opposite.

And when I ask who you're citing in your claim that ONLY enumeration establishe rights.......you've got nobody.

Marty....its the same shit with every argument. You make up something, pulled sideways out of your ass. And then you insist that all of the law, the constitution, the courts, the very concept of rights itself is bound to whatever you just imagined.

Laughing.....um, no.
My position is that the federal government can only enforce rights it is explicitly told it can interact with.

Then I guess if I declare pissing into a storm drain in front of your house a right, the 9th makes the government protect me when I want to do it.

And who says that you declaring something defines a reserve right?

Again, you're backing pseudo-legal gibberish with pseudo-legal gibberish. With you citing yourself, citing yourself.

And when I ask you who states that rights must be enumerated to be retained by the people.......you cite yourself. Citing yourself.

Its turtles - all the way down.

You declare marriage is a right, its not in the document, you run to the 9th amendment for it. I do the same and you can't answer why my right (although exaggerated) doesn't count.

Supreme Court rulings you claim you agree with declared marriage a fundamental right.

Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail..

And then the gay one you disagree with, Obergefell v Hodges. And you disagree with THAT ruling because only straight couples get to use the judiciary...gays have to have a popularity

contest.[/QUOTE]


Only that one. I actually agreed with Windsor, i.e. the feds can't determine which marriage licenses they can accept.

If you want to radically change the definition of an existing institution, you gotta do it the hard way.

 

[martybegan]

They can marry all they want, just like those nutter mormons do, the real question is of the State recognizing it. To me there is no right to SSM unless you can convince the State in question to change its law.

Your personal opinions are not of interest to anyone. What matters is that, as a matter of law and fact, gay couples can be, and are, married. In every state.

as a matter of decision, not law. by law its only in the States that passed it legislatively or by proposition. All the other ones are by fiat with no law on the books to back it up.

With every comment, you reveal more ignorance. A supreme court decision settles a question of law. As a matter of law, gay marriage is legal. It is illegal (i.e. against the law) for any state to refuse to allow a gay couple that meet the other requirements of the law (i.e. age, not being married to another) to marry.

but that doesn't make it A law. the laws stay on the books until re-written by the legislature. More progressive "I think it is, therefore it is"

You have no idea what you are talking about. Court decisions carry the force of law. Therefore it is law. No legislation is forthcoming or necessary. The laws previously passed by the states prohibiting same sex marriage are in the recycle bin. Plain and simple. Even if technically "on the books" they are unenforceable.

So where is the law? if Roe V Wade is overturned tomorrow abortion becomes illegal in a bunch of states, because the law is still in place, but in a place like NY is goes on, because NY got around to passing a law protecting it.

Decisions may have the force of law, but they are not law.

 

[martybegan]

Why is Silhouette obsessing over 4 unelected lawyers?

Don;t steal my line without referencing me, jackass.

 

[paddymurphy]

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." There are rights not explicitly identified that, nevertheless, are protected from government intrusion. Privacy is one of those. The right to privacy includes rights that are fundamental to ordered liberty. What is more fundamental to a persons liberty than the choice of who to spend your life with; who to create a family with?

A whole lot of opinion and extrapolation from the source document, nothing more.

That is from Roe v Wade. You know a Supreme Court Opinion that declares what the law is.

Roe V Wade was shit.

That your expert legal conclusion? Fucking moron.

it's succinct and to the point.

If the point is to demonstrate your ignorance, yes, it was.

 

[Pop23]

Pop still shilling for incest?

Except I oppose it. Other than that.....

 

[martybegan]

A whole lot of opinion and extrapolation from the source document, nothing more.

That is from Roe v Wade. You know a Supreme Court Opinion that declares what the law is.

Roe V Wade was shit.

That your expert legal conclusion? Fucking moron.

it's succinct and to the point.

If the point is to demonstrate your ignorance, yes, it was.

The only ignorance is on the side that supports that crap just because it gets them the results they want.

To clear the air, I don't support any ban on abortion before viability, be it for birth control, medical reasons, or the voices in her head told the woman to do so. after viability I have zero issue with abortion for medical reasons. And if they want to go with the outdated 2nd trimester line for viability, that doesn't bother me either. What I don't see is a right to it in the constitution.

 

[paddymurphy]

They are law. Ever hear the

Your personal opinions are not of interest to anyone. What matters is that, as a matter of law and fact, gay couples can be, and are, married. In every state.

as a matter of decision, not law. by law its only in the States that passed it legislatively or by proposition. All the other ones are by fiat with no law on the books to back it up.

With every comment, you reveal more ignorance. A supreme court decision settles a question of law. As a matter of law, gay marriage is legal. It is illegal (i.e. against the law) for any state to refuse to allow a gay couple that meet the other requirements of the law (i.e. age, not being married to another) to marry.

but that doesn't make it A law. the laws stay on the books until re-written by the legislature. More progressive "I think it is, therefore it is"

You have no idea what you are talking about. Court decisions carry the force of law. Therefore it is law. No legislation is forthcoming or necessary. The laws previously passed by the states prohibiting same sex marriage are in the recycle bin. Plain and simple. Even if technically "on the books" they are unenforceable.

So where is the law? if Roe V Wade is overturned tomorrow abortion becomes illegal in a bunch of states, because the law is still in place, but in a place like NY is goes on, because NY got around to passing a law protecting it.

Decisions may have the force of law, but they are not law.

They are law. There is common law. A set of legal rules and principles established through case law. There is constitutional law which includes the constitution and the body of case law that interpret, construe and apply the constitution. Personal injury and tort law is based almost entirely on cases. Very little is addressed by statutes.

 

[Faun]

Why would it have to be 'newsworthy' for you to have evidence? Marriages are a matter of public record.

If you have no evidence of any sibling marriage in Iowa or Maryland....just admit it.

Go search the records, I don't care how you waste your time. All I had to do is prove its legality.

Iowa Code 595

AND BOOM! I just did troll

Poor, demented, perv.

So your proof that same-sex siblings can marry rests upon a state whose marriage laws have been invalidated by Obergefell because they haven't updated their marriage laws yet?

Imbecile, that law did not specifically list same-sex marriages which would be void because no marriage was allowed between two people of the same gender. So it wasn't necessary for the law to invalidate a marriage between two brothers or two sisters, for example, since section 1 didn't allow them to marry regardless of what their relationship was.

But here's the best part .... the law is being rewritten which will accommodate the Supreme Court ruling. Here's one bill already submitted...

HF253

An Act relating to eligible parties to a valid marriage.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:

Section 1. Section 595.2, Code 2015, is amended to read as follows:
595.2 Gender == age Eligible parties to a marriage == age.
Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid
A party who otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter for a valid marriage is eligible to marry any other such party regardless of gender.

[...]

595.19 Void marriages.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or sister's son.
a. Between a party and the party's aunt or uncle, child, grandchild, sibling, niece, or nephew.
c. b. Between first cousins.
​

The marriage law is invalid in iowa?

Damn, you got a whole lotta pissed of brides then, cuz they thought they had s valid license!

I'll let you handle them!

Has it passed? Iowa has had same sex marriage since 2009. Obergfell was in 2015

What compelling state interest will the state use to deny same sex siblings their constitutionally protected rights that were in place for six years.

Wake me up when it does.

Did I say it's law yet? Why, no, no I didn't. But it is on the docket to be voted on and is clearly the intent of Iowa to not allow any siblings from marrying. Which was the intent of the law as originally written before same-sex marriage was allowed.

Oh, I see

You were gleeful over something that proves I was right all along.

Got it

Interesting really, if it does pass, I win again because I oppose family marriage. But it doesn't answer the question.

What is the States Compelling Intetest in denying same sex siblings from their fundimental right?

I guess it could be argued that the change you posted is no different then the legislative bodies tried to limit access to only opposite sex couples. Is this Iowans new attempt at a DOMA style law?

We saw how that works when a state breaks the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and due process.

No, you were never right. I'm showing you again how you're wrong.

And you'll never be rightbon this since you can't show why it was illegal for a brother and sister, with no possibility of procreation, to marry prior to Obergefell, so why that would change now for same-sex siblings since.

 

[paddymurphy]

It is your ignorance of constitutional law, a

That is from Roe v Wade. You know a Supreme Court Opinion that declares what the law is.

Roe V Wade was shit.

That your expert legal conclusion? Fucking moron.

it's succinct and to the point.

If the point is to demonstrate your ignorance, yes, it was.

The only ignorance is on the side that supports that crap just because it gets them the results they want.

To clear the air, I don't support any ban on abortion before viability, be it for birth control, medical reasons, or the voices in her head told the woman to do so. after viability I have zero issue with abortion for medical reasons. And if they want to go with the outdated 2nd trimester line for viability, that doesn't bother me either. What I don't see is a right to it in the constitution.

Your ignorance of the constitution and legal principles in general is what prevents you from seeing what is obvious.

 

[martybegan]

They are law. Ever hear the

as a matter of decision, not law. by law its only in the States that passed it legislatively or by proposition. All the other ones are by fiat with no law on the books to back it up.

With every comment, you reveal more ignorance. A supreme court decision settles a question of law. As a matter of law, gay marriage is legal. It is illegal (i.e. against the law) for any state to refuse to allow a gay couple that meet the other requirements of the law (i.e. age, not being married to another) to marry.

but that doesn't make it A law. the laws stay on the books until re-written by the legislature. More progressive "I think it is, therefore it is"

You have no idea what you are talking about. Court decisions carry the force of law. Therefore it is law. No legislation is forthcoming or necessary. The laws previously passed by the states prohibiting same sex marriage are in the recycle bin. Plain and simple. Even if technically "on the books" they are unenforceable.

So where is the law? if Roe V Wade is overturned tomorrow abortion becomes illegal in a bunch of states, because the law is still in place, but in a place like NY is goes on, because NY got around to passing a law protecting it.

Decisions may have the force of law, but they are not law.

They are law. There is common law. A set of legal rules and principles established through case law. There is constitutional law which includes the constitution and the body of case law that interpret, construe and apply the constitution. Personal injury and tort law is based almost entirely on cases. Very little is addressed by statutes.

Then why is the above situation I describe possible?

Also, the US system is not completely common law, as you are implying.

 

[martybegan]

It is your ignorance of constitutional law, a

Roe V Wade was shit.

That your expert legal conclusion? Fucking moron.

it's succinct and to the point.

If the point is to demonstrate your ignorance, yes, it was.

The only ignorance is on the side that supports that crap just because it gets them the results they want.

To clear the air, I don't support any ban on abortion before viability, be it for birth control, medical reasons, or the voices in her head told the woman to do so. after viability I have zero issue with abortion for medical reasons. And if they want to go with the outdated 2nd trimester line for viability, that doesn't bother me either. What I don't see is a right to it in the constitution.

Your ignorance of the constitution and legal principles in general is what prevents you from seeing what is obvious.

Right back at you, skippy.

 

[paddymurphy]

It is your ignorance of constitutional law, a

That your expert legal conclusion? Fucking moron.

it's succinct and to the point.

If the point is to demonstrate your ignorance, yes, it was.

The only ignorance is on the side that supports that crap just because it gets them the results they want.

To clear the air, I don't support any ban on abortion before viability, be it for birth control, medical reasons, or the voices in her head told the woman to do so. after viability I have zero issue with abortion for medical reasons. And if they want to go with the outdated 2nd trimester line for viability, that doesn't bother me either. What I don't see is a right to it in the constitution.

Your ignorance of the constitution and legal principles in general is what prevents you from seeing what is obvious.

Right back at you, skippy.

But I am not ignorant of the constitution and the law. It has been my profession for 25 years. My views are shared by the majority of those who practice law and who serve as judges. Your views are held by uneducated, ignorant dolts who presume to offer opinions on things they know little about.

 

[mdk]

I am still curious about this gay test of Pops. lol. What proof is he willing to accept? Will gays have to make out in front of him? Will there be a fashion component?

 

[martybegan]

It is your ignorance of constitutional law, a

it's succinct and to the point.

If the point is to demonstrate your ignorance, yes, it was.

The only ignorance is on the side that supports that crap just because it gets them the results they want.

To clear the air, I don't support any ban on abortion before viability, be it for birth control, medical reasons, or the voices in her head told the woman to do so. after viability I have zero issue with abortion for medical reasons. And if they want to go with the outdated 2nd trimester line for viability, that doesn't bother me either. What I don't see is a right to it in the constitution.

Your ignorance of the constitution and legal principles in general is what prevents you from seeing what is obvious.

Right back at you, skippy.

But I am not ignorant of the constitution and the law. It has been my profession for 25 years. My views are shared by the majority of those who practice law and who serve as judges. Your views are held by uneducated, ignorant dolts who presume to offer opinions on things they know little about.

Sorry, but all your experience doesn't automatically make you right.

 

[paddymurphy]

They are law. Ever hear the

With every comment, you reveal more ignorance. A supreme court decision settles a question of law. As a matter of law, gay marriage is legal. It is illegal (i.e. against the law) for any state to refuse to allow a gay couple that meet the other requirements of the law (i.e. age, not being married to another) to marry.

but that doesn't make it A law. the laws stay on the books until re-written by the legislature. More progressive "I think it is, therefore it is"

You have no idea what you are talking about. Court decisions carry the force of law. Therefore it is law. No legislation is forthcoming or necessary. The laws previously passed by the states prohibiting same sex marriage are in the recycle bin. Plain and simple. Even if technically "on the books" they are unenforceable.

So where is the law? if Roe V Wade is overturned tomorrow abortion becomes illegal in a bunch of states, because the law is still in place, but in a place like NY is goes on, because NY got around to passing a law protecting it.

Decisions may have the force of law, but they are not law.

They are law. There is common law. A set of legal rules and principles established through case law. There is constitutional law which includes the constitution and the body of case law that interpret, construe and apply the constitution. Personal injury and tort law is based almost entirely on cases. Very little is addressed by statutes.

Then why is the above situation I describe possible?

Also, the US system is not completely common law, as you are implying.

I did not say or imply it was. But your claim that court precedent is not law is ridiculously wrong. More evidence of how profoundly uninformed you are.

 

[martybegan]

They are law. Ever hear the

but that doesn't make it A law. the laws stay on the books until re-written by the legislature. More progressive "I think it is, therefore it is"

You have no idea what you are talking about. Court decisions carry the force of law. Therefore it is law. No legislation is forthcoming or necessary. The laws previously passed by the states prohibiting same sex marriage are in the recycle bin. Plain and simple. Even if technically "on the books" they are unenforceable.

So where is the law? if Roe V Wade is overturned tomorrow abortion becomes illegal in a bunch of states, because the law is still in place, but in a place like NY is goes on, because NY got around to passing a law protecting it.

Decisions may have the force of law, but they are not law.

They are law. There is common law. A set of legal rules and principles established through case law. There is constitutional law which includes the constitution and the body of case law that interpret, construe and apply the constitution. Personal injury and tort law is based almost entirely on cases. Very little is addressed by statutes.

Then why is the above situation I describe possible?

Also, the US system is not completely common law, as you are implying.

I did not say or imply it was. But your claim that court precedent is not law is ridiculously wrong. More evidence of how profoundly uninformed you are.

it's not written law, passed law, and is only as strong as the decision it is based on. Get rid of the decision and the written passed law wins out.

 

[paddymurphy]

It is your ignorance of constitutional law, a

If the point is to demonstrate your ignorance, yes, it was.

The only ignorance is on the side that supports that crap just because it gets them the results they want.

To clear the air, I don't support any ban on abortion before viability, be it for birth control, medical reasons, or the voices in her head told the woman to do so. after viability I have zero issue with abortion for medical reasons. And if they want to go with the outdated 2nd trimester line for viability, that doesn't bother me either. What I don't see is a right to it in the constitution.

Your ignorance of the constitution and legal principles in general is what prevents you from seeing what is obvious.

Right back at you, skippy.

But I am not ignorant of the constitution and the law. It has been my profession for 25 years. My views are shared by the majority of those who practice law and who serve as judges. Your views are held by uneducated, ignorant dolts who presume to offer opinions on things they know little about.

Sorry, but all your experience doesn't automatically make you right.

Never said it did. Your ignorance of basic legal principles, however, makes your opinion on the law as worthwhile as mine on quantum physics.