Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Public Accommodation laws are a Strawman and have nothing to do with marriage equality.
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
It doesn't get more equal than that... .
You really do lack brilliance. You don't know when someone is mocking you.
Keep up the good work.
It doesn't do anything of the kind dumbass.Oh it much worse than that. obama has proven his disqualification to be President, by professing his own personal knowledge that his father was a foreign national... which axiomatically excludes him from being President.
Oh it much worse than that. obama has proven his disqualification to be President, by professing his own personal knowledge that his father was a foreign national... which axiomatically excludes him from being President.
At BEST, a birth cert would verify that his mother was a US Citizen. The doubt regarding the Birth Cert is that his 'Mother' adopted him. Hawaii was known to provide birth certificates for adopted foreign nationals. This served Hawaiian interests by adding to their population count, for the purposes of increasing their Federal legislative representation.
Thank you... I appreciate that, but I am not that brilliant. I just appear so, in threads where you're present.
But, it's nice of you to notice, nonetheless.
And by administrative law do you mean to refer to the Judiciary, which has no power what so ever, to make law, of any kind, in any way?
The judiciary does, however, have the authority to overrule unconstitutional laws. Which in 36 of 50 states would include any law that bans gay marriage.
Public Accommodation laws are a Strawman and have nothing to do with marriage equality.
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
It doesn't get more equal than that... .
Yeah, just like it was "equal" when white people could marry white people and black people could marry black people huh?
Still prevents people from marrying the consenting adult of their choice.
The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78
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. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper 78
Public Accommodation laws are a Strawman and have nothing to do with marriage equality.
Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
It doesn't get more equal than that... .
Yeah, just like it was "equal" when white people could marry white people and black people could marry black people huh?
Still prevents people from marrying the consenting adult of their choice.
How is it 'like' that?
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Judge Leon Bazile
How is it 'like' that?
I don't see any potential means to correlate the two. Race is a genetic function that the individual has absolutely no means to control. Homosexuality is a behavior over which the individual has 100% control.
Fir instance... every fiber of my being wants to ZR1 Corvette. Now I have the ability to go find one, pull it onto a trailer and take it. But I do not do so because I understand that it is wrong to steal someone else's property.
So I have the means to NOT do what I otherwise CRAVE.
Anything gettin' through here?
You really do lack brilliance. You don't know when someone is mocking you.
Keep up the good work.
It doesn't do anything of the kind dumbass.
Oh it much worse than that. obama has proven his disqualification to be President, by professing his own personal knowledge that his father was a foreign national... which axiomatically excludes him from being President.
At BEST, a birth cert would verify that his mother was a US Citizen. The doubt regarding the Birth Cert is that his 'Mother' adopted him. Hawaii was known to provide birth certificates for adopted foreign nationals. This served Hawaiian interests by adding to their population count, for the purposes of increasing their Federal legislative representation.
Thank you... I appreciate that, but I am not that brilliant. I just appear so, in threads where you're present.
But, it's nice of you to notice, nonetheless.
And you don't know when a person of much higher intellect is shining you on. You certainly do shine every stupid-trophy in the display case.
The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78
Hamilton you say? Federalist Paper 78 you say? Why lets dig in.
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. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper 78
Huh. Its almost as if you never read Federalist Paper 78, have no idea what's in it, and have never once fact checked your claims.
See, Mike, that's the difference between us. You copy and paste lists. I actually do research and read the sources.
So, because YOU decide that gay can be controlled, therefore gay people should do what YOU tell them to do?
What makes you such an expert on whether gay people are born gay or not?
Yeah, a gay person could, if they really had to, go and have sex with someone of the opposite sex.
Oh snap! You need yourself a new wife! My wife and I have 4 kids and still manage to screw like horny rabbits. You can do better than her.So, because YOU decide that gay can be controlled, therefore gay people should do what YOU tell them to do?
LOL! Based upon WHAT? Nothing I said comes anywhere CLOSE to so much as IMPLYING THAT. It is simply a FACT that homosexual behavior is a CHOICE! That's not even a debatable subject sport.
What makes you such an expert on whether gay people are born gay or not?
I've got 54 years as a practicing human being.
Yeah, a gay person could, if they really had to, go and have sex with someone of the opposite sex.
Yep... or go without having sex. Happens all the time. Just ask my wife.
[
Incorrect as usual, and I'm sure you're just as much a "constitutional scholar" as the poop stain in the White House.
In retrospect, Hamilton could only have been arguing for input from the States on judiciary appointments since at the time, Senators were appointed by state legislators, not by popular vote. Hamilton pointedly warned of the danger of judges being appointed by popular winds, saying:
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. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Federalist Paper 78
Alexander Hamilton
So, because YOU decide that gay can be controlled, therefore gay people should do what YOU tell them to do?
LOL! Based upon WHAT? Nothing I said comes anywhere CLOSE to so much as IMPLYING THAT. It is simply a FACT that homosexual behavior is a CHOICE! That's not even a debatable subject sport.
What makes you such an expert on whether gay people are born gay or not?
I've got 54 years as a practicing human being.
Oh snap! You need yourself a new wife! My wife and I have 4 kids and still manage to screw like horny rabbits. You can do better than her.So, because YOU decide that gay can be controlled, therefore gay people should do what YOU tell them to do?
LOL! Based upon WHAT? Nothing I said comes anywhere CLOSE to so much as IMPLYING THAT. It is simply a FACT that homosexual behavior is a CHOICE! That's not even a debatable subject sport.
What makes you such an expert on whether gay people are born gay or not?
I've got 54 years as a practicing human being.
Yeah, a gay person could, if they really had to, go and have sex with someone of the opposite sex.
Yep... or go without having sex. Happens all the time. Just ask my wife.
[
Incorrect as usual, and I'm sure you're just as much a "constitutional scholar" as the poop stain in the White House.
And who between us has actually read Federalist Paper 78? You can hardly laud your 'credentials' as a 'constitutional scholar' when caught never having read the very source you're citing. And blatantly misrepresenting the position of the author.
Try again. This time reading your sources before you post. Not after.
In retrospect, Hamilton could only have been arguing for input from the States on judiciary appointments since at the time, Senators were appointed by state legislators, not by popular vote. Hamilton pointedly warned of the danger of judges being appointed by popular winds, saying:
None of which hasn't the slightest thing to do with your argument regarding the Court's role in interpreting the constitution. Which Hamilton clearly recognized the federal judiciary possessed, and argued powerfully for in the Federalist Papers.
Hamilton just as clearly recognized that the courts would given deference to the constitution over legislation that violated it. Both explicit contradictions of your beliefs. And both from Federalist Paper 78.
Which you've never read. Again, you're a regurgetator. You vomit up lists you've never read nor fact checked. And when faced with an informed opinion, start babbling about how the Courts are nominated. Which has nothing to do with the Court's authority to interpret the constitution.
If you want to know what Hamilton thought about the court's authority to both interpret the constitution and place the constitution above legislation.....read again:
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. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Federalist Paper 78
Alexander Hamilton
Here's a link to the Paper, so you can educate yourself:
The Federalist 78
Read the source, rather than simply copying and pasting lists you've never read. It might help you avoid blunders like the one you just made.
[
Incorrect as usual, and I'm sure you're just as much a "constitutional scholar" as the poop stain in the White House.
And who between us has actually read Federalist Paper 78? You can hardly laud your 'credentials' as a 'constitutional scholar' when caught never having read the very source you're citing. And blatantly misrepresenting the position of the author.
Try again. This time reading your sources before you post. Not after.
In retrospect, Hamilton could only have been arguing for input from the States on judiciary appointments since at the time, Senators were appointed by state legislators, not by popular vote. Hamilton pointedly warned of the danger of judges being appointed by popular winds, saying:
None of which hasn't the slightest thing to do with your argument regarding the Court's role in interpreting the constitution. Which Hamilton clearly recognized the federal judiciary possessed, and argued powerfully for in the Federalist Papers.
Hamilton just as clearly recognized that the courts would given deference to the constitution over legislation that violated it. Both explicit contradictions of your beliefs. And both from Federalist Paper 78.
Which you've never read. Again, you're a regurgetator. You vomit up lists you've never read nor fact checked. And when faced with an informed opinion, start babbling about how the Courts are nominated. Which has nothing to do with the Court's authority to interpret the constitution.
If you want to know what Hamilton thought about the court's authority to both interpret the constitution and place the constitution above legislation.....read again:
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. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Federalist Paper 78
Alexander Hamilton
Here's a link to the Paper, so you can educate yourself:
The Federalist 78
Read the source, rather than simply copying and pasting lists you've never read. It might help you avoid blunders like the one you just made.
Jackass, you don't know what I've read in my life or what I haven't read, so stuff it with your blind assumptions.
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. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Federalist Paper 78
Alexander Hamilton
What's at stake here is the Statist Left claiming the Constitution has the exclusive power to interpret the Constitution, operative word here being exclusive.
This idea that the Supreme Court speaks and everyone obeys is a relatively novel one, concocted by the Statist Left, of which you are part.
If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.
Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper 78
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper 78
But states are already figuring out that they can push back against Gonzalez Vs. Raich by passing their own laws legalizing marijuana regardless of federal law and the Supreme Court upholding those laws. So apparently even today we're figuring out there's no such thing as an Almighty Supreme Court.
[
Incorrect as usual, and I'm sure you're just as much a "constitutional scholar" as the poop stain in the White House.
And who between us has actually read Federalist Paper 78? You can hardly laud your 'credentials' as a 'constitutional scholar' when caught never having read the very source you're citing. And blatantly misrepresenting the position of the author.
Try again. This time reading your sources before you post. Not after.
In retrospect, Hamilton could only have been arguing for input from the States on judiciary appointments since at the time, Senators were appointed by state legislators, not by popular vote. Hamilton pointedly warned of the danger of judges being appointed by popular winds, saying:
None of which hasn't the slightest thing to do with your argument regarding the Court's role in interpreting the constitution. Which Hamilton clearly recognized the federal judiciary possessed, and argued powerfully for in the Federalist Papers.
Hamilton just as clearly recognized that the courts would given deference to the constitution over legislation that violated it. Both explicit contradictions of your beliefs. And both from Federalist Paper 78.
Which you've never read. Again, you're a regurgetator. You vomit up lists you've never read nor fact checked. And when faced with an informed opinion, start babbling about how the Courts are nominated. Which has nothing to do with the Court's authority to interpret the constitution.
If you want to know what Hamilton thought about the court's authority to both interpret the constitution and place the constitution above legislation.....read again:
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. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Federalist Paper 78
Alexander Hamilton
Here's a link to the Paper, so you can educate yourself:
The Federalist 78
Read the source, rather than simply copying and pasting lists you've never read. It might help you avoid blunders like the one you just made.
Jackass, you don't know what I've read in my life or what I haven't read, so stuff it with your blind assumptions.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. As the only other alternative is that you did read Federalist 78 and then blatantly misrepresented Hamilton's position on the matter. As my gloriously germane quotes of Hamilton's position in Federalist Paper 78 demonstrate so elegantly, Hamilton unambiguously recognized the court's authority to interpret the constitution and to place the constitution above legislation.
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. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Federalist Paper 78
Alexander Hamilton
Which you either knew, or should have known.
So which is it....hapless ignorance or bald face deception? Pick which. I'm giving you a chance to maintain your integrity at least in attributing your spectacular blunder to ignorance.
I'd suggest you take me up on my offer.
What's at stake here is the Statist Left claiming the Constitution has the exclusive power to interpret the Constitution, operative word here being exclusive.
So now you recognize that the Courts DO have the authority to interpret the constitution?
Well, you can learn. That's progress I suppose.
This idea that the Supreme Court speaks and everyone obeys is a relatively novel one, concocted by the Statist Left, of which you are part.
And Hamilton too, it seems:
If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.
Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper 78
A peculiar province. Huh. What a 'leftist'! And it only gets worse for you;
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper 78
Clearly placing the judiciary in a role between the legislature and the people......with the courts to interpret the constitution and follow the consitution when legislative bodies stand in opposition to it through their statutes.
Which is my argument. Apparently we 'leftists' predate the constitution itself!
As for the relationship between the federal government and the States, that was radically altered by the 14th amendment. Which gave statutory voice to the authority of the federal government to prevent the violation of the privileges and immunities of federal citizens by the States as well as requiring the States to afford federal citizens with equal protection in the law.
Remember, in the Founder's America, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. The Federal Courts had no authority to rule against the States when they violated the rights of any citizen, as the federal government lacked such jurisdiction. The Bill of Rights extended only to the Federal Government, only limiting the federal government.
The 14th amendment was meant to change that. And did. The Federal Government now has the authority to prevent the States from violating the rights of citizens or from not applying the law equally.
Which is also my argument.
The founders never intended the Federal Judiciary to limit State actions on the basis of individual rights. The writers of the 14th did. And the courts (albeit slowly) recognized this authority under the 14th. As remember....the courts are meant to interpret the constitution. And the 14th is part of the constitution.
Are you finally up to speed? Or would you like me to walk you through it again.
But states are already figuring out that they can push back against Gonzalez Vs. Raich by passing their own laws legalizing marijuana regardless of federal law and the Supreme Court upholding those laws. So apparently even today we're figuring out there's no such thing as an Almighty Supreme Court.
Sigh.....you're confusing federal statutory law with rights of federal citizens. They're not the same thing. State law can certainly differ from the laws of the federal government. But those state laws can't violate the rights of federal citizens.
Allowing marijuana doesn't violate the right of a federal citizen. Outlawing interracial marriage does. And when the rights of citizens are violated the federal judiciary steps in to rectify the situation. As its the violation of the rights of the citizens of the US by the States that the 14th amendment empowers the federal government to prevent..
Get it?
Gonzalas had nothing to do with State violation of federally recognized rights. Which is what we're discussing. It had to do with a conflict of State law v. Federal Law in which it was argued that the federal law couldn't apply if the State law legalized a practice based on a particular interpretation of the commerce clause..
Much like your awkward citation of how the Courts were nominated when caught misrepresenting Federalist 78, Gonzales has absolutely nothing to do with the court's authority to rule on issues of state violation of constitution rights. Or even addresses the topic. It was an interstate commerce dispute.
And the courts never ruled that the states couldn't create laws that conflict with federal law. Rendering your citation of Gonzalas even more irrelevant. The USSC only ruled that the Federal government can enforce Federal drug laws within the States. Meaning that the States passing laws allowing marijuana in no way conflict with or contradict the USSC's ruling.
Its like you created a red herring layer cake and slathered it with an extra glop of irrelevance for spice. Are there any other red herrings you'd like to toss up?
Hmmm...apparently the Supreme Court is NOT superior to Congress or state legislatures and does not have the final say. Couple this with Hamilton's aforementioned acknowledgment that the Supreme Court lacks any enforcement mechanism whatsoever, the willingness of legislative and executive authorities to go along with their decisions is a key component, a cooperation that can be rescinded. Which brings us to your next blunder...
and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former.
Gonzalez Vs. Raich militates against your notion that the Supreme Court has the final say on an issue.
You assert that the state laws cannot violate the rights of federal citizens (whatever that means) meaning you missed the point thinking it was an issue of civil rights instead of states rights.
You then go on to claim that "the courts never ruled that the states couldn't create laws that conflict with federal law" which undermines the point that the states weren't asking for permission to countermand federal law, they just did it.
Had you not been fully persuaded that the Supreme Court is an ultimate authority, you might have perceived that yourself.
The Constitutional crisis we're in right now is that in our entire history, the only time the Supreme Court set itself so adversarily against the people is when they upheld the Fugitive Slave Act. 19 years later, this country was in a state of civil war.
And now we have state marriage laws, popularly passed by the people via referendum and state legislatures all being overturned. The abolitionists of the early 19th century warned that war would result when winning hearts and minds was abandoned as a strategy and more obtuse, compulsory measures took its place. The same despair that plagued the people of Pennsylvania when their popularly passed law was overturned by federal power is setting on people today who believe, and rightly so, that the regulation of marriage is by 10th Amendment right, a state prerogative. Only in this case, as if to add fuel to the fire, the Supreme Court thinks to duck its constitutional duty to weigh in on a national controversy that's proving to be so divisive.
People will not long tolerate a government that with a waive of a magic wand undoes the will of the people over and over; especially the American people. The push back against Gonzalez Vs. Raich is just the beginning.
When states begin to secede you'll see history repeat itself as we are forced to the same decision of whether to let them peacefully egress or to use force to dragoon them back in.
And who knows. Maybe that's what you want. I bet you really enjoyed the fact that 600,000 people died because of thick headed tyrants like you.
Seriously -pretty lame - is that the best you've got ? Gay couples have a much higher rate of "divorce" and go through ridiculously larger amounts of partners in their lifetimes than do mentally healthy heterosexual couples.
And they suffer depression at a greater rate, commit suicide more often, do more drugs, and live a risky, licentious lifestyle that increases their chances of contracting STD's.
CDC - Mental Health - Gay and Bisexual Men s Health
Oh yeah!
So much for what they do to themselves - in my opinion the only good faggot is a dead faggot, or one who seeks help - and yes there is help. Homosexuality - like most mental diseases is treatable - it's curable - just like drug addiction there is therapy that can - in many cases "cure" homosexuality. HOWEVER -the queer militia works feverishly to suppress it.
I don't know if homosexual feelings can ever be completely cured, but homosexuals have learned to overcome them and even get married (real marriage) and have thriving families. It can be done. But these days we're prone to accomodate people's mental illnesses instead of treating them. This started with homosexuality, but now has progressed to gender identity disorder. These people need serious psychiatric intervention and we we won't even admit they have a disease!
If ever I were to prescribe a strategy by which a society is overtaken by madness, I would suggest they no longer recognize madness and instead embrace it, celebrate it, and protect it by law.
Yep... and it will only get worse. We're only one more socialist majority away from the legalization of pedophilia.
And what come after that is unknown to me, but we can rest assured that it is some sick shit that would likely run Caligula out of the room.
I've been warning about this for decades. It's not just a possibility, but a grave certainty if we remain on this course. Pederasty has overtaken civilizations in the past, most notably, Greko/Roman culture, and that's how depravity works, like water, always seeking lower ground. Many gay men have a range of attractions already that includes teenage boys...or even younger. It's one of the deep, dark secrets that doesn't come up at the annual LGBT action conference because nobody wants to admit that the seeds of pederasty have already been sown, and cultivated in this morally corrupt culture, will eventually sprout.
Right now gays are saying "consenting adults only!" But honestly.....how long will that charade last?
