Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819); ‘but that’s not in the Constitution’ is an ignorant and failed ‘argument.’

And how do you know when the "justces" correctly identify an "implied" power?!?!?!?

.

You don't. It's a judgment call. That's why they call them 'judges'.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay, let's say they never ruled. Should legal marriages (whether cousin, interracial or same sex) performed in one state have to be recognized in another state that did not choose to give their citizens equal protection under state law?

Even if we take same sex marraige off the table it is possible to be married in one state and not married in another, why should same sex marraige be exempted from the confusion?

In what instance is a marriage license issued in one state not recognized by another state?

In what place did I use the word license?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you believe that the Justices are conducting judicial review then you are naive and ignorant.

.

Then what were they doing when they struck down the Chicago law banning handguns.

If that wasn't judicial review, what was it?

You libruls can't have it both ways.. You either support the essence of liberty or not.. Which is it? Leave people the hell alone.. stop forcing your fucking opinion and beliefs on them. Whether the right to own weapons, or marriage..Damn, it's not rocket science.

I don't disagree with the ruling on the Chicago law, nor do I selectively support or oppose the right of the Supreme Court to interpret the law.

There's yet to be one conservative in this thread who's been that consistent.

They won't even speak on the gun law ruling here, because they know that makes the rest of their points garbage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Even if we take same sex marraige off the table it is possible to be married in one state and not married in another, why should same sex marraige be exempted from the confusion?

In what instance is a marriage license issued in one state not recognized by another state?

In what place did I use the word license?

Implicitly, when you responded to his post where 'legal marriage' was specified.

 

[Seawytch]

Even if we take same sex marraige off the table it is possible to be married in one state and not married in another, why should same sex marraige be exempted from the confusion?

In what instance is a marriage license issued in one state not recognized by another state?

In what place did I use the word license?

I did. Anything else is irrelevant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 10th amendment only allows states to make laws that are constitutional,

i.e., 'not prohibited by IT to the states', the 'it' in the 10th amendment being the Constitution.

Unconstitutional laws are determined so by the Supreme Court, therefore,

States can only make laws that pass muster with the SCOTUS, if they are appealed to the SCOTUS.

Damn, you insist on repeating stupid, don't you?

The 10th Amendment does not prevent the states from doing anything.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th clearly limits the the United States itself, not the states. It has nothing to do with the states not being able to write a law that is unconstitutional.
​

Yes, states "can" pass laws that violate the Constitution...but when they do, they get challenged.

You should read what I said before you try getting snarky with me.

It would be really simple to prove me wrong, all you have to do is find a single example of any state law being overturned as the result of a 1oth Amendment challenge. I will state right now that not only will you not find any such example, you won't even find an example of a state law being challenged on 10th Amendment grounds.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 10th amendment only allows states to make laws that are constitutional,

i.e., 'not prohibited by IT to the states', the 'it' in the 10th amendment being the Constitution.

Unconstitutional laws are determined so by the Supreme Court, therefore,

States can only make laws that pass muster with the SCOTUS, if they are appealed to the SCOTUS.

Damn, you insist on repeating stupid, don't you?

The 10th Amendment does not prevent the states from doing anything.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th clearly limits the the United States itself, not the states. It has nothing to do with the states not being able to write a law that is unconstitutional.
​

"nor prohibited by it to the States"

What do you think that means?

 

[Seawytch]

In the issue of same sex marriage licenses.
Just like the issue of handgun carry permits.

Pay fucking attention. Quantum is making the claim of an instance other than legal same sex marriage.

I was responding to your moronic post.
But he is right. A mixed race marriage could be recognized in one state but not in another. The only reason that isn't the case is because of equal protection/civil rights. But the notion of states being sovereign would still hold true.

Marriage licenses issued in one state are good in all states, with one exception..."the gays". That is not the case for interracial or 1st cousin marriages.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In what instance is a marriage license issued in one state not recognized by another state?

In what place did I use the word license?

Implicitly, when you responded to his post where 'legal marriage' was specified.

I suggest you look up the term "common law marriage," which happens to be a legal marraige which varies wildly in being recognized by the different states.

 

[NYcarbineer]

BOTH "liberal" and "conservative" Justices are STATE SUPREMACIST scumbags.

.

Are you willing to abolish the power of judicial review by the SCOTUS?

As presently constituted we are not obtaining judicial review. They are a mini-legislature.

Are you willing to accept that gun bans that would inevitably occur at state and local levels if that happened?

I would never accept a gun ban no matter no matter who ordered it.

.

So if your state banned handguns and you got busted with one and sentenced to jail,

you would make no effort to appeal it to the courts, to the SCOTUS if necessary,

in order to get that law ruled unconstitutional?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In what instance is a marriage license issued in one state not recognized by another state?

In what place did I use the word license?

I did. Anything else is irrelevant.

Why is there a whole body of divorce law devoted to marriages where there is no license of everything else is irrelevant?

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK, it wasn't clear because I was in a hurry and I messed up the quotes and had a typo saying "long" for "lost."

Guns are in the Bill of Rights, guns and every other type of marriage isn't. Guns are explicitly a right of the people. What I am saying is that in guns, that is not a State versus Federal power, it is a people's power. The Supreme Court said NEITHER Feds nor State can prevent the PEOPLE from having guns.

On marriage, it's a question of who defines it, the Federal or the State level. So that's government versus government. The Constitution is clear, if marriage is in the Constitution, the Feds get to define it. If it's not, the States do. It's not, the States do.

Wrong. The People's representatives in the city of Chicago banned handguns. Whatever they might think or care about the 2nd Amendment did not prevent them from banning handguns.

That was their law, that was their fait accompli.

Now either you respect the will of those People, in their government, or you don't.

If you don't, you bring in the 9 federal dictators you referred to to overturn the law. You trump the will of that group of People with the will of a bigger group of People,

i.e., those People whose representatives delegated the power of judicial review to the SCOTUS.

Except the right to keep and bear arms in part of the Constitution and a right of all citizens. Even those in Chicago.
Chicago's law went against the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Thats why it was struck down.

But according to kaz, it was struck down by the 'dictatorship' of the Supreme Court which kaz does not believe has, or should have, any such 'dictatorial' authority to do so.

According to kaz, it's more democratic if the power is retained locally. According to kaz, 'supreme law of the land' at the federal level,

is tyranny, aka, a dictatorship.

 

[Seawytch]

In what place did I use the word license?

I did. Anything else is irrelevant.

Why is there a whole body of divorce law devoted to marriages where there is no license of everything else is irrelevant?

It doesn't discriminate. Despite not being able to legally marry, property and child custody disputes occur in LGBT relationships as well...settled in family court.

 

[Contumacious]

This doesn’t make any sense.

The Supreme Court determines what is Constitutional or not, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review in the context of the rule of law.

If you believe that the Justices are conducting judicial review then you are naive and ignorant.

.

Then what were they doing when they struck down the Chicago law banning handguns.

If that wasn't judicial review, what was it?

Even though I am a radical gun aficionado, that ruling suck.

They should have stated CLEARLY that the federal government has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to regulate, infringe in any way shape or form on our right to bear firearms in order to defend our lives.

NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER.........NONE

.

 

[Seawytch]

In what place did I use the word license?

Implicitly, when you responded to his post where 'legal marriage' was specified.

I suggest you look up the term "common law marriage," which happens to be a legal marraige which varies wildly in being recognized by the different states.

No marriage license issued by a state is not recognized by another state...except "the gheys".

 

[Agit8r]

Damn, you insist on repeating stupid, don't you?

The 10th Amendment does not prevent the states from doing anything.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th clearly limits the the United States itself, not the states. It has nothing to do with the states not being able to write a law that is unconstitutional.
​

"nor prohibited by it to the States"

What do you think that means?

It means that what the constitution prohibited of the states before the 10th Amendment (like requiring religious tests) or after it (like the prohibition upon unequal treatment before the law in the 14th Amendment) the states have no right to do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I did. Anything else is irrelevant.

Why is there a whole body of divorce law devoted to marriages where there is no license of everything else is irrelevant?

It doesn't discriminate. Despite not being able to legally marry, property and child custody disputes occur in LGBT relationships as well...settled in family court.

That doesn't even make sense. There is no common law same sex marraige in Texas even though all it takes for someone to be legally considered married is to introduce another person as your spouse. If that isn't discrimination, then it isn't discrimination to not give the exact same couple a license.

 

[Contumacious]

Why is there a whole body of divorce law devoted to marriages where there is no license of everything else is irrelevant?

It doesn't discriminate. Despite not being able to legally marry, property and child custody disputes occur in LGBT relationships as well...settled in family court.

That doesn't even make sense. There is no common law same sex marraige in Texas even though all it takes for someone to be legally considered married is to introduce another person as your spouse. If that isn't discrimination, then it isn't discrimination to not give the exact same couple a license.

And yo came to that conclusion how

The common law requires no particular ceremony to the valid celebration of marriage. The consent of the parties is all that is necessary, and as marriage is said to be a contract jure gentium, that consent is all that is needful by natural or public law. If the contract be made per verba de presenti, or if made per verba de futuro, and followed by consummation, it amounts to a valid marriage, and which the parties cannot dissolve, if otherwise competent; it is not necessary that a clergyman should be present to give validity to the marriage; the consent of the parties may be declared before a magistrate, or simply before witnesses; or subsequently confessed or acknowledged, or the marriage may even be inferred from continual cohabitation, and reputation as husband and wife, except in cases of civil actions for adultery, or public prosecutions for bigamy. 1 Silk. 119; 4 Burr. 2057; Dougl. 171; Burr. Settl. Cas. 509; 1 Dow, 148; 2 Dow, 482; 4 John. 2; 18 John. R. 346; 6 Binn, 405; 1 Penn. R. 452; 2 Watts, R. 9."

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"nor prohibited by it to the States"

What do you think that means?

It means that what the constitution prohibited of the states before the 10th Amendment (like requiring religious tests) or after it (like the prohibition upon unequal treatment before the law in the 14th Amendment) the states have no right to do.

Not it doesn't, the phrase is "prohibited by it to the States." That is clearly referring to things like slavery, which the Constitution specifically made a state issue. The Civil War effectively invalidated that small portion of the 10th Amendment and expanded the power of the federal government, but the restrictions still apply only the the feds.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It doesn't discriminate. Despite not being able to legally marry, property and child custody disputes occur in LGBT relationships as well...settled in family court.

That doesn't even make sense. There is no common law same sex marraige in Texas even though all it takes for someone to be legally considered married is to introduce another person as your spouse. If that isn't discrimination, then it isn't discrimination to not give the exact same couple a license.

And yo came to that conclusion how

The common law requires no particular ceremony to the valid celebration of marriage. The consent of the parties is all that is necessary, and as marriage is said to be a contract jure gentium, that consent is all that is needful by natural or public law. If the contract be made per verba de presenti, or if made per verba de futuro, and followed by consummation, it amounts to a valid marriage, and which the parties cannot dissolve, if otherwise competent; it is not necessary that a clergyman should be present to give validity to the marriage; the consent of the parties may be declared before a magistrate, or simply before witnesses; or subsequently confessed or acknowledged, or the marriage may even be inferred from continual cohabitation, and reputation as husband and wife, except in cases of civil actions for adultery, or public prosecutions for bigamy. 1 Silk. 119; 4 Burr. 2057; Dougl. 171; Burr. Settl. Cas. 509; 1 Dow, 148; 2 Dow, 482; 4 John. 2; 18 John. R. 346; 6 Binn, 405; 1 Penn. R. 452; 2 Watts, R. 9."

.

I phrased it wrong. I did not mean that the only way you can have a common law marraige is to introduce someone as your spouse.