Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[RKMBrown]

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.

The amendments are federal restrictions on federal power. The point of the 10th was to make that brutally clear. Funny how so many are confused by the bill of rights.

 

[Contumacious]

The amendments are federal restrictions on federal power. The point of the 10th was to make that brutally clear. Funny how so many are confused by the bill of rights.

Well , now they have a powerful paramilitary domestic police in order to wipe their collective asses with the paper used to write the amendments that "restrict" their power.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

True. Your point?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.
​

It's not stupidity, it's ignorance. The misnomer is common and based on the stupid title... the bill of rights. It should have been called the bill of federal limits on restricting rights of the people.. lol

Well then why don't you tell us all, specifically and clearly, what the phrase


'nor prohibited by it to the States' means.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The 10th amendment contains 2 provisions for which powers are granted to the States:

1. Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and,

2. Nor prohibited by it to the States.

The 'it' above refers to the Constitution. If the Constitution prohibits the States from having a power,

then they don't get that power. Passing any unconstitutional law would fall under that prohibition.

States cannot for example ban personal ownership of firearms, because the Constitution prohibits states from having the power to do that, because the 2nd Amendment is a constitutional protection against such a ban,

the 10th Amendment and 'states' rights' notwithstanding.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

The 10th amendment contains 2 provisions for which powers are granted to the States:

1. Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and,

2. Nor prohibited by it to the States.

The 'it' above refers to the Constitution. If the Constitution prohibits the States from having a power,

then they don't get that power. Passing any unconstitutional law would fall under that prohibition.

States cannot for example ban personal ownership of firearms, because the Constitution prohibits states from having the power to do that, because the 2nd Amendment is a constitutional protection against such a ban,

the 10th Amendment and 'states' rights' notwithstanding.

A little knowledge is an absurd thing.

 

[Gadawg73]

Was at a heterosexual marriage yesterday and heard this again:
"Most people get married believing a myth-that marriage is a beautiful box full of all the things they have longed for; companionship, sexual fulfillment, intimacy, friendship. The truth is it that marriage is like an empty box, at the start. You must put something in before you can take anything out. There is no love in marriage; LOVE IS IN PEOPLE, AND PEOPLE PUT IT INTO MARRIAGE.
There is no romance in marriage, people have to infuse it into their individual marriage.
A couple has to learn the art and habit of giving, loving, serving, praising-keeping the box full.
If you take out more than you give in then the box will be empty."

Government sanctions marriages by the millions that are empty and many gay couples have a full box and can not get legally married.
And there is something wrong with that and only selfish, stubborn and angry control freaks want to stop them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.
​

It's not stupidity, it's ignorance. The misnomer is common and based on the stupid title... the bill of rights. It should have been called the bill of federal limits on restricting rights of the people.. lol

Well then why don't you tell us all, specifically and clearly, what the phrase


'nor prohibited by it to the States' means.

I did, and provided a link.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The 10th amendment contains 2 provisions for which powers are granted to the States:

1. Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and,

2. Nor prohibited by it to the States.

The 'it' above refers to the Constitution. If the Constitution prohibits the States from having a power,

then they don't get that power. Passing any unconstitutional law would fall under that prohibition.

States cannot for example ban personal ownership of firearms, because the Constitution prohibits states from having the power to do that, because the 2nd Amendment is a constitutional protection against such a ban,

the 10th Amendment and 'states' rights' notwithstanding.

That almost makes sense, if I start with the assumption that the Constitution was written by morons.

Why would the 10the Amendment talk about limits on the federal government for 11 words, diverge to talking about the states for 7 words, then finish off with 10 more words talking about limits on the federal government, just to make it possible for you to make a stupid statement?

The phrase is clearly talking about powers that are probated to the states, not from them.

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.

 

[Gadawg73]

Recent news is that in Ohio 2 gay men sued to get their out of state marriage recognized in Ohio despite a state ban there. The Federal Judge's order last Monday gave the right to the dying spouse to have "married" listed on his death certificate.
Now do I have to explain this to everyone here what this means?
4 similar law suits are pending in other states that ban gay marriage.
The Judge's ruling was based on that Ohio has always recognized out of state marriages as long as they were legal where they took place.
In his opinion he stated that Ohio can not single out same sex marriages as one they do not recognize.
Refer back to my statement that Scalia's dissent in the recent case was brilliant, I did not agree with all of it but he predicted this.

These men are 65 and 67 years old. Why anyone wants to deny them the dignity they deserve is absurd.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.
​

It's not stupidity, it's ignorance. The misnomer is common and based on the stupid title... the bill of rights. It should have been called the bill of federal limits on restricting rights of the people.. lol

Well then why don't you tell us all, specifically and clearly, what the phrase


'nor prohibited by it to the States' means.

Ok..

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.

This sentence means the federal government is limited in two explicit ways:
1) The powers not delegated to the united states by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
2) The powers not prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Both of these are restrictions on federal powers.

The first limitation means the powers not explicitly provided in the constitution as federal powers are reserved to the states or the people.

The second limitation means the powers not explicitly prohibited to the states by the constitution are reserved to the states or the people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The amendments are federal restrictions on federal power. The point of the 10th was to make that brutally clear. Funny how so many are confused by the bill of rights.

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment incorporates (applies) the Bill of Rights to the states and local jurisdictions. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), First Amendment, Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Sixth Amendment.

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), incorporating the Second Amendment to the States and local jurisdictions, Justice Scalia, in his concurring opinion, acknowledge incorporation as accepted and settled Constitutional doctrine.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

The amendments are federal restrictions on federal power. The point of the 10th was to make that brutally clear. Funny how so many are confused by the bill of rights.

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment incorporates (applies) the Bill of Rights to the states and local jurisdictions. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), First Amendment, Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Sixth Amendment.

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), incorporating the Second Amendment to the States and local jurisdictions, Justice Scalia, in his concurring opinion, acknowledge incorporation as accepted and settled Constitutional doctrine.

We were talking about the bill of rights. The 14th amendment came a hundred years later. The 14th amendment is not in the bill of rights. Yes everyone knows the due process clause by inclusion (via SCOTUS decision) incorporates some of the bill of rights to the states as well.. Duh.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The 10th amendment contains 2 provisions for which powers are granted to the States:

1. Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and,

2. Nor prohibited by it to the States.

The 'it' above refers to the Constitution. If the Constitution prohibits the States from having a power,

then they don't get that power. Passing any unconstitutional law would fall under that prohibition.

States cannot for example ban personal ownership of firearms, because the Constitution prohibits states from having the power to do that, because the 2nd Amendment is a constitutional protection against such a ban,

the 10th Amendment and 'states' rights' notwithstanding.

That almost makes sense, if I start with the assumption that the Constitution was written by morons.

Why would the 10the Amendment talk about limits on the federal government for 11 words, diverge to talking about the states for 7 words, then finish off with 10 more words talking about limits on the federal government, just to make it possible for you to make a stupid statement?

The phrase is clearly talking about powers that are probated to the states, not from them.

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.

You’ve once again only succeeded in exhibiting your ignorance of the origins of the Amendment, its original intent by the Framers, and its subsequent case law:

“The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.”1 “The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.”2 That this provision was not conceived to be a yardstick for measuring the powers granted to the Federal Government or reserved to the States was firmly settled by the refusal of both Houses of Congress to insert the word “expressly” before the word “delegated,”3

In McCulloch v. Maryland,5 Marshall rejected the proffer of a Tenth Amendment objection and offered instead an expansive interpretation of the necessary and proper clause6 to counter the argument. The counsel for the State of Maryland cited fears of opponents of ratification of the Constitution about the possible swallowing up of states’ rights and referred to the Tenth Amendment to allay these apprehensions, all in support of his claim that the power to create corporations was reserved by that Amendment to the States.7 Stressing the fact that the Amendment, unlike the cognate section of the Articles of Confederation, omitted the word “expressly” as a qualification of granted powers, Marshall declared that its effect was to leave the question “whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend upon a fair construction of the whole instrument.”8

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Tenth Amendment

“…this provision was not conceived to be a yardstick for measuring the powers granted to the Federal Government or reserved to the States…”

The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition, which I take to be beyond dispute, that, though limited as to its objects, the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States." Id., at 432. The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

It is therefore nonsense to ‘argue’ that the states may violate the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, ignore 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and disregard the Bill of Rights altogether ‘authorized’ by the 10th Amendment.

“The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere.”

And safeguarding the fundamental rights of due process and equal protection for same-sex couples is clearly within the proper sphere of the Federal Constitution and Federal courts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.
​

It's not stupidity, it's ignorance. The misnomer is common and based on the stupid title... the bill of rights. It should have been called the bill of federal limits on restricting rights of the people.. lol

This doesn’t make any sense.

The rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are inalienable, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. Although not absolute, these rights manifest as a consequence of being human, and they predate the government, Constitution, and the courts.

The Framers did not create a Constitution prohibiting the Federal government from violating the civil liberties of the people yet allowing state and local government to do exactly that:

A distinctive character of the National Government, the mark of its legitimacy, is that it owes its existence to the act of the whole people who created it.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

There is consequently a direct link between the American people and their Federal government, a link that cannot be severed by the states, including the right of the people to invoke the principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights to seek relief from their state governments when indeed those state governments act in a manner offensive to the Constitution.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.
​

It's not stupidity, it's ignorance. The misnomer is common and based on the stupid title... the bill of rights. It should have been called the bill of federal limits on restricting rights of the people.. lol

This doesn’t make any sense.

The rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are inalienable, neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man. Although not absolute, these rights manifest as a consequence of being human, and they predate the government, Constitution, and the courts.

The Framers did not create a Constitution prohibiting the Federal government from violating the civil liberties of the people yet allowing state and local government to do exactly that:

A distinctive character of the National Government, the mark of its legitimacy, is that it owes its existence to the act of the whole people who created it.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

There is consequently a direct link between the American people and their Federal government, a link that cannot be severed by the states, including the right of the people to invoke the principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights to seek relief from their state governments when indeed those state governments act in a manner offensive to the Constitution.

You don't understand the phrase federal limits on restricting rights of the people?

What part is confusing you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The amendments are federal restrictions on federal power. The point of the 10th was to make that brutally clear. Funny how so many are confused by the bill of rights.

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment incorporates (applies) the Bill of Rights to the states and local jurisdictions. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), First Amendment, Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Sixth Amendment.

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), incorporating the Second Amendment to the States and local jurisdictions, Justice Scalia, in his concurring opinion, acknowledge incorporation as accepted and settled Constitutional doctrine.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

 

[The Rabbi]

Recent news is that in Ohio 2 gay men sued to get their out of state marriage recognized in Ohio despite a state ban there. The Federal Judge's order last Monday gave the right to the dying spouse to have "married" listed on his death certificate.
Now do I have to explain this to everyone here what this means?
4 similar law suits are pending in other states that ban gay marriage.
The Judge's ruling was based on that Ohio has always recognized out of state marriages as long as they were legal where they took place.
In his opinion he stated that Ohio can not single out same sex marriages as one they do not recognize.
Refer back to my statement that Scalia's dissent in the recent case was brilliant, I did not agree with all of it but he predicted this.

These men are 65 and 67 years old. Why anyone wants to deny them the dignity they deserve is absurd.

It means the fags will get their gay allies on the bench to over rule the will of the sovereign people, which is tyranny.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The 10th amendment contains 2 provisions for which powers are granted to the States:

1. Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and,

2. Nor prohibited by it to the States.

The 'it' above refers to the Constitution. If the Constitution prohibits the States from having a power,

then they don't get that power. Passing any unconstitutional law would fall under that prohibition.

States cannot for example ban personal ownership of firearms, because the Constitution prohibits states from having the power to do that, because the 2nd Amendment is a constitutional protection against such a ban,

the 10th Amendment and 'states' rights' notwithstanding.

A little knowledge is an absurd thing.

That you cannot offer even a single sentence's worth of substantive rebuttal to what I said simply strengthens my argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Prohibited by the Constitution, means just that.