Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[RKMBrown]

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.

The first two conditions in the 10th Amendment are limits on the States' power.

1. Powers NOT delegated to the US. That limits the States' powers by removing all powers that ARE delegated to the federal government OUT of those reserved for the States.

2. Prohibited by the Constitution to the States. That limits the States' powers by removing all powers that the Constitution prohibits the States from having.

ROFL... what a dolt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reduce it to its most basic principle:

Denying a black man the right to marry a white woman is racial discrimination. That is unconstitutional.

As are all the other racial combinations you might want to list. The example, however, should best demonstrate the constitutional violation.

The 14th was created to address the situation where blacks were just subject to different laws than anyone else. You can't extrapolate that to that preventing "discrimination" is a Federal power. Welcome to live, it's not always fair. Problem is that fighting it with government just endlessly makes it more unfair.

Same as above though. While life might not be fair LAW should always be applied equally. It is not a matter of fair. It is a matter of the equal application of law.

We try to give people a 'fair trial'. That is very commonly used expression. Are you and kaz now trying to argue that we shouldn't?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The first two conditions in the 10th Amendment are limits on the States' power.

1. Powers NOT delegated to the US. That limits the States' powers by removing all powers that ARE delegated to the federal government OUT of those reserved for the States.

2. Prohibited by the Constitution to the States. That limits the States' powers by removing all powers that the Constitution prohibits the States from having.

ROFL... what a dolt.

Can you prove anything I said to be inaccurate?

 

[RKMBrown]

The first two conditions in the 10th Amendment are limits on the States' power.

1. Powers NOT delegated to the US. That limits the States' powers by removing all powers that ARE delegated to the federal government OUT of those reserved for the States.

2. Prohibited by the Constitution to the States. That limits the States' powers by removing all powers that the Constitution prohibits the States from having.

ROFL... what a dolt.

Can you prove anything I said to be inaccurate?

You said "the first two conditions in the 10th Amendment are limits on the States' power."

It states the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAID. The frigging OPPOSITE. You can't even read English. Learn to identify subjects and verbs. The tenth is a poke in the federal eye telling them to stay away from the powers not explicitly provided. It is not a limit on state powers, quite the contrary it is a massive inclusion of everything that is not explicitly agreed to by the states by amendment to the Constitution. We are, or at least were prior to the Civil War and the subsequent democratization of the senate, a republic of states.

 

[NYcarbineer]

ROFL... what a dolt.

Can you prove anything I said to be inaccurate?

You said "the first two conditions in the 10th Amendment are limits on the States' power."

It states the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAID. The frigging OPPOSITE. You can't even read English. Learn to identify subjects and verbs. The tenth is a poke in the federal eye telling them to stay away from the powers not explicitly provided. It is not a limit on state powers, quite the contrary it is a massive inclusion of everything that is not explicitly agreed to by the states by amendment to the Constitution. We are, or at least were prior to the Civil War and the subsequent democratization of the senate, a republic of states.

No it doesn't. The 10th Amendment states what powers the States do and do not have.

Both.

Do you want to argue that states' powers are NOT limited?

Let's hear that argument, or your concession that yes, states' powers ARE limited.

 

[RKMBrown]

Can you prove anything I said to be inaccurate?

You said "the first two conditions in the 10th Amendment are limits on the States' power."

It states the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAID. The frigging OPPOSITE. You can't even read English. Learn to identify subjects and verbs. The tenth is a poke in the federal eye telling them to stay away from the powers not explicitly provided. It is not a limit on state powers, quite the contrary it is a massive inclusion of everything that is not explicitly agreed to by the states by amendment to the Constitution. We are, or at least were prior to the Civil War and the subsequent democratization of the senate, a republic of states.

No it doesn't. The 10th Amendment states what powers the States do and do not have.

Both.

Do you want to argue that states' powers are NOT limited?

Let's hear that argument, or your concession that yes, states' powers ARE limited.

The states' powers are not limited by the tenth (10th) amendment to the constitution.

Read that 10 times and come back when you understand the 10th amendment to the constitution.

You are confusing current law with respect to portions of the civil war amendments and the tenth amendment. Which means you don't know what the republic was about when it was formed.

 

[The Rabbi]

In this world. It's completely natural, some people are born that way. That you can't accept it is not anyone's problem but your own.

That you go out of your way to argue against it says more about your own insecurity and inner demons than anything else. The act of your arguments is more telling than your arguments themselves. You're a busy body.

The natural order is for species to seek to reproduce and continue the species. Homosexuality is a perversion of that order.

Gymnastics is certainly natural for you, it's not a perversion of whatever manliness you think you've got. Your arguments are all gymnastics, no substance. Get over it pessimist, it's 2013 nobody gives a fuck if gay people get married except for simpletons and hard headed older folks.

Your deflection in no way invalidates my point. It actually proves you've lost this round.
I dont care if gays want to marry. I do care that I am being told to accept it and pay for it.

 

[Katzndogz]

The natural order is for species to seek to reproduce and continue the species. Homosexuality is a perversion of that order.

Gymnastics is certainly natural for you, it's not a perversion of whatever manliness you think you've got. Your arguments are all gymnastics, no substance. Get over it pessimist, it's 2013 nobody gives a fuck if gay people get married except for simpletons and hard headed older folks.

Your deflection in no way invalidates my point. It actually proves you've lost this round.
I dont care if gays want to marry. I do care that I am being told to accept it and pay for it.

Not to mention being forced to participate.

 

[RKMBrown]

The natural order is for species to seek to reproduce and continue the species. Homosexuality is a perversion of that order.

Gymnastics is certainly natural for you, it's not a perversion of whatever manliness you think you've got. Your arguments are all gymnastics, no substance. Get over it pessimist, it's 2013 nobody gives a fuck if gay people get married except for simpletons and hard headed older folks.

Your deflection in no way invalidates my point. It actually proves you've lost this round.
I dont care if gays want to marry. I do care that I am being told to accept it and pay for it.

Please explain how you will be forced to pay for gay marriages. For that matter please explain how you think you paid for my marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

Gymnastics is certainly natural for you, it's not a perversion of whatever manliness you think you've got. Your arguments are all gymnastics, no substance. Get over it pessimist, it's 2013 nobody gives a fuck if gay people get married except for simpletons and hard headed older folks.

Your deflection in no way invalidates my point. It actually proves you've lost this round.
I dont care if gays want to marry. I do care that I am being told to accept it and pay for it.

Please explain how you will be forced to pay for gay marriages. For that matter please explain how you think you paid for my marriage.

Does the marital state confer tax benefits, yes or no?

 

[G.T.]

Your deflection in no way invalidates my point. It actually proves you've lost this round.
I dont care if gays want to marry. I do care that I am being told to accept it and pay for it.

Please explain how you will be forced to pay for gay marriages. For that matter please explain how you think you paid for my marriage.

Does the marital state confer tax benefits, yes or no?

No, it's a reduction in the taxes the couples already pay.

 

[kaz]

You would be correct if you limited your view of the constitution to the first 10 amendments. However, the due process clause of the 14th amendment prohibits the states from limiting life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of US citizens. Civil rights laws also prohibit said activities. Unless you are willing to throw out the 14th due process clause your argument is moot.

You would be correct if you were referring to government preventing gays from being gay. The discussion is about what government recognizes as marriage. It does not limit your life, limit or pursuit of happiness for government to not recognize your union as marriage. No one has the right to demand things of others, including government. You have the right to be left alone from government without due process. Government not recognizing gay marriage as marriage has nothing to do with preventing people from living their own lives as they see fit. Ditto interracial marriage.

That is true but misses the crucial point and that is the equal application of law. By blessing hetero marriages with certain advantages and then not giving that same blessing to other marriages is not an equal application of the law. It is selectively applying law to a preferred group while excluding the non-preferred group. While your above argument works well in defending the position that government should be out of marriage entirely, it fails in limiting gay marriages while still recognizing hetero ones. Laws should never apply to one group or type of people without applying evenly to other people.

That's not what equal protection means. Equal protection is when the same law is applied to different people differently. Equal protection isn't a formula, it's the same law applied the same way. You're black, you can't use this government bathroom. Clear violation. However, with gays, the law is applied the same way. Straights and gays can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a heterosexual marriage. There is no, but I WANT something different in the law, sorry.

There is a solution, it's called the, wait for it, legislature. Do it the right way, not with word parsing formulas.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your deflection in no way invalidates my point. It actually proves you've lost this round.
I dont care if gays want to marry. I do care that I am being told to accept it and pay for it.

Please explain how you will be forced to pay for gay marriages. For that matter please explain how you think you paid for my marriage.

Does the marital state confer tax benefits, yes or no?

Yes, the feds provide a different tax rate to tax PAYERS for a portion of COMBINED INCOME. Yes that different tax rate is unfair to single people and unmarried couples.

News flash: YOU DON'T OWN MY INCOME. IT'S MINE AND MINE ALONE. A tax deduction is a reduction of the amount of income taken by the federal government from my income. A tax deduction is not a check written from YOU TO ME. You didn't do my job and you don't own me.

 

[kaz]

Reduce it to its most basic principle:

Denying a black man the right to marry a white woman is racial discrimination. That is unconstitutional.

As are all the other racial combinations you might want to list. The example, however, should best demonstrate the constitutional violation.

The 14th was created to address the situation where blacks were just subject to different laws than anyone else. You can't extrapolate that to that preventing "discrimination" is a Federal power. Welcome to live, it's not always fair. Problem is that fighting it with government just endlessly makes it more unfair.

Same as above though. While life might not be fair LAW should always be applied equally. It is not a matter of fair. It is a matter of the equal application of law.

The law is applied EXACTLY the same way. Straights can do nothing that gays can't. If straights could enter into a same sex marriage, you'd have something, they can't.

Again, there is a solution. The legislature. Stop being so lazy and do it the right way.

 

[kaz]

The 14th was created to address the situation where blacks were just subject to different laws than anyone else. You can't extrapolate that to that preventing "discrimination" is a Federal power. Welcome to live, it's not always fair. Problem is that fighting it with government just endlessly makes it more unfair.

Same as above though. While life might not be fair LAW should always be applied equally. It is not a matter of fair. It is a matter of the equal application of law.

We try to give people a 'fair trial'. That is very commonly used expression. Are you and kaz now trying to argue that we shouldn't?

 

[LTCArmyRet]

The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who choose to maintain their neutrality (acceptance) in times of moral crisis.

Atonement will come to all of us, we will not know until the end if the path we have chosen is the correct one.

 

[RKMBrown]

You would be correct if you were referring to government preventing gays from being gay. The discussion is about what government recognizes as marriage. It does not limit your life, limit or pursuit of happiness for government to not recognize your union as marriage. No one has the right to demand things of others, including government. You have the right to be left alone from government without due process. Government not recognizing gay marriage as marriage has nothing to do with preventing people from living their own lives as they see fit. Ditto interracial marriage.

That is true but misses the crucial point and that is the equal application of law. By blessing hetero marriages with certain advantages and then not giving that same blessing to other marriages is not an equal application of the law. It is selectively applying law to a preferred group while excluding the non-preferred group. While your above argument works well in defending the position that government should be out of marriage entirely, it fails in limiting gay marriages while still recognizing hetero ones. Laws should never apply to one group or type of people without applying evenly to other people.

That's not what equal protection means. Equal protection is when the same law is applied to different people differently. Equal protection isn't a formula, it's the same law applied the same way. You're black, you can't use this government bathroom. Clear violation. However, with gays, the law is applied the same way. Straights and gays can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a heterosexual marriage. There is no, but I WANT something different in the law, sorry.

There is a solution, it's called the, wait for it, legislature. Do it the right way, not with word parsing formulas.

wow... dude you've been drinking the bigot koolaid...

If a gay guy does not like your vile bigoted attack on his ability to marry another man he can just change his mind and start liking women? WTF is wrong with you people? How would you like it if the law said only gays can get married? That's applying the law equally right? What's wrong you can just go marry some gay guy if you don't like it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Your deflection in no way invalidates my point. It actually proves you've lost this round.
I dont care if gays want to marry. I do care that I am being told to accept it and pay for it.

Please explain how you will be forced to pay for gay marriages. For that matter please explain how you think you paid for my marriage.

Does the marital state confer tax benefits, yes or no?

So you are objecting to all legal straight marriages because they get tax benefits?
Most without children so do not bring that dinosaur of an argument.
As soon as you oppose tax benefits for married straight folks let us know.

 

[Gadawg73]

That is true but misses the crucial point and that is the equal application of law. By blessing hetero marriages with certain advantages and then not giving that same blessing to other marriages is not an equal application of the law. It is selectively applying law to a preferred group while excluding the non-preferred group. While your above argument works well in defending the position that government should be out of marriage entirely, it fails in limiting gay marriages while still recognizing hetero ones. Laws should never apply to one group or type of people without applying evenly to other people.

That's not what equal protection means. Equal protection is when the same law is applied to different people differently. Equal protection isn't a formula, it's the same law applied the same way. You're black, you can't use this government bathroom. Clear violation. However, with gays, the law is applied the same way. Straights and gays can enter into a man/woman marriage, neither can enter into a heterosexual marriage. There is no, but I WANT something different in the law, sorry.

There is a solution, it's called the, wait for it, legislature. Do it the right way, not with word parsing formulas.

wow... dude you've been drinking the bigot koolaid...

If a gay guy does not like your vile bigoted attack on his ability to marry another man he can just change his mind and start liking women? WTF is wrong with you people? How would you like it if the law said only gays can get married? That's applying the law equally right? What's wrong you can just go marry some gay guy if you don't like it.

They do not believe it but nothing else works so they run with that.

 

[Gadawg73]

The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who choose to maintain their neutrality (acceptance) in times of moral crisis.

Atonement will come to all of us, we will not know until the end if the path we have chosen is the correct one.

I am not neutral.
Gay marriage does not affect me or you.
Don't like it? I respect that so do not marry a gay person.