SCOTUS divided over SSM

[martybegan]

Well of course they are.

Duh.

Very telling that some believe equal rights, as guaranteed by our constitution is "something radical".

Straights have changed the definition of marriage many times. Are you phobes okay with that?

The real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition. The marriage issue is just a dodge of the real issue.

Society as a whole should decide this, not 9 old farts in black robes.

For decades, "society as a whole" implemented slavery, followed by a long period of racial segregation. It finally took "9 old farts in black robes" plus the federal government, to remedy this situation.

"Society as a whole" oftentimes doesn't get it right.

No, it took a massive civil war, 3 amendments passed after that war, and THEN the guys in black robes to fix what other guys in black robes screwed up 70 years prior.

They don't get an "atta boy" for fixing a problem they created in the first place.

 

[danielpalos]

It was changed legislatively when the 14th amendment put equal protection under the law into the Constitution. That was not done by 'judicial fiat' that mostly meaningless irrelevant term your types like to toss about.

It was changed legislatively when laws were passed against gender discrimination.

And a reminder:

the 9th amendment says -

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

The issue of SSM being equal to opposite sex marriage is up to the State legislatures, not the courts, except for having states recognize SSM's from another state that implemented it legislatively.

Yes, rights are inherent, but they are only protected when enumerated under the constitution, or added via the amendment process. If you want to argue the 9th as invoidable, I can create the right to boff people with a foam hammer and then claim it as a right under the 9th. No person is actually harmed, so you can't go with that.

yes, i can; and assault is still assault.

So you are saying foam hammers can hurt you?

it helps if you have a legal clue and a legal Cause.

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

So you feel threatened by a foam hammer?

Am I assaulting you right now?

only when you are obnoxious and the "joke" is no longer funny.

 

[martybegan]

The issue of SSM being equal to opposite sex marriage is up to the State legislatures, not the courts, except for having states recognize SSM's from another state that implemented it legislatively.

Yes, rights are inherent, but they are only protected when enumerated under the constitution, or added via the amendment process. If you want to argue the 9th as invoidable, I can create the right to boff people with a foam hammer and then claim it as a right under the 9th. No person is actually harmed, so you can't go with that.

yes, i can; and assault is still assault.

So you are saying foam hammers can hurt you?

it helps if you have a legal clue and a legal Cause.

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

So you feel threatened by a foam hammer?

Am I assaulting you right now?

only when you are obnoxious and the "joke" is no longer funny.

Is this a micro-aggression then? Tell me where the foam hammer hurt you.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, i can; and assault is still assault.

So you are saying foam hammers can hurt you?

it helps if you have a legal clue and a legal Cause.

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

So you feel threatened by a foam hammer?

Am I assaulting you right now?

only when you are obnoxious and the "joke" is no longer funny.

Is this a micro-aggression then? Tell me where the foam hammer hurt you.

you still need a legal clue and a legal Cause; here it is again for your reading comprehension ease and convenience:

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

 

[martybegan]

So you are saying foam hammers can hurt you?

it helps if you have a legal clue and a legal Cause.

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

So you feel threatened by a foam hammer?

Am I assaulting you right now?

only when you are obnoxious and the "joke" is no longer funny.

Is this a micro-aggression then? Tell me where the foam hammer hurt you.

you still need a legal clue and a legal Cause; here it is again for your reading comprehension ease and convenience:

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

so a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

 

[danielpalos]

it helps if you have a legal clue and a legal Cause.

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

So you feel threatened by a foam hammer?

Am I assaulting you right now?

only when you are obnoxious and the "joke" is no longer funny.

Is this a micro-aggression then? Tell me where the foam hammer hurt you.

you still need a legal clue and a legal Cause; here it is again for your reading comprehension ease and convenience:

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

so a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

acquiring and possessing a legal clue and a legal Cause is not your strong suit, is it.

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person.

 

[martybegan]

So you feel threatened by a foam hammer?

Am I assaulting you right now?

only when you are obnoxious and the "joke" is no longer funny.

Is this a micro-aggression then? Tell me where the foam hammer hurt you.

you still need a legal clue and a legal Cause; here it is again for your reading comprehension ease and convenience:

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

so a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

acquiring and possessing a legal clue and a legal Cause is not your strong suit, is it.

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person.

The only clue here is one that isn't being caught, and that is you falling for me playing with you, much as a cat plays with some string.

 

[danielpalos]

only when you are obnoxious and the "joke" is no longer funny.

Is this a micro-aggression then? Tell me where the foam hammer hurt you.

you still need a legal clue and a legal Cause; here it is again for your reading comprehension ease and convenience:

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

so a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

acquiring and possessing a legal clue and a legal Cause is not your strong suit, is it.

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person.

The only clue here is one that isn't being caught, and that is you falling for me playing with you, much as a cat plays with some string.

i play with words all the time; the big chickens on the arbitrary and capricious Right still manage to get me banned whenever True Witness bearing is too much for them to bear.

 

[martybegan]

Is this a micro-aggression then? Tell me where the foam hammer hurt you.

you still need a legal clue and a legal Cause; here it is again for your reading comprehension ease and convenience:

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

so a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

acquiring and possessing a legal clue and a legal Cause is not your strong suit, is it.

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person.

The only clue here is one that isn't being caught, and that is you falling for me playing with you, much as a cat plays with some string.

i play with words all the time; the big chickens on the arbitrary and capricious Right still manage to get me banned whenever True Witness bearing is too much for them to bear.

no, words mostly play with you, and your attempt at sounding smarter than you are with the not so clever use of words and capital letters.

 

[NYcarbineer]

what does that have to do with anything? the judiciary isn't there to respond to people, it's there to uphold the law. That's why they are appointed, not elected.

They are there to uphold the constitution at the level of the Supreme Court. Changing the constitution is up to the legislature and the people and that is what the court has been doing, against its mandate, for almost 45 years now.

Striking down anti gay marriage laws is upholding the Constitution. No new laws are being made.

Yes, they are. by the court. Marriage has never included same sex couples for hundreds of years. Now if a legislature wants to change that, as is their right, I am all for it. But forcing it via judicial fiat is changing the laws.

It was changed legislatively when the 14th amendment put equal protection under the law into the Constitution. That was not done by 'judicial fiat' that mostly meaningless irrelevant term your types like to toss about.

It was changed legislatively when laws were passed against gender discrimination.

And a reminder:

the 9th amendment says -

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

The issue of SSM being equal to opposite sex marriage is up to the State legislatures, not the courts, except for having states recognize SSM's from another state that implemented it legislatively.

Yes, rights are inherent, but they are only protected when enumerated under the constitution, or added via the amendment process. If you want to argue the 9th as invoidable, I can create the right to boff people with a foam hammer and then claim it as a right under the 9th. No person is actually harmed, so you can't go with that.

it helps if you have a legal clue and a legal Cause.

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

So you feel threatened by a foam hammer?

Am I assaulting you right now?

only when you are obnoxious and the "joke" is no longer funny.

Is this a micro-aggression then? Tell me where the foam hammer hurt you.

you still need a legal clue and a legal Cause; here it is again for your reading comprehension ease and convenience:

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

so a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

You don't get to decide what your legally protected rights are.

 

[danielpalos]

you still need a legal clue and a legal Cause; here it is again for your reading comprehension ease and convenience:

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

so a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

acquiring and possessing a legal clue and a legal Cause is not your strong suit, is it.

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person.

The only clue here is one that isn't being caught, and that is you falling for me playing with you, much as a cat plays with some string.

i play with words all the time; the big chickens on the arbitrary and capricious Right still manage to get me banned whenever True Witness bearing is too much for them to bear.

no, words mostly play with you, and your attempt at sounding smarter than you are with the not so clever use of words and capital letters.

i would agree with you; but you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause.

 

[danielpalos]

They are there to uphold the constitution at the level of the Supreme Court. Changing the constitution is up to the legislature and the people and that is what the court has been doing, against its mandate, for almost 45 years now.

Striking down anti gay marriage laws is upholding the Constitution. No new laws are being made.

Yes, they are. by the court. Marriage has never included same sex couples for hundreds of years. Now if a legislature wants to change that, as is their right, I am all for it. But forcing it via judicial fiat is changing the laws.

It was changed legislatively when the 14th amendment put equal protection under the law into the Constitution. That was not done by 'judicial fiat' that mostly meaningless irrelevant term your types like to toss about.

It was changed legislatively when laws were passed against gender discrimination.

And a reminder:

the 9th amendment says -

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

The issue of SSM being equal to opposite sex marriage is up to the State legislatures, not the courts, except for having states recognize SSM's from another state that implemented it legislatively.

Yes, rights are inherent, but they are only protected when enumerated under the constitution, or added via the amendment process. If you want to argue the 9th as invoidable, I can create the right to boff people with a foam hammer and then claim it as a right under the 9th. No person is actually harmed, so you can't go with that.

So you feel threatened by a foam hammer?

Am I assaulting you right now?

only when you are obnoxious and the "joke" is no longer funny.

Is this a micro-aggression then? Tell me where the foam hammer hurt you.

you still need a legal clue and a legal Cause; here it is again for your reading comprehension ease and convenience:

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

so a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

You don't get to decide what your legally protected rights are.

there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

n common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

 

[martybegan]

They are there to uphold the constitution at the level of the Supreme Court. Changing the constitution is up to the legislature and the people and that is what the court has been doing, against its mandate, for almost 45 years now.

Striking down anti gay marriage laws is upholding the Constitution. No new laws are being made.

Yes, they are. by the court. Marriage has never included same sex couples for hundreds of years. Now if a legislature wants to change that, as is their right, I am all for it. But forcing it via judicial fiat is changing the laws.

It was changed legislatively when the 14th amendment put equal protection under the law into the Constitution. That was not done by 'judicial fiat' that mostly meaningless irrelevant term your types like to toss about.

It was changed legislatively when laws were passed against gender discrimination.

And a reminder:

the 9th amendment says -

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

The issue of SSM being equal to opposite sex marriage is up to the State legislatures, not the courts, except for having states recognize SSM's from another state that implemented it legislatively.

Yes, rights are inherent, but they are only protected when enumerated under the constitution, or added via the amendment process. If you want to argue the 9th as invoidable, I can create the right to boff people with a foam hammer and then claim it as a right under the 9th. No person is actually harmed, so you can't go with that.

So you feel threatened by a foam hammer?

Am I assaulting you right now?

only when you are obnoxious and the "joke" is no longer funny.

Is this a micro-aggression then? Tell me where the foam hammer hurt you.

you still need a legal clue and a legal Cause; here it is again for your reading comprehension ease and convenience:

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

so a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

You don't get to decide what your legally protected rights are.

and neither should 5 of 9 unlelected lawyers unless it is clear in the constitution, or added via the amendment process.

 

[martybegan]

so a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

acquiring and possessing a legal clue and a legal Cause is not your strong suit, is it.

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person.

The only clue here is one that isn't being caught, and that is you falling for me playing with you, much as a cat plays with some string.

i play with words all the time; the big chickens on the arbitrary and capricious Right still manage to get me banned whenever True Witness bearing is too much for them to bear.

no, words mostly play with you, and your attempt at sounding smarter than you are with the not so clever use of words and capital letters.

i would agree with you; but you have nothing but fallacy for your Cause.

There's that "I want to appear smart" word play again.

 

[Syriusly]

Striking down anti gay marriage laws is upholding the Constitution. No new laws are being made.

Yes, they are. by the court. Marriage has never included same sex couples for hundreds of years. Now if a legislature wants to change that, as is their right, I am all for it. But forcing it via judicial fiat is changing the laws.

It was changed legislatively when the 14th amendment put equal protection under the law into the Constitution. That was not done by 'judicial fiat' that mostly meaningless irrelevant term your types like to toss about.

It was changed legislatively when laws were passed against gender discrimination.

And a reminder:

the 9th amendment says -

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

The issue of SSM being equal to opposite sex marriage is up to the State legislatures, not the courts, except for having states recognize SSM's from another state that implemented it legislatively.

Yes, rights are inherent, but they are only protected when enumerated under the constitution, or added via the amendment process. If you want to argue the 9th as invoidable, I can create the right to boff people with a foam hammer and then claim it as a right under the 9th. No person is actually harmed, so you can't go with that.

only when you are obnoxious and the "joke" is no longer funny.

Is this a micro-aggression then? Tell me where the foam hammer hurt you.

you still need a legal clue and a legal Cause; here it is again for your reading comprehension ease and convenience:

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

so a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

You don't get to decide what your legally protected rights are.

and neither should 5 of 9 unlelected lawyers unless it is clear in the constitution, or added via the amendment process.

And who decides what is 'clear in the Constitution'?

The Supreme Court of course.......

Basically your argument boils down to the typical Conservative argument:

"We conservatives are against the Supreme Court deciding issues of Constitutionality of laws- unless of course we agree with their decision"

 

[martybegan]

Yes, they are. by the court. Marriage has never included same sex couples for hundreds of years. Now if a legislature wants to change that, as is their right, I am all for it. But forcing it via judicial fiat is changing the laws.

It was changed legislatively when the 14th amendment put equal protection under the law into the Constitution. That was not done by 'judicial fiat' that mostly meaningless irrelevant term your types like to toss about.

It was changed legislatively when laws were passed against gender discrimination.

And a reminder:

the 9th amendment says -

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

The issue of SSM being equal to opposite sex marriage is up to the State legislatures, not the courts, except for having states recognize SSM's from another state that implemented it legislatively.

Yes, rights are inherent, but they are only protected when enumerated under the constitution, or added via the amendment process. If you want to argue the 9th as invoidable, I can create the right to boff people with a foam hammer and then claim it as a right under the 9th. No person is actually harmed, so you can't go with that.

Is this a micro-aggression then? Tell me where the foam hammer hurt you.

you still need a legal clue and a legal Cause; here it is again for your reading comprehension ease and convenience:

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

so a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

You don't get to decide what your legally protected rights are.

and neither should 5 of 9 unlelected lawyers unless it is clear in the constitution, or added via the amendment process.

And who decides what is 'clear in the Constitution'?

The Supreme Court of course.......

Basically your argument boils down to the typical Conservative argument:

"We conservatives are against the Supreme Court deciding issues of Constitutionality of laws- unless of course we agree with their decision"

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

 

[Skylar]

It was changed legislatively when the 14th amendment put equal protection under the law into the Constitution. That was not done by 'judicial fiat' that mostly meaningless irrelevant term your types like to toss about.

It was changed legislatively when laws were passed against gender discrimination.

And a reminder:

the 9th amendment says -

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

The issue of SSM being equal to opposite sex marriage is up to the State legislatures, not the courts, except for having states recognize SSM's from another state that implemented it legislatively.

Yes, rights are inherent, but they are only protected when enumerated under the constitution, or added via the amendment process. If you want to argue the 9th as invoidable, I can create the right to boff people with a foam hammer and then claim it as a right under the 9th. No person is actually harmed, so you can't go with that.

you still need a legal clue and a legal Cause; here it is again for your reading comprehension ease and convenience:

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

so a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

You don't get to decide what your legally protected rights are.

and neither should 5 of 9 unlelected lawyers unless it is clear in the constitution, or added via the amendment process.

And who decides what is 'clear in the Constitution'?

The Supreme Court of course.......

Basically your argument boils down to the typical Conservative argument:

"We conservatives are against the Supreme Court deciding issues of Constitutionality of laws- unless of course we agree with their decision"

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

You do realize that the 9th amendment pretty much obliterates your entire line of reasoning, right?

 

[martybegan]

The issue of SSM being equal to opposite sex marriage is up to the State legislatures, not the courts, except for having states recognize SSM's from another state that implemented it legislatively.

Yes, rights are inherent, but they are only protected when enumerated under the constitution, or added via the amendment process. If you want to argue the 9th as invoidable, I can create the right to boff people with a foam hammer and then claim it as a right under the 9th. No person is actually harmed, so you can't go with that.

so a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

You don't get to decide what your legally protected rights are.

and neither should 5 of 9 unlelected lawyers unless it is clear in the constitution, or added via the amendment process.

And who decides what is 'clear in the Constitution'?

The Supreme Court of course.......

Basically your argument boils down to the typical Conservative argument:

"We conservatives are against the Supreme Court deciding issues of Constitutionality of laws- unless of course we agree with their decision"

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

You do realize that the 9th amendment pretty much obliterates your entire line of reasoning, right?

The 9th is not a catch all, "everything is a right" amendment, and is countered by the 10th, that says that things not regulated by the constitution are left to the States. The 9th is there so the federal government cannot go to the bill of rights and say "these are the only rights you have, no more". It was not meant to change everything into a right, nor restrict the federal government and the state governments from passing laws it found in its interest.

 

[Syriusly]

It was changed legislatively when the 14th amendment put equal protection under the law into the Constitution. That was not done by 'judicial fiat' that mostly meaningless irrelevant term your types like to toss about.

It was changed legislatively when laws were passed against gender discrimination.

And a reminder:

the 9th amendment says -

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

The issue of SSM being equal to opposite sex marriage is up to the State legislatures, not the courts, except for having states recognize SSM's from another state that implemented it legislatively.

Yes, rights are inherent, but they are only protected when enumerated under the constitution, or added via the amendment process. If you want to argue the 9th as invoidable, I can create the right to boff people with a foam hammer and then claim it as a right under the 9th. No person is actually harmed, so you can't go with that.

you still need a legal clue and a legal Cause; here it is again for your reading comprehension ease and convenience:

In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

so a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

You don't get to decide what your legally protected rights are.

and neither should 5 of 9 unlelected lawyers unless it is clear in the constitution, or added via the amendment process.

And who decides what is 'clear in the Constitution'?

The Supreme Court of course.......

Basically your argument boils down to the typical Conservative argument:

"We conservatives are against the Supreme Court deciding issues of Constitutionality of laws- unless of course we agree with their decision"

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

 

[martybegan]

The issue of SSM being equal to opposite sex marriage is up to the State legislatures, not the courts, except for having states recognize SSM's from another state that implemented it legislatively.

Yes, rights are inherent, but they are only protected when enumerated under the constitution, or added via the amendment process. If you want to argue the 9th as invoidable, I can create the right to boff people with a foam hammer and then claim it as a right under the 9th. No person is actually harmed, so you can't go with that.

so a foam hammer can threaten bodily harm and cause it?

How thin is your skin? (both literally and figuratively).

You don't get to decide what your legally protected rights are.

and neither should 5 of 9 unlelected lawyers unless it is clear in the constitution, or added via the amendment process.

And who decides what is 'clear in the Constitution'?

The Supreme Court of course.......

Basically your argument boils down to the typical Conservative argument:

"We conservatives are against the Supreme Court deciding issues of Constitutionality of laws- unless of course we agree with their decision"

I base my opposition on a strict constructionist basis, that if you want to change the rules, you use the amendment process. All enumerated rights were originally voted in some way, either ratification, or by amendment. What we are doing now is skipping that process because it is the easy way out, and that smacks of oligarchy.

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

The supreme court has jurisdiction, however they have drifted away from their mandate. The issue isn't judicial review, its judicial creation, as in creating things out of thin air, or flimsy reference.