Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually it did, until states passed laws making it illegal. So you had a situation where it was allowed, then it wasn't. So you had precedence where marriage was A-ok between races, then it wasn't, then the courts said it was again. You have no track record like that for gay marriage until recently.
I'm sorry, what point was it okay for a black man to fuck a white woman where it didn't end wiht the black guy at the end of rope?
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.
Guy, there are no "rights". Andy stupid fuck who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942".
Oh, they did check with tthe courts, and the courts said, "Meh, lock them up. Remember Pearl Harbor."
You are confusing lawlessness with laws on the books, and in the beginning of the US there were no laws regarding miscegenation until they were added before, during and after the civil war.
And rights exist, they are inherent. And your example proves case in point how courts that over-step their bounds can be a danger to us all.
The most fundamental of rights is equality. If you make it a legal right for a man to marry a woman, but you deny a woman the right to marry a woman,
you have violated the right of the woman to equality, based on her gender, and you have done so without proving there is an overriding compelling interest that the government has to protect that warrants such discrimination.
What law has the Supreme Court made? Name the law or the statute number.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.
You didn't answer the question
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?
Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.
What law has the Supreme Court made? Name the law or the statute number.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.
You didn't answer the question
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?
Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.
What is the law that was created? There is none...a law against abortion was struck down. And I wouldn't call the 14th amendment "thin air".What law has the Supreme Court made? Name the law or the statute number.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.
You didn't answer the question
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?
Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.
Roe V Wade. You can't name a statue number but its a law nonetheless. They took thin air and made up a right.
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.
simply being obnoxious can be a form of assault.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.
simply being obnoxious can be a form of assault.
Ah, you do go for the whole micro-aggression thing.
Here is a macro aggression. Please go pound sand, you mouth breathing oxygen thief.
What is the law that was created? There is none...a law against abortion was struck down. And I wouldn't call the 14th amendment "thin air".What law has the Supreme Court made? Name the law or the statute number.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.
You didn't answer the question
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?
Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.
Roe V Wade. You can't name a statue number but its a law nonetheless. They took thin air and made up a right.
You are confusing lawlessness with laws on the books, and in the beginning of the US there were no laws regarding miscegenation until they were added before, during and after the civil war.
The 14th was signed at the point of a gun. The southern states had no choice. So yes it was thin air.What is the law that was created? There is none...a law against abortion was struck down. And I wouldn't call the 14th amendment "thin air".What law has the Supreme Court made? Name the law or the statute number.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.
You didn't answer the question
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?
Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.
Roe V Wade. You can't name a statue number but its a law nonetheless. They took thin air and made up a right.
Funny how the justices saw the mom's right to life & liberty as overriding the child's right to life & liberty. Yeah ok, it's not funny.What is the law that was created? There is none...a law against abortion was struck down. And I wouldn't call the 14th amendment "thin air".What law has the Supreme Court made? Name the law or the statute number.You didn't answer the question
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?
Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.
Roe V Wade. You can't name a statue number but its a law nonetheless. They took thin air and made up a right.
It found a due process right to an abortion in the 14th amendment because the justices wanted it, not because it was actually there. And when you do that, you create law, without creating law being in your part of the separation of powers.
There is no power to Prohibit forms of Commerce but Only Regulate, delegated to our federal Congress among the several States.What is the law that was created? There is none...a law against abortion was struck down. And I wouldn't call the 14th amendment "thin air".What law has the Supreme Court made? Name the law or the statute number.You didn't answer the question
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?
Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.
Roe V Wade. You can't name a statue number but its a law nonetheless. They took thin air and made up a right.
It found a due process right to an abortion in the 14th amendment because the justices wanted it, not because it was actually there. And when you do that, you create law, without creating law being in your part of the separation of powers.
Yes, it is what happens when Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.The 14th was signed at the point of a gun. The southern states had no choice. So yes it was thin air.What is the law that was created? There is none...a law against abortion was struck down. And I wouldn't call the 14th amendment "thin air".What law has the Supreme Court made? Name the law or the statute number.You didn't answer the question
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?
Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.
Roe V Wade. You can't name a statue number but its a law nonetheless. They took thin air and made up a right.
Tell that to the millions of Americans in federal jails for being on the wrong side of commerce in the war on non-prescription approved drugs.There is no power to Prohibit forms of Commerce but Only Regulate, delegated to our federal Congress among the several States.What is the law that was created? There is none...a law against abortion was struck down. And I wouldn't call the 14th amendment "thin air".What law has the Supreme Court made? Name the law or the statute number.Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.
Roe V Wade. You can't name a statue number but its a law nonetheless. They took thin air and made up a right.
It found a due process right to an abortion in the 14th amendment because the justices wanted it, not because it was actually there. And when you do that, you create law, without creating law being in your part of the separation of powers.
It is even less funny how the Right prefers to create more costs in favor of the coercive use of force of the State while complaining about social spending on the last wealthy.Funny how the justices saw the mom's right to life & liberty as overriding the child's right to life & liberty. Yeah ok, it's not funny.What is the law that was created? There is none...a law against abortion was struck down. And I wouldn't call the 14th amendment "thin air".What law has the Supreme Court made? Name the law or the statute number.Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.
Roe V Wade. You can't name a statue number but its a law nonetheless. They took thin air and made up a right.
It found a due process right to an abortion in the 14th amendment because the justices wanted it, not because it was actually there. And when you do that, you create law, without creating law being in your part of the separation of powers.
Want me to "harass a Judge" for that Cause at the earliest practicable opportunity?Tell that to the millions of Americans in federal jails for being on the wrong side of commerce in the war on non-prescription approved drugs.There is no power to Prohibit forms of Commerce but Only Regulate, delegated to our federal Congress among the several States.What is the law that was created? There is none...a law against abortion was struck down. And I wouldn't call the 14th amendment "thin air".What law has the Supreme Court made? Name the law or the statute number.
Roe V Wade. You can't name a statue number but its a law nonetheless. They took thin air and made up a right.
It found a due process right to an abortion in the 14th amendment because the justices wanted it, not because it was actually there. And when you do that, you create law, without creating law being in your part of the separation of powers.
Yeah cause spending money defending a life against patricide is less worthy than redistributing my income to your pocket. ROFL put your beggars hat away and get a job.It is even less funny how the Right prefers to create more costs in favor of the coercive use of force of the State while complaining about social spending on the last wealthy.Funny how the justices saw the mom's right to life & liberty as overriding the child's right to life & liberty. Yeah ok, it's not funny.What is the law that was created? There is none...a law against abortion was struck down. And I wouldn't call the 14th amendment "thin air".What law has the Supreme Court made? Name the law or the statute number.
Roe V Wade. You can't name a statue number but its a law nonetheless. They took thin air and made up a right.
It found a due process right to an abortion in the 14th amendment because the justices wanted it, not because it was actually there. And when you do that, you create law, without creating law being in your part of the separation of powers.
Make up your mind. Either you are saying there is no power to prohibit forms of commerce... or the light bulb just came on and you are asking me if I think harassing a Judge to end the war on drug commerce is a good idea.Want me to "harass a Judge" for that Cause at the earliest practicable opportunity?Tell that to the millions of Americans in federal jails for being on the wrong side of commerce in the war on non-prescription approved drugs.There is no power to Prohibit forms of Commerce but Only Regulate, delegated to our federal Congress among the several States.What is the law that was created? There is none...a law against abortion was struck down. And I wouldn't call the 14th amendment "thin air".Roe V Wade. You can't name a statue number but its a law nonetheless. They took thin air and made up a right.
It found a due process right to an abortion in the 14th amendment because the justices wanted it, not because it was actually there. And when you do that, you create law, without creating law being in your part of the separation of powers.
only the right prefers to appeal to ignorance of an ounce of prevention that could lower our tax burden and prevent any need for any form of abortion in modern times--but for ideology from the Iron Age, and without any morals tests on for-profit basis in modern and secular and temporal times.Yeah cause spending money defending a life against patricide is less worthy than redistributing my income to your pocket. ROFL put your beggars hat away and get a job.It is even less funny how the Right prefers to create more costs in favor of the coercive use of force of the State while complaining about social spending on the last wealthy.Funny how the justices saw the mom's right to life & liberty as overriding the child's right to life & liberty. Yeah ok, it's not funny.What is the law that was created? There is none...a law against abortion was struck down. And I wouldn't call the 14th amendment "thin air".Roe V Wade. You can't name a statue number but its a law nonetheless. They took thin air and made up a right.
It found a due process right to an abortion in the 14th amendment because the justices wanted it, not because it was actually there. And when you do that, you create law, without creating law being in your part of the separation of powers.
Yes, there is no longer any delegated social Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce since the repeal of that bad idea and historical mistake, last millennium.Make up your mind. Either you are saying there is no power to prohibit forms of commerce... or the light bulb just came on and you are asking me if I think harassing a Judge to end the war on drug commerce is a good idea.Want me to "harass a Judge" for that Cause at the earliest practicable opportunity?Tell that to the millions of Americans in federal jails for being on the wrong side of commerce in the war on non-prescription approved drugs.There is no power to Prohibit forms of Commerce but Only Regulate, delegated to our federal Congress among the several States.What is the law that was created? There is none...a law against abortion was struck down. And I wouldn't call the 14th amendment "thin air".
It found a due process right to an abortion in the 14th amendment because the justices wanted it, not because it was actually there. And when you do that, you create law, without creating law being in your part of the separation of powers.
Is that why SCOTUS ruled that a farmer growing wheat on his own property for his own consumption was interfering with interstate commerce?There is no power to Prohibit forms of Commerce but Only Regulate, delegated to our federal Congress among the several States.What is the law that was created? There is none...a law against abortion was struck down. And I wouldn't call the 14th amendment "thin air".What law has the Supreme Court made? Name the law or the statute number.Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.
Roe V Wade. You can't name a statue number but its a law nonetheless. They took thin air and made up a right.
It found a due process right to an abortion in the 14th amendment because the justices wanted it, not because it was actually there. And when you do that, you create law, without creating law being in your part of the separation of powers.
What the hell are you talking about?only the right prefers to appeal to ignorance of an ounce of prevention that could lower our tax burden and prevent any need for any form of abortion in modern times--but for ideology from the Iron Age, and without any morals tests on for-profit basis in modern and secular and temporal times.Yeah cause spending money defending a life against patricide is less worthy than redistributing my income to your pocket. ROFL put your beggars hat away and get a job.It is even less funny how the Right prefers to create more costs in favor of the coercive use of force of the State while complaining about social spending on the last wealthy.Funny how the justices saw the mom's right to life & liberty as overriding the child's right to life & liberty. Yeah ok, it's not funny.What is the law that was created? There is none...a law against abortion was struck down. And I wouldn't call the 14th amendment "thin air".
It found a due process right to an abortion in the 14th amendment because the justices wanted it, not because it was actually there. And when you do that, you create law, without creating law being in your part of the separation of powers.
