Should an unelected Supreme Court overturn a State constitution as 'unconstitutional'? (Missouri)

[OKTexas]

Wrong answer, having a well regulated militia to maintain a free State, is a State power, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual power/right. The founders were very careful not to use any distinguishing terms interchangeably.

The 2nd amendment is a single sentence long.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You can't just ignore the parts you don't like. Scalia was wrong to imply the right was an individual right, and had nothing to do with the states.

Feel free to show anywhere the founders used the terms for the feds, State or people synonymously. And the right to own firearms is not limited to Militia service, but also to the right of individual self defense, as the court indicated. BTW, Scalia wasn't the only one to come to that conclusion.

 

[meaner gene]

Feel free to show anywhere the founders used the terms for the feds, State or people synonymously..

Actually the 'people' in "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." was limited to white males. If you disagree, you can argue with the USSC who issued that opinion.

 

[OKTexas]

Birth defects are anomalies, but you already knew that. Run along child, your pathetic argument is too weak.

We were all born dark skinned short people in Africa. Lack of melanin was a birth defect.

So you're saying there's only one race, that weakens your argument even more.

 

[OKTexas]

Feel free to show anywhere the founders used the terms for the feds, State or people synonymously..

Actually the 'people' in "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." was limited to white males. If you disagree, you can argue with the USSC who issued that opinion.

No need to argue that to anyone, I guess you missed amendments to the Constitution that have extended individual rights to both sexes and all races.

 

[meaner gene]

So you're saying there's only one race, that weakens your argument even more.

There is only one 'human' race, but there have been so many 'birth defects' we now have them with all different color hair, eyes, skin and other characteristics that have become part of the standard human genome.

 

[meaner gene]

Actually the 'people' in "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." was limited to white males. If you disagree, you can argue with the USSC who issued that opinion.

No need to argue that to anyone, I guess you missed amendments to the Constitution that have extended individual rights to both sexes and all races.

I thought you were arguing what the founding fathers wanted the 2nd amendment to mean,. Not how the meaning of the constitution changed with the amendments. The original intent was the 2nd as a state right, not an individual one. States were free to determine who could have a gun, and who couldn't, and under what restrictions., including a complete ban if they wanted that.

The states were free to determine who could and couldn't get married, own property, etc. But as there are certain rights and immunities held commonly by all citizens.

 

[oreo]

Supreme Court to hear case on church and state - CNNPolitics.com

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether or not the State of Missouri's state constitution is unconstitutional because it bans the state from providing direct or indirect financial assistance to churches and religious institutions.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution because the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

I think the Supreme Court should be able to do so.

What remains to see is whether or not the Supreme Court will decide that these kinds of State constitutionals are unconstitutional.

It's definitely an interesting case. The church applied for a "state grant" to obtain the grant for a playground to buy used tires that are munched up and used for surface. This playground is on church property.

So by allowing this are taxpayer dollars being used to fund the church--which is against the Constitution?

We'll see what their final decision is.

 

[meaner gene]

It's definitely an interesting case. The church applied for a "state grant" to obtain the grant for a playground to buy used tires that are munched up and used for surface. This playground is on church property.

So by allowing this are taxpayer dollars being used to fund the church--which is against the Constitution?

We'll see what their final decision is.

We're already financing church schools under title 9

 

[oreo]

It's definitely an interesting case. The church applied for a "state grant" to obtain the grant for a playground to buy used tires that are munched up and used for surface. This playground is on church property.

So by allowing this are taxpayer dollars being used to fund the church--which is against the Constitution?

We'll see what their final decision is.

We're already financing church schools under title 9

Again it's an interesting case--and can you put up a link to title 9 so we can all read it.

 

[Syriusly]

Feel free to show anywhere the founders used the terms for the feds, State or people synonymously..

Actually the 'people' in "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." was limited to white males. If you disagree, you can argue with the USSC who issued that opinion.

No need to argue that to anyone, I guess you missed amendments to the Constitution that have extended individual rights to both sexes and all races.

I guess you missed the parts of the Constitution that apply to all citizens- regardless of race or gender.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually the 'people' in "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." was limited to white males. If you disagree, you can argue with the USSC who issued that opinion.

No need to argue that to anyone, I guess you missed amendments to the Constitution that have extended individual rights to both sexes and all races.

I thought you were arguing what the founding fathers wanted the 2nd amendment to mean,. Not how the meaning of the constitution changed with the amendments. The original intent was the 2nd as a state right, not an individual one. States were free to determine who could have a gun, and who couldn't, and under what restrictions., including a complete ban if they wanted that.

The states were free to determine who could and couldn't get married, own property, etc. But as there are certain rights and immunities held commonly by all citizens.

You must have trouble walking being all bent around like a pretzel, do you really not understand who the people are in a constitutional context?

 

[Syriusly]

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

They had the same protections of everyone of their gender to begin with, there was no discrimination.

There was no discrimination against gays? This is the most willfully stupid thing I've heard this month, and that is saying a lot considering I'm conversing with LaDexter right now.

Faghadist marriage was illegal at the time the 14th was ratified and time didn't change the 14th, 5 fucked up judges did. No where in the Constitution does it give judges the power to engage in social engineering.

Wow. Another one who is ignorant of constitutional law.

Hey, you know what else wasn't legal at the time the 14th was ratified? Income tax breaks for married people.

You dumb shits have never caught on that the whole gay marriage issue is about government gifts. Gays want the same protections of the laws which give out these gifts that are given to every other marriage.

Equal. Protection. Of. The. Laws.

That's it.

If the government enacted a law which gave out lollipops to every citizen in good standing "except faghadists", it would be in violation of equal protection of the laws.

If the government didn't give out gifts and protections to marriages, the gay marriage thing wouldn't even be an issue.

You are making the exact same arguments the bigots against interracial marriages made, by the way.

Faghadist had the same rights as anyone of their gender, they could marry any consenting adult of the opposite sex just like everyone else, so there was no discrimination when they are treated just like everyone. .

I don't know who 'Faghadists' are- are they like Trumpnazi's?

But gay Americans didn't have the same rights as everyone else- because Conservatives like yourself had passed laws giving Big Brother the power to decide what kind of sexual intercourse Americans were allowed to have.

It wasn't until the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas that your granting Big Brother permission to regulate private consensual sex between adults was reversed- that not it stopped some governments from trying to continue to enforce those laws for a few years afterwards.

Regarding marriage- yeah- gay Americans had the same marriage rights- in the same way that black Americans had the same marriage rights.

Gay Americans were free to marry anyone they wanted- so long as they were the opposite sex.
Black Americans were free to marry anyone they wanted- so long as they were the same race.

Still don't know the difference between genetics and behavior I see. Genetics say all races have 2 genders, male and female, there was no racial or gender discrimination in banning faghadist marriage. Everyone had the same rights, it's just that simple. And because there was no race or gender discrimination the feds had no say in the matter.

Still thinking that 'equal rights' only applies when it comes to genetics.

Wanting to marry someone of a different race is a behavior- nothing genetic about it.

It was unconstitutional to ban mixed race marriage- not because of genetics- but because Americans have a right to marriage.

But you Confascists insist that Big Brother has the right to determine how and with who adult Americans are allowed to have sex with- or get married to.

Now because of Loving v. Virginia, Lawrence v. Kansas, and Obergefell- you Confascists are on the ropes- and about to go down for the count.

And Americans get to marry who they want.

Pisses you off.

 

[OKTexas]

Feel free to show anywhere the founders used the terms for the feds, State or people synonymously..

Actually the 'people' in "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." was limited to white males. If you disagree, you can argue with the USSC who issued that opinion.

No need to argue that to anyone, I guess you missed amendments to the Constitution that have extended individual rights to both sexes and all races.

I guess you missed the parts of the Constitution that apply to all citizens- regardless of race or gender.

Feel free to point where the word "gender" is used anywhere in the Constitution. You idiots really love to make shit up.

 

[Syriusly]

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

They had the same protections of everyone of their gender to begin with, there was no discrimination. Faghadist marriage was illegal at the time the 14th was ratified and time didn't change the 14th, 5 fucked up judges did. No where in the Constitution does it give judges the power to engage in social engineering.

According to Justice Texas of course.

There were no laws against same gender marriage when the 14th Amendment was enacted.

Those laws were put in place by in the 1990's- who suddenly realized that there were no actual laws against same gender marriage.

So you rushed out to make them illegal.

Because you wanted to deny equal rights to same gender couples.

5 wise judges overturned your fucked up bigoted laws.

Right, that why your beloved W. J. Clinton signed the defense of marriage act. Also your dear leader and the hildabitch once held the opinion that marriage was between one man and one woman. They only change their mind for political expedience..

And meanwhile of course your dear leader- Herr Trump- changed his mind about gay marriage for political expedience- just as he changed his mind on abortion- and single payer health insurance.

Honestly I don't really give a shit what opinion anyone holds on those 3 topics, none are federal functions and should be left to the States as the founders intended. I've already posted numerous times what they said on the topics.

Honestly you cared enough to post the opinions of other people.

I guess you don't actually care what they think- just another opportunity for you to go partisan attack.

 

[meaner gene]

Again it's an interesting case--and can you put up a link to title 9 so we can read it.

Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is a federal law that states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

Along with title IV, and others provides funding to schools, both public and private, to educate children with disabilities, among other things, Religious school educating children with disabilities are entitled to grants and funding to cover the costs of mandatory education and accomodation. Some funding comes from the feds, some from the states, and some from local school taxes.

 

[Syriusly]

Feel free to show anywhere the founders used the terms for the feds, State or people synonymously..

Actually the 'people' in "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." was limited to white males. If you disagree, you can argue with the USSC who issued that opinion.

No need to argue that to anyone, I guess you missed amendments to the Constitution that have extended individual rights to both sexes and all races.

I guess you missed the parts of the Constitution that apply to all citizens- regardless of race or gender.

Feel free to point where the word "gender" is used anywhere in the Constitution. You idiots really love to make shit up.

Feel free to point out where in the Constitution "gender" is excluded from citizens

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Or point out where it says in the Constitution that state's can't ban mixed race marriages?

Or are you okay with state's banning mixed race marriages- since its a state's issue?

 

[Timmy]

The Supreme Court does not go and pick cases to hear, they're brought before them and then they decided to hear the case or not. Constitutionals are walks by the way.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution if the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

Yes . The state can't overrule our constitutional rights.

For example , a state can't declare guns to be illegal .

 

[oreo]

Again it's an interesting case--and can you put up a link to title 9 so we can read it.

Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is a federal law that states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

Along with title IV, and others provides funding to schools, both public and private, to educate children with disabilities, among other things, Religious school educating children with disabilities are entitled to grants and funding to cover the costs of mandatory education and accomodation. Some funding comes from the feds, some from the states, and some from local school taxes.

Thanks--but it specifically states this: "Religious school educating children with disabilities."

 

[meaner gene]

Feel free to point where the word "gender" is used anywhere in the Constitution. You idiots really love to make shit up.

AMENDMENT XIX - Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

When they say SEX they mean GENDER, not doing the nasty

 

[oreo]

The Supreme Court does not go and pick cases to hear, they're brought before them and then they decided to hear the case or not. Constitutionals are walks by the way.

Do you think that the Supreme Court should be able to overturn a state's constitution if the SCOTUS determines that the state constitution is unconstitutional?

Yes . The state can't overrule our constitutional rights.

For example , a state can't declare guns to be illegal .

Very true--and one amendment that is constantly being challenged by states is Roe v Wade. A state will pass a law or restriction on abortion that is immediately overturned by a Federal District court.
Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us/federal-judge-blocks-indiana-abortion-law.html?_r=1