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.
Really? !! He made it clear that he abhors gay marriage . He would follow the law only because the law already prohibits (but is unenforceable because , and only because of Obergefell. If it were not prohibited, he would do everything in his power to see to it that it was. And fuck what the people want. This is Civil Rights!No....he....didnt.....he said he would go with the law at hand.
If the people want it, he will sign it, or he will be voted out. That's how it works.
Holy fucking shit on a shingle!! After insisting that you support the right of people to love and live as they see fit, and that you do not think that states should prohibit gay marriage, but now YOU ARE INDIFFERENT TO IT?? My only question is , were you lying then or are you lying now? I believe that you were lying then and now you have slipped up and revealed what you really believe. You just don't give a fuck if the state - or "the people" trample on human rights. You are OK with either a tyranny of the majority, or- as it may be- a tyranny of a minority, as long as your precious states rights are preserved. What I can't fathom is your duplicity and dishonesty and your ridgidly clinging to your literal interpretation of the constitution at the expense of human rights. You are exposed for what you are My work is done here .No, I'm not hostile to gay marriage, at best, yes, I am indifferent toward it, but that makes no difference. If I were hostile toward it, I'd say that it should be outright banned. I'm not. You just can't fathom that someone can support gay rights, while also supporting the words of the cotus, and states rights.
You are full of shit! You just said that you're indifferent-IN THE SAME FUCKING POST!I'm not trying to lull anyone into anything. And yes, the Feds have no business in the bedroom. Really the state doesn't either, which is why I oppose if any state would try to ban gay marriage.
HOW THE FUCK WOULD SCOTUS PROTECT THAT RIGHT, it it can't "make law"??Those are not functions of a government, but they are the function of the scotus if a state would try to violate their rights.
HOW THE FUCK WOULD SCOTUS PROTECT THAT RIGHT, it it can't "make law"??
Equal protection. It would be an undue burden to deny someone the right to marry based in their sex.Marriage will be protected by the 14th Amendment ? How EXACTLY?
Ok, so if we're going back to case law, then does that mean if the courts decide it, then it's now "law"? If that's the case, then why do we even have separation of powers? You're basically saying that courts can create law based on precedent. I say they can only interpret the law based on the cotus and make sure states are abiding by it.I tried to school you on the widely recognized principle of case law as it pertains to constitutional law but you blathering about how the court can't make law.
You seem to agree that the court is able to interpret laws and determine the constitutionality of laws but you can't explain what happens next. If they can't "make law"-what EXACTLY can they do when there is a conflict between the action of a state legislature and the constitution.
To be more specific, did the SCOTUS "make law" when they ruled that the state laws that banned same sex marriage were unconstitutional?. If so, how then, should the right to marry have been protected under the 14th amendment?. Save the bullshit. Be specific
To be more specific, did the SCOTUS "make law" when they ruled that the state laws that banned same sex marriage were unconstitutional?.
You have a narrow, textualist junderstanding of states rights, and the tenth amendment that is shared by few. If you interpretation of states rights were to prevail, states could do any damned thing that they wanted , no matter how offensive to the constitution it might be, on matters reserved to the states such as marriage. Yet you claim that gay marriage to is protected by the 14th Amendment. Is it possable to you do not even inderstand how contradictory that is?
You have a narrow, textualist junderstanding of states rights, and the tenth amendment that is shared by few
states rights were to prevail, states could do any damned thing that they wanted , no matter how offensive to the constitution it might be, on matters reserved to the states such as marriage.
Yeah...the cotus 14A does trump states rights. It's one of the protections that fed gov has jurisdiction on.Actually the 14th Amendment does just that.
States rights are absolute, unless it's something the cotus designates that fed gov has authority on.You continue to be contradictory. You can't seem to decide whether states rights are absolute or not, and if now you still can't explain how people can actually be protected from a state that violates their rights
That is not an answer! I know that it falls under equal protection, as well as due process....that what Oberefell was based on. The question was....how is it enforced without it being "legislating from the bench "that you decry? Stop with your stupid games!Equal protection. It would be an undue burden to deny someone the right to marry based in their sex.
No, you can't reconcile the fact that I've said several times now that states must abide by the cotus, but so must the federal gov. The federal gov has its duties, the states, and the people have the rest..The constutution is not perfect but no one is saying that we should give the the federal gov ultimate authority over the states in any matter that it wants. That is a lot different that simply enforcing constitutional rights of the people. Now you are just throwing dung at the wall hoping that something sticks
You said :"Why didn't they just say "the federal government has authority in all matters, but may delegate some authority to the states"? Would have been a lot easier?" Really? Without saying what those matters to be delegated would be. Sound like a recipe for chaos.
Keep in mind that the Constitution was written in a much different time and was drafted on the heals of the Articles of Confederation which did give the states much more autonomy which contributed to the reality of slave vs. free states and thus the Civil War. And before the 14th , the states retained much of that autonomy. The fact is, now they must abide by the constitution in all matters whether reserved to the states or not. You cannot seem to reconcile that fact with your belief in absolute states rights, and do not even seem to understand the contradiction
The same shit over and over again! Yes they can create law! Case law! Again, if they can only interpret the law, how is that interpretation put into effect if not by the force of case law. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION! How esle do they make sure states are abiding by it? You continue to speak with forked tongue. You can't have it both ways.Ok, so if we're going back to case law, then does that mean if the courts decide it, then it's now "law"? If that's the case, then why do we even have separation of powers? You're basically saying that courts can create law based on precedent. I say they can only interpret the law based on the cotus and make sure states are abiding by it.
Really? That is not "Legislating from the bench" OK what would be an example of legislating from the bench then.?No, because bans on same sex marriage would be unconstitutional. They didn't create a law, they simply forced the states to uphold 14A and civil rights.
It's not what we have, but if you start giving the federal gov more power over the states, we will have.That is not what we have and the only ones who want it are Trumps and his minions
Horseshit/Plain and simple! We do not want to get rid of that Constitution. That would be the far right fascist who want that.know, because the dems want the cotus to be "fluid' and "living and breathing", basically, they'd love nothing more than to just get rid of it, so they can fashion their majority rule government that they so desperately want.
Yes ok, You don't like the federal government. I get that. What I also get is that you are ok with the states trampling in individual right in the name of states rights. And I have not forgotten that you admitted to be indifferent to gay rights. I am done with you.It's not what we have, but if you start giving the federal gov more power over the states, we will have.
And more to the point, actually, we kinda are ready there. Look at all these government beauracracies, and all these laws that the federal gov has made since we've were formed as a country that were never part of their authority, yet we have them. The gov has ready exceeded it's authority by leaps and bounds, and the dems want it to get even bigger.
I agree with you on abortion, but it's not a function of the federal gov to codify a medical procedure into law, forcing states to allow it.No, on abortion, I argue that women have a right to privacy and autonomy over their bodies and that there are limits on the states ability to come between get and her doctor.
Guns are a murkey area thanks to tje vagueness of the 2nd Amendment but again, the right to carry or even to own a gun is not absolute and must be ballanced against public safety. Why the fuck do you think that I would srgue states rights?
It's enforced by the scotus putting an injunction on whatever law the state was trying to pass, thus uoholding the scotus.That is not an answer! I know that it falls under equal protection, as well as due process....that what Oberefell was based on. The question was....how is it enforced without it being "legislating from the bench "that you decry? Stop with your stupid games!
