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.
Abortion isn't there, gay marriage, however, is protected by 14A.
Ultimate authority and absolute authority are two different things. The federal government and the courts do not have absolute authority. The federal court has ultime authority -the final word on matters of constitutonality and the interpretation of the law BUT only when such a question is before the court. Absolute authority would exist if and only if the courts, a federal agency, or the presidebt were able to nicromange state government and excercise control over all aspects of their functioning. Sorry, but things are just not as simple as you would like them to beOk...if there are no absolutes, then who has the ultimate authority of the legality of gay marriage, or abortion?
You being of the opinion that it was not settled law and that it was a bad decision does not make any of that trueMy point is, as with roe, YOU all said it was law, that the courts created "settled law"...they didn't, they can't, YOU guys are the ones did that, and now they are calling it "precedent". It's bad precedent, something that should never have been done. If the scotus makes a bad decision, you can't call that law. What they did was to undo that whole mess that you all created.
Just words. The bottom line is that what the states should or should not do is not always what they actually do. There are times when the courts must act and exert authority, whatever you call it.Actually, it shouldn't be "case law", it should be the proper interpretation of the cotus. It something the states shouldn't be able to deny, because it is a cotus protected right.
You are an increasingly bizarre piece of work. Both the right to same sex marriage and abortion are based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Yet you have decided that the Roe decision was wrong and the Obergefell decision was correct. At the same time, you have said that you are "indifferent to gay rights" after spending weeks claiming that you are support the rights of people to live as they please and love who they wish.I agree that they think cotus is a living breathing document, and thus subject to change based on what they want that day.
Abortion isn't there, gay marriage, however, is protected by 14A. Being "forced to recognize recognize" is a personal issue that you have to deal with on your own, unless that recognition violates your personal rights, such as religious freedom to not lend your talents to the service of a gay wedding.
Whether YOU think it's disgusting or not is irrelevant. Our cotus give people the right to marry whom they choose, but it doesn't give the Fed gov the authority to regulate marriage laws.
sites.gsu.edu
Youd lesson for today in Constitutional law. EnjoyMy point is, as with roe, YOU all said it was law, that the courts created "settled law"...they didn't, they can't, YOU guys are the ones did that, and now they are calling it "precedent". It's bad precedent, something that should never have been done. If the scotus makes a bad decision, you can't call that law. What they did was to undo that whole mess that you all created.
The term penumbra is used in legal sense as a metaphor describing implied powers of the federal government. Penumbra doctrine is used to represent implied powers that arise from a specific rule, and extending the meaning of the rule into its periphery or penumbra. For example, privacy rights without government intervention is implied from First Amendment of the U.S. constitution.
I’m still working on how a shadow emanates.
Yeah. I know. It’s funny. The penumbra clauses are all written in invisible ink.It doesn't.
It's bullshit that the Court cooked up, to try to explain how the Constitution supported something that it very clearly never did.
It seems that you have gone missing, and I didn't even have a chance to say goodby!! You're not going to let me have the last word, now are you.Actually, it shouldn't be "case law", it should be the proper interpretation of the cotus. It something the states shouldn't be able to deny, because it is a cotus protected right.
But the wording of the 14A gives people the right to marry whom they want. It doesn't matter what "eveeyone" understood, it's what the framers wrote and intended. At this point, there is no indication they intended to have influence on marriage.Bullshit.
At the time the Fourteenth was ratified, everyone understood marriage to be between a man and a woman; and there is nothing in this Amendment which contradicts that.
I dare say that if the authors of this Amendment had anticipated that it might be twisted to support a disgusting homosexual mockery of marriage, then they would have included verbiage to clearly prevent that.
I'd question your statement of the courts "interpreting the law", do they interpret the law, or do they interpret the application if the law to the constitution? I don't think they can interpret law, otherwise, the laws will always change depending on who's interpreting them.Ultimate authority and absolute authority are two different things. The federal government and the courts do not have absolute authority. The federal court has ultime authority -the final word on matters of constitutonality and the interpretation of the law BUT only when such a question is before the court. Absolute authority would exist if and only if the courts, a federal agency, or the presidebt were able to nicromange state government and excercise control over all aspects of their functioning. Sorry, but things are just not as simple as you would like them to be
But the wording of the 14A gives people the right to marry whom they want.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."There is no wording in the Fourteenth Amendment, nor anywhere else in the Constitution, that even hints at any such thing.
You are correct."No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Ah there you are you little rascal! Welcome back. The fact is that it is a complicated question. However, as usual, you take it upon yourself to conjur up a pat and simplistic answer with bothering to do any research or to learn anything about the issue. That is called an appeal to authority logical fallacy-( I said it so it is right) as well as an appeal to ignorance fallacy (just trust me) Read and learn:I'd question your statement of the courts "interpreting the law", do they interpret the law, or do they interpret the application if the law to the constitution? I don't think they can interpret law, otherwise, the laws will always change depending on who's interpreting them.
lawaspect.com
Common! Seriously. Let me start by saying two things. Blaylock is my ultra nemesis and I never agree with him but I sort of do here. Secondly, as much as I support same sex marriage and believe that that right flows from the provisions of the 14th, to say that “the 14A gives people the right to marry whom they want is balderdash pure and simple. Same sex marriage was not on anyone radar back then. It was unthinkable.But the wording of the 14A gives people the right to marry whom they want. It doesn't matter what "eveeyone" understood, it's what the framers wrote and intended. At this point, there is no indication they intended to have influence on marriage.
Common! Seriously. Let me start by saying two things. Blaylock is my ultra nemesis and I never agree with him but I sort of do here. Secondly, as much as I support same sex marriage and believe that that right flows from the provisions of the 14th, to say that “the 14A gives people the right to marry whom they want is balderdash pure and simple. Same sex marriage was not on anyone radar back then. It was unthinkable.
Oh and by the way, the 14th was passed long after the founders drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So it has nothing to do with what the framers intended. It's interesting how you, a defender of the literal word of the constitution, and the enumerated rights, can come up with this sort of nonsense.
You are so out to lunch
Then you say that “there is no indication they intended to have influence on marriage” which is true, but it is also it is also a direct contradiction to the first part of that paragraph..Your credibility is totally in the crapper bud.
What the fuck are you talking about Princess?If Gay Marriage was "unthinkable" when the 14th Amendment was written and adopted, why do you think the writers of the amendment wanted to mandate the institution?
What the fuck are you talking about Princess?
