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.
The problem with that approach is, then you could say that 2A only applies to muskets, since they never could have foreseen the wide array of guns we have now.I never claimed that it was. No reason it should have been needed.
Up until recently, everyone knew what marriage was. There is no reason to expect that anyone who had any hand in writing the original Constitution, nor any of the Amendments thereto, would have ever imagined that anything that they wrote would be twisted and corrupted to support a disgusting and immoral homosexual mockery of marriage. If they had anticipated that, then they surely would have chosen their words more carefully to prevent it.
I still.maintain that courts don't make laws, and that's been my stance all alongHolly shit! What??!! You just can't seem to stick to your story. You seem really confused. All along you have been railing against "court made law" more accuratly known as case law, but granted some dispensation to te Obergefell decision saying that it was an approriate decision and not an example of court made law
In addition, you had voiced your unwaving support for "people to live and love who they whish" and for gay marriage, only to then say that you are "indifferernt " to it and now you want it left to the states. You have said that the 14th amendment protects gay marriage, but now that's out the window. Trying to understand what you believe is like trying to nail jello to the wall'
You want all marriage issues left to the states? What about interracial marriage? ...Loving V Virginia
So now we are back to all people being protected under the constitution?? The constitution is the bedrock of the federal judiciary so HOW THE FUCK would the constitution "protect all people if the federal government has nothing to say about marriage? Christ you are a mess!
So now we are back to all people being protected under the constitution??
The constitution is the bedrock of the federal judiciary so HOW THE FUCK would the constitution "protect all people if the federal government has nothing to say about marriage? Christ you are a mess!
You are as solid as fresh cow flop before it gets baked in the sun. You still have three problems and they are not going away. You cannot say that the Constitution is adaptable while espousing an fundamentallt textualist philosophy. You cant rail against legislating from the bench but then make exception that suite you ( even if you later go back on that which you have with gay marriage, You can't have it both ways. You are realy a sad fucking mess.
You cannot say that the Constitution is adaptable while espousing an fundamentallt textualist philosophy.
You cant rail against legislating from the bench but then make exception that suite you ( even if you later go back on that which you have with gay marriage
When I say adaptable, I mean in the sense that dems mean it, in other words, fluid, changing it to suit your whims. The words of the cotus were written to cover a multitude of freedoms, anything that would be considered a due process and equal protections issue would be in there as well. The cotus is solid, but it's protections are wide.A major contradiction in ONE sentence!!
Why? Nothing wrong with our cotus, other than it has been repeatedly violated over the years...something that we need to stop doing.Lets jut throw out the constitution and go back to the Articles of Confederation. Lets have slave and free states again
queers should get married and suffer just like all us red blooded men who took the plungeWhen I say adaptable, I mean in the sense that dems mean it, in other words, fluid, changing it to suit your whims. The words of the cotus were written to cover a multitude of freedoms, anything that would be considered a due process and equal protections issue would be in there as well. The cotus is solid, but it's protections are wide.
The founders did not write the 14th A,The problem with that approach is, then you could say that 2A only applies to muskets, since they never could have foreseen the wide array of guns we have now.
Perhaps they weren't thinking of gay marriage because they didn't need to. All they needed to do was provide freedom for future generations, and the 14A did that.
Same shit, differnent post,Just with slightlt different words. You are trying to play both sides of the fence. The fact is that a Oberefell estblished Constilyutional LAW. The fact that you deny that it is law or do not want to call it law does not mean that it is not law.I still.maintain that courts don't make laws, and that's been my stance all along
Obergefell was correct only in that it applied the issue of gay marriage to the constitution. The court itself did not try to deem that gay marriage was law. The problem comes when leftist activists then take those words.and start parroting that gay marriage is the law of the land. It's not, it's protected only by the cotus guarantee to equal protection. In that, it's solid.
Gay marriage IS a state issue, not a federal issue, thats how our cotus works. I've stated that I don't believe states will ban gay marriage, but it's certainly not the federal governments job to make it law, only the courts job to make sure states are not violating the protections of the cotus.
You have said so many contradictory things that my head is spinningI've never stated anything different.
Yes, as solid as fresh cow flop on a rainy dayThe 14A. I'm not a mess, I've been quite solid.
You said that it was not adopable but that that the original language was flexable and could be applied to changing and unforseen issues -or something to that effect. So what the fuck are you saying? Still trying to have it both waysI never said the cotus was "adaptable", I don't know where you get that from.
Yes you have been consitent in saying that, but you also have said that the SCOTUS protects gay rights. They do it by way of case law but you refuse to call it lawI've never made an exception that suits me. I'm solid in that the courts can't legislate from the bench. Where have I said differently?
Cut the crap with the doublespeak already!When I say adaptable, I mean in the sense that dems mean it, in other words, fluid, changing it to suit your whims. The words of the cotus were written to cover a multitude of freedoms, anything that would be considered a due process and equal protections issue would be in there as well. The cotus is solid, but it's protections are wide.
And here we hav it! Queeers? Now you have shown your tru colors. You are so full of shit with your gay rights bullshit!queers should get married and suffer just like all us red blooded men who took the plunge
That doesn't change anything. The argument is about what was or was not foreseen when the 14A was written, as was when the 2A was written.The founders did not write the 14th A,
Show me where the legislative body wrote, and passed that law?Same shit, differnent post,Just with slightlt different words. You are trying to play both sides of the fence. The fact is that a Oberefell estblished Constilyutional LAW. The fact that you deny that it is law or do not want to call it law does not mean that it is not law.
I've not posted any contradictions. Please list some of them if I have.You have said so many contradictory things that my head is spinning
?? LolYes, as solid as fresh cow flop on a rainy day
That's exactly right. The cotus is fixed, but its protections are wide. As written, it is future proof, it is not until people start trying to change it does it lose its ability to be future proof.You said that it was not adopable but that that the original language was flexable and could be applied to changing and unforseen issues -or something to that effect. So what the fuck are you saying? Still trying to have it both ways
