Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

[ThisIsMe]

I see that you have taken leave again. What happened? Have you tired of our chats.

Actually I have tired, but I do have to sum things up in some sort of comprehensive way and then I am done with you. Otherwise this can go on forever and it already is a colossal waste of time and energy. Neither of us is going to convince the other to embrace our vastly differing views of government and the role of the courts. Moreover , your views are so convoluted, bizarre, contradictory and half baked that I am tired of even trying to make sense out of them.

You have made it clear that you are an anti central government, state’s rights zealot. However, beyond that, trying to understand you is like trying to do a jigsaw puzzle while tripping on acid. As I said, your views about the role and purpose of the courts and how the Constitution is applied to the issues of the day have no footing in any known Constitutional philosophy. In addition, I do believe that you are playing a sick game of duplicity where you are trying to appear to be sort of liberal while being an apologist for reactionary policies and decisions in the guise of defending the constitution.
So, I am finished trying to understand you or bothering to counter your nonsense. Rather I will close with the clearest account of what I believe and why I believe it, and you can do with it what you will. You can choose to learn from it, or you can choose to continue on down the yellow brick road in blissful ignorance

I am a product of the progressive movement that goes back to Teddy Roosevelt in the early 20th century when it was first recognized that government was more than an end in itself. The progressives came to understand that government can and should serve the purpose of making the lives of citizens better by expanding right and providing needed services. By extension of that philosophy, I believe that the courts play a vital role in that endeavor. For much of history, it has in fact fulfilled that vital role although there have been periods of pull back such as the one we are in now, after Trump packed the court with theocratic conservatives

Those on the right rail against “legislating from the bench” and judicial activism when rulings do not go their way. However, the fact is that both liberals and conservative engage in judicial activism. The difference is that the “left” uses judicial activism to move the country forward and enhance the quality of life for all people. The “right” used it to advance a repressive and regressive agenda such as was the case with the reversal of Roe. Other examples include rolling back voting rights, environmental protections, and expanding the meaning of religious rights to allow discrimination in the name of religion. And all of that is done in the guise of being true to the constitutions and small government.

However, there is more than one way to be true to the constitution. You can either adhere to conservative originalism and textualism and embrace the theory that the only rights are the enumerated rights, or you can be a progressive liberal and believe that the document is open to interpretation that allows additional rights to flow from those stated in the original text and the amendments. But I have never encountered anyone before you who has tried to straddle both divergent points of view, and to do it so clumsily. Nor have I ever before came across anyone who denies the reality of case law, binding precedents and the tradition of Star Decisis . Even the most conservative Justices on SCOTUS-while trampling on it at times-still understand that it is real.

Regarding the size of government, while conservatives decry big government as bad because it supposedly robs people of their freedom, that mantra is rings hollow with me for a number of reasons

For me the issue is not the size of government, but rater what government does and who benefits from it, and who is harmed . A large and strong cental government and an a progressive court can do much good for the people as we have seen over the last century and more.

In addition, the fact is that this is a Constitutional Republic consisting of 50 states that-to a point- have dominion over much of their own affairs, and many of those states have historically abused their authority necessitating intervention by the Federal Government or the courts. It is folly to advocate for a weak, hands off central government –that supposedly affords more freedom to the people- while allowing the states to take away freedoms. Lastly, conservatives are hypocritical in their condemnation of big government and judicial activism in they are quick to use the power of government to take away freedoms when it suits them such as privacy, marriage, voting rights and much more.

If you have anything more to say, try to say it in a coherent and organized manner, using reason and logic or don’t bother

I see that you have taken leave again. What happened? Have you tired of our chats.

I've been on vacation the last 2 weeks for a minor surgery. I've been doing other things than tending to usmb.

You have made it clear that you are an anti central government, state’s rights zealot.

Not anti government, just small, in its place, government. Yes, I'm for states rights. Why does trying to adhere to cotus principles make me a zealot?

I do believe that you are playing a sick game of duplicity where you are trying to appear to be sort of liberal while being an apologist for reactionary policies and decisions in the guise of defending the constitution.

No, I'm not trying to be duplicitous, and I'm not tryingn to appear liberal. I lean more to the right, but yes, I am attempting to defend the cotus.

The progressives came to understand that government can and should serve the purpose of making the lives of citizens better by expanding right and providing needed services

Ok, so, here we have a fundamental difference. The federal government has no place "providing needed services". If the people need a service, it's up to the community and or the state to help with that. When you start using the federal gov to provide those needed services, what happens? They have to start taxing the citizens more. Aside from the fact that cotus does not allow for the federal government to take on additional roles, when you have a central government deciding it should provide more and more services, they get bigger, more bloated, LESS efficient, more wasteful, and eventually start making decisions that may not be good for some people, but better for others, and in the name of "needed services", start running afoul of the cotus, which is supposed to be their guiding document. All the while, the federal government keeps putting their hands in our pockets.

By extension of that philosophy, I believe that the courts play a vital role in that endeavor.

So you believe the courts role is to help the federal gov in facilitating the expanding of rights and needed services? Where does the cotus say the federal gov has the right to set up new beauracrasies, and the courts can assist them with that?

For much of history, it has in fact fulfilled that vital role although there have been periods of pull back such as the one we are in now, after Trump packed the court with theocratic conservatives

I agree, it's a tug of war, it shouldn't be. If we just stuck to the principled of the cotus, we'd be a lot better off.

But, you're right, for much of its history, it has fulfilled that role, and look where we are now. 30+ trillion in debt that can never be paid, in the backs of the citizens, (I know..military), more government beauracrasies than one can comprehend, the federal government taking united states citizens tax money and sending it all across the world, people only being able to keep a fraction of what they earn, people making government a life long career, only seeking power and enrichment, corruption spread all through our government, taxes on EVERYTHING, nobody being in agreement about qhat the government should do, and we the people constantly at each others throats because we all have different ideas of what government should be.....yeah..big government was a great idea.....

If we had just stuck to the principles we were founded on, all of these needed services could still be available, they would just be provided locally and by the states, and the federal gov wouldn't need so...much...of our tax money to run all of these bloated and wasteful programs.

The difference is that the “left” uses judicial activism to move the country forward and enhance the quality of life for all people. The “right” used it to advance a repressive and regressive agenda such as was the case with the reversal of Roe.

Roe wasn't regressive judicial activism, it was correcting the course that was incorrectly decided, returning the decision to the states. Again, scotus didn't ban abortion, they just said that it should have always been a states issue.

Other examples include rolling back voting rights, environmental protections, and expanding the meaning of religious rights to allow discrimination in the name of religion

Nobody Is rolling back voting rights. Just because some people want to ensure the security of election doesn't mean they are rolling back rights. I've yet to hear anyone on the right say they are trying to suppress, or prevent anyone from voting, yet, somehow, the left came up with this notion that the right is doing just that. And of course, being the media owning dem, they spread that message far and wide. All I hear from right wing media (and remember, i listen to both), is that they just want to make sure only legal voters vote. Not once have I heard anyone say they didn't want any legal citizen to vote.

Religious rights is in the cotus. You are all trying to use that as a way to attack Christians, but, as we've talked about, a lot, is that one should not be coerced into taking an action that would violate their constitutionally protected rights. I'm this case, being asked to perform a service indirect relation to a gay wedding. For some, that's an issue, maybe not for others though.

you can be a progressive liberal and believe that the document is open to interpretation that allows additional rights to flow from those stated in the original text and the amendments.

I just can't get behind that. Being open for interpretation means that it's meaning, and scope, can change, it also opens up the fact that one's interpretation could be starkly contradictory to another's interpretation. What if I don't agree with your interpretation? What if I think it means something else? What if I want to make a few interpretations of my own that you may be vehemently against? If we start saying it's open for interpretation, why even have a cotus at all, as the more we interpret it, the more muddy it's actual meaning gets.

Granted, eliminating the cotus has been a long desires goal of the left. If you could get rid of it, it would remove any obstscle to going about any agenda you wanted, it would allow the federal gov to be whatever it wanted.

A large and strong cental government and an a progressive court can do much good for the people as we have seen over the last century and more.

It sounds like you are pushing for a socialistic society where all rights and privileges flow from a central autocratic government, not realizing that a giant bloated government is probably the worst entity to be trying to handle these things, just from the wasteful and inefficiency alone.

If the fed gov stopped taking so much money from the people, and from the states, they could keep more of that money locally, and help their own citizens on a much more manageable and efficient basis.

You can either adhere to conservative originalism and textualism and embrace the theory that the only rights are the enumerated rights

No, the only rights are not those that are enumerated, infact, cotus says this:

The enumerated rights in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

9th ammendment.

Cotus says that people have rights beyond the enumerated rights, but those 18 enumerated power are supposed to be a limitation on what government can do, and the Bill of rights are the things government is in charge of preserving.

National archives says this:

The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. It spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for due process of law and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the people or the States. And it specifies that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

many of those states have historically abused their authority necessitating intervention by the Federal Government or the courts

I don't believe the federal government has the jurisdiction to step in, unless its regsrding one of the enumersted powers, or the bill of rights they are supposed to protect, through the courts, they are not the policemen of the country. When a state runs afoul of the cotus, it's the job of the supreme court to rule on the legality of whatever the state is doing, based on the application of the constitution.

It is folly to advocate for a weak, hands off central government –that supposedly affords more freedom to the people- while allowing the states to take away freedoms.

I don't know, seems like our federal government is pretty oppressive. Ever made a mistake on your taxes, that the fed gov socks out of your pocket? They have the IRS, the most powerful enforcement agency in the country that can make your life miserable if you make a mistake.on your taxes...and if you don't pay those over bloated taxes, we'll, theyll just downright put you in prison. That's freedom? What about the fact that you have to pay, up to 37% of your income (your labor) to the wasteful federal gov., meaning you have to work harder and harder to make a living. Is that freedom?

As a central government gets bigger, it gains more power over the lives of the people, does that promote freedom?

Look, I want all the things you want, I just don't agree that it should be our federal government who provides it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I've answered every one of those questions exhaustively. You can go back and read the last ....# of pages to see this. You apparently just don't like my answers?

Yes, I support people's rights to live and love whom and how they want. Yes, I support the states rights to make decisions that are not part of the cotus' designation of powers to the federal government. I don't see how those two things are contradictory? Because you think a state would ban gay marriage? Again, I don't think that's happening, but I'd it did, that would be bad because it would be a political death nail for those politicians, and, the supreme court would strike it down anyway based on the application of the 14A. What I don't support is the courts making law, as is what happened with roe, or rather, they made a decision on privacy, and left wing activists and our government said it was law, it never was. I also don't support the federal government making laws about marriage, because, again, that is not their jurisdiction. The cotus does not give the federal.government the right to regulate marriage. Thus, it must then be a states rights, and a people's rights.

Look, I'm just trying to preserve the correct hierarchy of government, because so many people have turned it around all these years. It was never intended that federal government be the overriding power and the states and the people to be subservient to it. It was supposed to be a tool to help people in specific affairs that could be applied equally across the states. Beyond that, the states and the people were supposed to govern themselves.

Let me see if I got this right. Right now, the only way for a state to ban gay marriage is if Obergefell were first overturned-right.

So if that happened and a state then banned gay marriage- SCOTUS would strike it down??? Are you fucking serious?? This is exactly why I am done with you

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not anti government, just small, in its place, government. Yes, I'm for states rights. Why does trying to adhere to cotus principles make me a zealot?

It makes you a zealot because you have made it clear to you put states rights about civil rights

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, I'm not trying to be duplicitous, and I'm not tryingn to appear liberal. I lean more to the right, but yes, I am attempting to defend the cotus.

Your narrow interpretation of the Constitution, and at any cost!

 

[ThisIsMe]

Let me see if I got this right. Right now, the only way for a state to ban gay marriage is if Obergefell were first overturned-right.

So if that happened and a state then banned gay marriage- SCOTUS would strike it down??? Are you fucking serious?? This is exactly why I am done with you

They won't overturn obergefell because obergefell was not the courts making a law, it was the courts saying that gay marriage is protected by the constitution.

Let's put it like this, for them to be able to overturn a ruling of the court, they'd have to find a way to prove that gay marriage is not protected by the equal protections and due process clause, something they will never be able to do, and honestly, I doubt they will try.

However, in the event that they somehow managed to do that, the appeals would be endless.

Suffice to say, it's not going to happen.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It makes you a zealot because you have made it clear to you put states rights about civil rights

No, I didn't. Please show me where I said anything of the sort. I said states rights are in place over federal authority where the cotus doesn't grant the federal government a specific power.

The civil rights if the people will always be protected by the bill of rights and the 14A.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ok, so, here we have a fundamental difference. The federal government has no place "providing needed services". If the people need a service, it's up to the community and or the state to help with that. When you start using the federal gov to provide those needed services, what happens? They have to start taxing the citizens more. Aside from the fact that cotus does not allow for the federal government to take on additional roles, when you have a central government deciding it should provide more and more services, they get bigger, more bloated, LESS efficient, more wasteful, and eventually start making decisions that may not be good for some people, but better for others, and in the name of "needed services", start running afoul of the cotus, which is supposed to be their guiding document. All the while, the federal government keeps putting their hands in our pockets.

General Welfare The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens. Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution.

General Welfare legal definition of General Welfare - TheFreeDictionary.com​

I am surprised that you have not been decrying the scourage of socialism. Actually you have been excpt that you have thus far avoided that word. Clearly we have fundatally differing viwes about the role of government and that is why this is all so futile.

Your cynicism about the ability of big government to accomplish it's goals and to help people is noted, but history proves you wrong. Case in point: Social Security and Medicare

 

[ThisIsMe]

Your narrow interpretation of the Constitution, and at any cost!

Well, it needs to be narrowly interpreted in order to keep it within its original confines, in order to keep the left wing people from broadly interpreting it to mean something more than it says.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I am surprised that you have not been decrying the scourage of socialism. Actually you have been excpt that you have thus far avoided that word. Clearly we have fundatally differing viwes about the role of government and that is why this is all so futile.

Your cynicism about the ability of big government to accomplish it's goals and to help people is noted, but history proves you wrong. Case in point: Social Security and Medicare

So, general welfare doesn't mean what you think it means. From that link you posted:

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare

And...

According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare.

From that article, it seems hamilton had a different idea of general welfare, and the courts have apparently ruled in favor of Hamilton idea, I think Madison was correct, because if you expand general welfare to mean...anything at all, then that gives the government broad powers to do anything and everything, in the name of 'general welfare", thus rendering the 18 enumersted power irrelevant, and not needed. Why would they even include them, unless the entire scope of the cotus, including general welfare, was to be viewed from the confines of delegated powers.

Yes, there may be cynicism there, because the federal government has proven itself to be grossly inefficient and incapable of governing the people. State and local governments would do much better with that money to run their own affairs.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They won't overturn obergefell because obergefell was not the courts making a law, it was the courts saying that gay marriage is protected by the constitution.

Let's put it like this, for them to be able to overturn a ruling of the court, they'd have to find a way to prove that gay marriage is not protected by the equal protections and due process clause, something they will never be able to do, and honestly, I doubt they will try.

What a buch of idiotic bullshit! You would have to be really, really stupid to think that they would have to prove anything, and I don't think that you are stuoi. You are many things but not stupid. That only leaves delusional or a manipulative liar. Thomas andAlity are itching for a chance to overturn it,they said as much. And I'm sure that there are 3 others who would go along. And you cling to this idea that Obergefell is not court made law while other rulings are is beyond pathetic.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

However, in the event that they somehow managed to do that, the appeals would be endless.

Suffice to say, it's not going to happen.

On the other hand, maybe you are stupid:

Can Supreme Court decisions be appealed?​

Why can you not appeal a Supreme Court decision? One cannot appeal a Supreme Court decision because the Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority in the United States. Can the Supreme Court overrule a state supreme court? Federal courts may overrule a state supreme court decision only when there is a federal question which springs up a federal jurisdiction.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So, general welfare doesn't mean what you think it means. From that link you posted:

That is NOT from the link that I posted you lying shit! I did not post this:'

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general

This is someones dishonest interpretation of it. You fail to include the last paragraph of the section:

8.18 To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So, general welfare doesn't mean what you think it means. From that link you posted:



And...



From that article, it seems hamilton had a different idea of general welfare, and the courts have apparently ruled in favor of Hamilton idea, I think Madison was correct, because if you expand general welfare to mean...anything at all, then that gives the government broad powers to do anything and everything, in the name of 'general welfare", thus rendering the 18 enumersted power irrelevant, and not needed. Why would they even include them, unless the entire scope of the cotus, including general welfare, was to be viewed from the confines of delegated powers.

Yes, there may be cynicism there, because the federal government has proven itself to be grossly inefficient and incapable of governing the people. State and local governments would do much better with that money to run their own affairs.

If what your saying is correct, and if it were upheld by the courts, there would be no Federal administrative agecies from the Deprtment of Health and Human Serices to the Department of Education and everything in between., all created by legislation. All Federal programs under the various Departments from Social Security and Medicare to food and drug safety would have been ruled unconstitutional.In your view, the only legitimat role of the Federal Government aside from defense is to dole out money to the states to do as they please with

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Well, it needs to be narrowly interpreted in order to keep it within its original confines, in order to keep the left wing people from broadly interpreting it to mean something more than it says.

Except of course when YOU think that it should be broadly interpreted and adaptable to changing and unforeen issues. You need to pick a side and stick to it

 

[Desperado]

Only a matter of time before the TRUMP court strikes down same sex marriage

The only question is will they just overrule it or start by allowing business to deny service for “religious reasons”

While they are at it, they should strike down inter-racial marriage too

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes, there may be cynicism there, because the federal government has proven itself to be grossly inefficient and incapable of governing the people. State and local governments would do much better with that money to run their own affairs.

Again, it depends on who is in control and what their agenda is. The positive ontributions of the progresive movement through federal programs and legislation is well documented. The abuse of power by the states when they have too much autonomy is also well documeted,

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

While they are at it, they should strike down inter-racial marriage too

Your are a fine example of an human being and a patriotic American.

How do you think Uncle Clarance would vote?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That is NOT from the link that I posted you lying shit! I did not post this:'

In post 1647 of this thread, you posted a link to <https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=d6b9...W9uJTIwb2YlMjB0aGUlMjBDb25zdGl0dXRpb24u&ntb=1>, which redirects to <General Welfare.>, which does, in fact, contain the exact text that initforme quoted therefrom, for which you are now calling him a “lying shit”.

 

[Staidhup]

Let me go a step further, what specific right applies to marriage in the constitution? Simply no mention, which translates into the state deciding the issue of wills, estates, division of assets, and insurance. Who gives a shit? If two people want to get married so be it, they have the freedom to do as they see fit. The real issue is the agenda to force everyone to comply and blindly accept and glorify their life choices. From a moral standpoint I find it repugnant, furthermore, do not believe one should have the freedom too force their life choices and beliefs on another. We all are endowed with constitutionally protected basic freedom, let It not be used via federal mandate as authorization to receive benefits beyond that of another to promote their chosen life choices.

 

[Delldude]

Civil rights are not for voters to decide

Another states rights issue covered under the 10th amendment....and decided by the voters.

You missed the part about 'Of the people, by the people and for the people'?