The Judicial branch, the only way to promote the liberal agenda

[JRK]

As well as taking away the will of the people

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[JRK]

whats so funny?

 

[JoeB131]

Well, at least you got the right branch this time.

 

[Seawytch]

I swear to god you people don't understand our system of government AT ALL. State legislators and people's initiatives can pass all the laws they want to, but those laws can and should be questioned if they are believed to violate the U.S. Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

As well as taking away the will of the people

This coming from the side that claims to love the Constitution

 

[JRK]

I swear to god you people don't understand our system of government AT ALL. State legislators and people's initiatives can pass all the laws they want to, but those laws can and should be questioned if they are believed to violate the U.S. Constitution.

I never claimed any different
My point is the will of the people will vote down the far left liberal agenda every time all the time
The constitution states nothing about a woman killing a fetus, an un born child
The constitution states nothing about the act of Marriage, but the legeslative branch clearly did
I swear to god you have no understanding as to how any-one can rule on a part of the constitution that does not exist

 

[JRK]

As well as taking away the will of the people

This coming from the side that claims to love the Constitution

As I stated here-in
the constitution has no claim to an un-born child
yet the supreme court stated it did and it would be okay to kill that un-born child
same with gay "rights"
Congress stated the will of the people, and as far as gay rights go, there is nothing else in the constitution that talks to that
yet if you make it up, it become's law
against the will of the people
It is 100% about the constitution

 

[Seawytch]

As well as taking away the will of the people

This coming from the side that claims to love the Constitution

As I stated here-in
the constitution has no claim to an un-born child
yet the supreme court stated it did and it would be okay to kill that un-born child
same with gay "rights"
Congress stated the will of the people, and as far as gay rights go, there is nothing else in the constitution that talks to that
yet if you make it up, it become's law
against the will of the people
It is 100% about the constitution

Do you believe you have a right to, oh say, interstate travel? Where is that in the Constitution?

 

[Seawytch]

I swear to god you people don't understand our system of government AT ALL. State legislators and people's initiatives can pass all the laws they want to, but those laws can and should be questioned if they are believed to violate the U.S. Constitution.

I never claimed any different
My point is the will of the people will vote down the far left liberal agenda every time all the time
The constitution states nothing about a woman killing a fetus, an un born child
The constitution states nothing about the act of Marriage, but the legeslative branch clearly did
I swear to god you have no understanding as to how any-one can rule on a part of the constitution that does not exist

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.

Fundamental Rights

Marriage has been declared a fundamental right by the SCOTUS on no less than three occasions. They said it when "the people" tried to keep blacks from marrying whites. They said it when "the people" tried to keep divorced people from remarrying and they said it when "the people" tried to keep convicted murderers from marrying.

 

[JRK]

This coming from the side that claims to love the Constitution

As I stated here-in
the constitution has no claim to an un-born child
yet the supreme court stated it did and it would be okay to kill that un-born child
same with gay "rights"
Congress stated the will of the people, and as far as gay rights go, there is nothing else in the constitution that talks to that
yet if you make it up, it become's law
against the will of the people
It is 100% about the constitution

Do you believe you have a right to, oh say, interstate travel? Where is that in the Constitution?

no-one is trying to take that right away from me, or give it to me
gays who love each other in my opinion should have what would be called a civil union, no different than an LLC really
as far as federal benifits I am not opposed to those benifits being paid in that matter, but the DOMA stated other wise
It would be the same as the will of the people stating no-one could drive on the interstate any-more
The will of the people clearly voted in favor of DOMA AND with a close to super majority democratic congress, it was not repealed

Big difference

 

[Seawytch]

As I stated here-in
the constitution has no claim to an un-born child
yet the supreme court stated it did and it would be okay to kill that un-born child
same with gay "rights"
Congress stated the will of the people, and as far as gay rights go, there is nothing else in the constitution that talks to that
yet if you make it up, it become's law
against the will of the people
It is 100% about the constitution

Do you believe you have a right to, oh say, interstate travel? Where is that in the Constitution?

no-one is trying to take that right away from me, or give it to me
gays who love each other in my opinion should have what would be called a civil union, no different than an LLC really
as far as federal benifits I am not opposed to those benifits being paid in that matter, but the DOMA stated other wise
It would be the same as the will of the people stating no-one could drive on the interstate any-more
The will of the people clearly voted in favor of DOMA AND with a close to super majority democratic congress, it was not repealed

Big difference

Gays who love each other are getting married. We're marrying in 13 states at the moment, but that number is increasing at a rapid pace. When DOMA section 2 is struck down, then we will have equality because then my legal marriage will be treated exactly like yours.

Now, if you don't like us calling it a marriage, then you've got a lot of laws to change because we aren't going to settle for separate but equal. You want to change the name, change it for everyone.

DOMA was Unconstitutional and the SCOTUS did their job...like they did in Heller.

Just as an "FYI" here are some more rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution which are still rights none the less.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty
The Right to a Fair Trail
Right to a Jury of Your Peers
Right to Vote
Right to Travel
Judicial Review
Right to Marriage
Right to Procreate
Right to Privacy

That's Not in the Constitution

 

[ba1614]

That's how progressives work, when you can't win at the ballot box you sue for the democracy you feel entitled to.

 

[Seawytch]

That's how progressives work, when you can't win at the ballot box you sue for the democracy you feel entitled to.

No, it's how our system of government works. Three separate bodies. If a law is passed that violates the Constitution, you challenge it. (DC v Heller)

 

[DiamondDave]

I swear to god you people don't understand our system of government AT ALL. State legislators and people's initiatives can pass all the laws they want to, but those laws can and should be questioned if they are believed to violate the U.S. Constitution.

I never claimed any different
My point is the will of the people will vote down the far left liberal agenda every time all the time
The constitution states nothing about a woman killing a fetus, an un born child
The constitution states nothing about the act of Marriage, but the legeslative branch clearly did
I swear to god you have no understanding as to how any-one can rule on a part of the constitution that does not exist

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.

Fundamental Rights

Marriage has been declared a fundamental right by the SCOTUS on no less than three occasions. They said it when "the people" tried to keep blacks from marrying whites. They said it when "the people" tried to keep divorced people from remarrying and they said it when "the people" tried to keep convicted murderers from marrying.

And wrongfully so.. for the SCOTUS overstepped its specific powers... there is no power for them to interpret and they cannot grant themselves that power.. even though they did

 

[martybegan]

That's how progressives work, when you can't win at the ballot box you sue for the democracy you feel entitled to.

No, it's how our system of government works. Three separate bodies. If a law is passed that violates the Constitution, you challenge it. (DC v Heller)

It doesnt work when people can just make stuff up and link it to the document, thus making it a consitutional right.

If 5/9 people can make up a right, they can make up a reason to deny a right. I swear progressives need to be made to read plessey v. Fergueson every time they think they "won" when some judge thinks they are a legislator.

 

[rightwinger]

That's how progressives work, when you can't win at the ballot box you sue for the democracy you feel entitled to.

No, it's how our system of government works. Three separate bodies. If a law is passed that violates the Constitution, you challenge it. (DC v Heller)

It doesnt work when people can just make stuff up and link it to the document, thus making it a consitutional right.

If 5/9 people can make up a right, they can make up a reason to deny a right. I swear progressives need to be made to read plessey v. Fergueson every time they think they "won" when some judge thinks they are a legislator.

Every President does not get every decision correct.
Congress makes mistakes on some legislation
The Courts also have made some bad judgements

What is consistent is that over time they do get it right. Our Supreme Court has been critical in civil rights, womens rights and thousands of other decisions

 

[JRK]

No, it's how our system of government works. Three separate bodies. If a law is passed that violates the Constitution, you challenge it. (DC v Heller)

It doesnt work when people can just make stuff up and link it to the document, thus making it a consitutional right.

If 5/9 people can make up a right, they can make up a reason to deny a right. I swear progressives need to be made to read plessey v. Fergueson every time they think they "won" when some judge thinks they are a legislator.

Every President does not get every decision correct.
Congress makes mistakes on some legislation
The Courts also have made some bad judgements

What is consistent is that over time they do get it right. Our Supreme Court has been critical in civil rights, womens rights and thousands of other decisions

I agree except that the woman as well as the minority cannot have any more rights than they have
My god the single, white male from the south is the only minority left
I am okay with that
I never seen a difference in race until the US govt showed it to me
I never owned a slave, never was for it, and it was the worst thing this country ever had
but
this country had it, not just the south
and
when it was ended, as it should have been, it was time to move on

 

[JRK]

Do you believe you have a right to, oh say, interstate travel? Where is that in the Constitution?

no-one is trying to take that right away from me, or give it to me
gays who love each other in my opinion should have what would be called a civil union, no different than an LLC really
as far as federal benifits I am not opposed to those benifits being paid in that matter, but the DOMA stated other wise
It would be the same as the will of the people stating no-one could drive on the interstate any-more
The will of the people clearly voted in favor of DOMA AND with a close to super majority democratic congress, it was not repealed

Big difference

Gays who love each other are getting married. We're marrying in 13 states at the moment, but that number is increasing at a rapid pace. When DOMA section 2 is struck down, then we will have equality because then my legal marriage will be treated exactly like yours.

Now, if you don't like us calling it a marriage, then you've got a lot of laws to change because we aren't going to settle for separate but equal. You want to change the name, change it for everyone.

DOMA was Unconstitutional and the SCOTUS did their job...like they did in Heller.

Just as an "FYI" here are some more rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution which are still rights none the less.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty
The Right to a Fair Trail
Right to a Jury of Your Peers
Right to Vote
Right to Travel
Judicial Review
Right to Marriage
Right to Procreate
Right to Privacy

That's Not in the Constitution

It was an opinion, based on emotions and being PC
not the law, nor the will of the people
If the state says that being gay and being husband and husband is legal, that is the will of those people

Again
with a super majority in congress the left did not do away with DOMA

You have your opinion
I have mine
but the fact is without SCOTUS, these laws never occur
The system in theroy works better than any. It is my opinion that the US govt should not be involved in matters of the state
striking down the parts of DOMA they did was an event the legeslators should have had the last say in
for the people, of the people and by the people

BTW the seperation of church and state has 1000 more events to go
that issue is far from done
the ten commandments are in SCOTUS front door. so there is so many individual events left to decide with that matter that shows up no where in the constitution
BTW
you cannot marry more than one person
you cannot marry your, brother, sister etc....

 

[rightwinger]

It doesnt work when people can just make stuff up and link it to the document, thus making it a consitutional right.

If 5/9 people can make up a right, they can make up a reason to deny a right. I swear progressives need to be made to read plessey v. Fergueson every time they think they "won" when some judge thinks they are a legislator.

Every President does not get every decision correct.
Congress makes mistakes on some legislation
The Courts also have made some bad judgements

What is consistent is that over time they do get it right. Our Supreme Court has been critical in civil rights, womens rights and thousands of other decisions

I agree except that the woman as well as the minority cannot have any more rights than they have
My god the single, white male from the south is the only minority left
I am okay with that
I never seen a difference in race until the US govt showed it to me
I never owned a slave, never was for it, and it was the worst thing this country ever had
but
this country had it, not just the south
and
when it was ended, as it should have been, it was time to move on

Save me your tears......

Our court system is there to protect your rights just as any other Americans. Those "single, white males from the south" did a pretty effective job of terrorizing blacks for 100 years. The courts finally stepped in to stop them