Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

Show where in the Constitution it says that. Hint, it doesn't. Someone did though, do you know who "tasked" the supreme court with judicial review?

And how can "American history" task anyone with anything? That's s stupid. If anything, American history would say marriage is a man and a woman, you just shot yourself in the ass

Help yourself. Start here: Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I already know the answer, I wanted you to admit it.

Who "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review?

Faun keeps running away from that question too.

When danger reared it's ugly head, Paint&Faun turned their tails and fled...

I posted what you needed. Why you think it matters I have no idea? Just you rejecting reality again.

The Constitution created the courts, the balance of power, and American history made it into what it is today, the final arbiter of constitutionality.

No, you are wrong. The Constitution did not make the Supreme Court any arbiter of Constitutionality much less the "final" one. You are ... wait for it ... wrong ... You're used to that, aren't you?

So answer the question. It's a simple one. Who "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review? Stop running and hiding and answer the question, Spanky. So you admit you can't?

The Constitution created the courts, the balance of power, and American history made it into what it is today, the final arbiter of constitutionality.

What?

The Constitution does not mention judicial review. You are WRONG.

Who did "task" the supreme court with it? There is a very specific answer to that question

 

[bodecea]

Virginia: being black changed who you could marry for ... every ... black
Georgia: being gay changed who you could marry for ... zero ... gays

They are not comparable, Chuckie

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. Gender discrimination is just like racial discrimination. Some blacks wanted to marry whites but were prohibited. Some men want to marry men and some women want to marry women but are prohibited. Racial discrimination/Gender discrimination = Same/Same.

If his argument were in any way valid, it would have been used by those arguing against legal gay marriage in front of the Supreme Court. Don't you think?

I'm sure she does, she's a leftist automaton like you. But I don't worship lawyers like you two so her agreement is irrelevant. I think what I think, not what I'm told to think. You wouldn't understand, you are told not to. Thinking would bring about the destruction of liberalism as you would realize the stupidity you are parroting

Having just dropped back into this thread...I'm struck by the following 3 posts, and for some odd reason...reading them conjured up that old Sesame Street segment where they would show you 3 or 4 things, and one of them didn't belong, (and no, I'm not high)

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. Gender discrimination is just like racial discrimination. Some blacks wanted to marry whites but were prohibited. Some men want to marry men and some women want to marry women but are prohibited. Racial discrimination/Gender discrimination = Same/Same.

If his argument were in any way valid, it would have been used by those arguing against legal gay marriage in front of the Supreme Court. Don't you think?

I'm sure she does, she's a leftist automaton like you. But I don't worship lawyers like you two so her agreement is irrelevant. I think what I think, not what I'm told to think. You wouldn't understand, you are told not to. Thinking would bring about the destruction of liberalism as you would realize the stupidity you are parroting

I tried to make up appropriate lyrics to the tune of the Sesame Street song, but doing that grew tiresome because it wasn't all that funny.

So it'll be in prose.

Which of these posts convey reasoned argument, and which are a collection of insults, epithets, and anger?

And which post is a cherry picked contrived one? It's yours. Oops, I wasn't supposed to give you the answer

He's got your number.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Never said it was the norm, I said it was natural, and it is. And there many sexual orientations, many.

Natural based on what? What does that even mean?

It means normally found in nature, not man-made.

Most sex in nature is heterosexual, if that's your standard then everything is "natural"

I follow nature's guidelines, you reject them.

Actually, eating only vegetables and fish and seafood is found in nature. So according to you, it is natural.

Why does it bother you? I don't get what you're driving at

Humans are omnivores, and have the teeth for it, they are not vegetarians of any kind. They are predators, meat-eaters.

 

[kaz]

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. Gender discrimination is just like racial discrimination. Some blacks wanted to marry whites but were prohibited. Some men want to marry men and some women want to marry women but are prohibited. Racial discrimination/Gender discrimination = Same/Same.

If his argument were in any way valid, it would have been used by those arguing against legal gay marriage in front of the Supreme Court. Don't you think?

I'm sure she does, she's a leftist automaton like you. But I don't worship lawyers like you two so her agreement is irrelevant. I think what I think, not what I'm told to think. You wouldn't understand, you are told not to. Thinking would bring about the destruction of liberalism as you would realize the stupidity you are parroting

Having just dropped back into this thread...I'm struck by the following 3 posts, and for some odd reason...reading them conjured up that old Sesame Street segment where they would show you 3 or 4 things, and one of them didn't belong, (and no, I'm not high)

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. Gender discrimination is just like racial discrimination. Some blacks wanted to marry whites but were prohibited. Some men want to marry men and some women want to marry women but are prohibited. Racial discrimination/Gender discrimination = Same/Same.

If his argument were in any way valid, it would have been used by those arguing against legal gay marriage in front of the Supreme Court. Don't you think?

I'm sure she does, she's a leftist automaton like you. But I don't worship lawyers like you two so her agreement is irrelevant. I think what I think, not what I'm told to think. You wouldn't understand, you are told not to. Thinking would bring about the destruction of liberalism as you would realize the stupidity you are parroting

I tried to make up appropriate lyrics to the tune of the Sesame Street song, but doing that grew tiresome because it wasn't all that funny.

So it'll be in prose.

Which of these posts convey reasoned argument, and which are a collection of insults, epithets, and anger?

And which post is a cherry picked contrived one? It's yours. Oops, I wasn't supposed to give you the answer

It was the last three posts from the thread when I dropped in.

You can dismiss try to dismiss that post, if you think you have better ones to offer, but I looked, and I can't find any that are different

Fair enough, so they weren't "cherry picked" but they were just arbitrary and self serving. I have clearly articulated my argument. As for that those two don't insult,



What a tool you are

 

[kaz]

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. Gender discrimination is just like racial discrimination. Some blacks wanted to marry whites but were prohibited. Some men want to marry men and some women want to marry women but are prohibited. Racial discrimination/Gender discrimination = Same/Same.

If his argument were in any way valid, it would have been used by those arguing against legal gay marriage in front of the Supreme Court. Don't you think?

I'm sure she does, she's a leftist automaton like you. But I don't worship lawyers like you two so her agreement is irrelevant. I think what I think, not what I'm told to think. You wouldn't understand, you are told not to. Thinking would bring about the destruction of liberalism as you would realize the stupidity you are parroting

Having just dropped back into this thread...I'm struck by the following 3 posts, and for some odd reason...reading them conjured up that old Sesame Street segment where they would show you 3 or 4 things, and one of them didn't belong, (and no, I'm not high)

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. Gender discrimination is just like racial discrimination. Some blacks wanted to marry whites but were prohibited. Some men want to marry men and some women want to marry women but are prohibited. Racial discrimination/Gender discrimination = Same/Same.

If his argument were in any way valid, it would have been used by those arguing against legal gay marriage in front of the Supreme Court. Don't you think?

I'm sure she does, she's a leftist automaton like you. But I don't worship lawyers like you two so her agreement is irrelevant. I think what I think, not what I'm told to think. You wouldn't understand, you are told not to. Thinking would bring about the destruction of liberalism as you would realize the stupidity you are parroting

I tried to make up appropriate lyrics to the tune of the Sesame Street song, but doing that grew tiresome because it wasn't all that funny.

So it'll be in prose.

Which of these posts convey reasoned argument, and which are a collection of insults, epithets, and anger?

And which post is a cherry picked contrived one? It's yours. Oops, I wasn't supposed to give you the answer

He's got your number.

That's your standard, is it? LOL. Yeah.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Help yourself. Start here: Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I already know the answer, I wanted you to admit it.

Who "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review?

Faun keeps running away from that question too.

When danger reared it's ugly head, Paint&Faun turned their tails and fled...

I posted what you needed. Why you think it matters I have no idea? Just you rejecting reality again.

The Constitution created the courts, the balance of power, and American history made it into what it is today, the final arbiter of constitutionality.

No, you are wrong. The Constitution did not make the Supreme Court any arbiter of Constitutionality much less the "final" one. You are ... wait for it ... wrong ... You're used to that, aren't you?

So answer the question. It's a simple one. Who "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review? Stop running and hiding and answer the question, Spanky. So you admit you can't?

The Constitution created the courts, the balance of power, and American history made it into what it is today, the final arbiter of constitutionality.

What?

The Constitution does not mention judicial review. You are WRONG.

Who did "task" the supreme court with it? There is a very specific answer to that question

Not sure where you get your nonsense from, but abandon it:

Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

 

[kaz]

Natural based on what? What does that even mean?

It means normally found in nature, not man-made.

Most sex in nature is heterosexual, if that's your standard then everything is "natural"

I follow nature's guidelines, you reject them.

Actually, eating only vegetables and fish and seafood is found in nature. So according to you, it is natural.

Why does it bother you? I don't get what you're driving at

Humans are omnivores, and have the teeth for it, they are not vegetarians of any kind. They are predators, meat-eaters.

Gays can't reproduce, so their natural act on their own accord would lead to their doom, heterosexual sex saves them from extinction. Doesn't sound very natural

 

[kaz]

I already know the answer, I wanted you to admit it.

Who "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review?

Faun keeps running away from that question too.

When danger reared it's ugly head, Paint&Faun turned their tails and fled...

I posted what you needed. Why you think it matters I have no idea? Just you rejecting reality again.

The Constitution created the courts, the balance of power, and American history made it into what it is today, the final arbiter of constitutionality.

No, you are wrong. The Constitution did not make the Supreme Court any arbiter of Constitutionality much less the "final" one. You are ... wait for it ... wrong ... You're used to that, aren't you?

So answer the question. It's a simple one. Who "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review? Stop running and hiding and answer the question, Spanky. So you admit you can't?

The Constitution created the courts, the balance of power, and American history made it into what it is today, the final arbiter of constitutionality.

What?

The Constitution does not mention judicial review. You are WRONG.

Who did "task" the supreme court with it? There is a very specific answer to that question

Not sure where you get your nonsense from, but abandon it:

Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

A lot of words, and none of them give the SCOTUS the power of judicial review. Do you know who actually "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review? Are you just going with no, you don't?

 

[Faun]

Well Jane, you ignorant slut. That gays are already treated equally is what shows what an "agenda" the left has on this

Well Kaz, you ignorant slut- you are the one who started a thread with an inane argument on why gay couples should not be treated equally.

Like they are not in a few remaining states right now.

Yet he defends the courts ruling states cannot prevent whites and blacks from marrying. To show how retarded he is, he argues gays are not treated unequally since they can marry someone of the opposite gender -- applying that logic to blacks is like saying blacks were not treated unequally ... they could have married any other black of the opposite gender.

Being black changed who you could marry for ... every ... black
Being gay changed who you could marry for ... zero ... gays

What part of that don't you understand?

You're a moron. Banning interracial marriage was the same type of bigoted vile authoritarian bull shit that bigots like you are doing to gays today.

Whether on a personal level it is the same bigoted bull shit or not, the law isn't about fairness, it's about the law and a literal reading of it. And literally, gays are treated the same as everyone else.

But you like to compare that there weren't gay specific laws to actual laws to dictate to blacks where they can sit, drink and go to the bath room. You are full of shit that they are the same, not at all

They are not treated the same as everyone else, despite your repeated pleas. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love. Homosexuals are denied the right to marry the person they love.

Only in a demented brain are those equal.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gays can't reproduce, so their natural act on their own accord would lead to their doom, heterosexual sex saves them from extinction. Doesn't sound very natural

They can, and do, and heterosexuals make homosexuals, nature at work. It doesn't matter that you don't like her designs, deal with them.

 

[toxicmedia]

Doesn't matter, you're still rejecting nature. What a surprise...

You mean like sex being between men and women? No wait, that was you rejecting nature...

Heterosexuality is natural. So is homosexuality, and bi, and pan, and asexuality. Nature, unlike you, doesn't think in black and white. That's why there are many sexes, many genders, and many sexual orientations.

There are "many" sexual orientations? Let's count. One, two. Wow, that's not "many"

And no, gay is not the norm, if the norm is your standard, then gay marriage is out. Only 2.2% of the population are gay according to the CDC who studies the gay disease

Many sexual orientations?

...LBGT.......that's too confusing for you?

But within the context of marriage, there is really only same sex, and opposite sex

I know you need that part of the argument to include confusion.

Allowing same sex marriage actually simplifies the measurable factors that define marriage.

Instead of 2 adults, a male, and a female, of sound mind and body

We have 2 adults, of sound mind and body.

Paint said there are "many" not me

Yes, my mistake, I stand corrected.

However, the context she used is different than what I thought yours was. And that had to do with your qualitative opinion about what is "natural"...in so far as same sex attraction.

If you are alive, you're natural. Describing any human behavior as unnatural is completely foundationless, and the only justification offered is that an omnipotent deity, gets to override that definition. You've simply invoked God, as portrayed in the bible

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I posted what you needed. Why you think it matters I have no idea? Just you rejecting reality again.

The Constitution created the courts, the balance of power, and American history made it into what it is today, the final arbiter of constitutionality.

No, you are wrong. The Constitution did not make the Supreme Court any arbiter of Constitutionality much less the "final" one. You are ... wait for it ... wrong ... You're used to that, aren't you?

So answer the question. It's a simple one. Who "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review? Stop running and hiding and answer the question, Spanky. So you admit you can't?

The Constitution created the courts, the balance of power, and American history made it into what it is today, the final arbiter of constitutionality.

What?

The Constitution does not mention judicial review. You are WRONG.

Who did "task" the supreme court with it? There is a very specific answer to that question

Not sure where you get your nonsense from, but abandon it:

Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

A lot of words, and none of them give the SCOTUS the power of judicial review. Do you know who actually "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review? Are you just going with no, you don't?

Last time I help:

"The state ratification debates

Judicial review was discussed in at least seven of the thirteen state ratifying conventions, and was mentioned by almost two dozen delegates. In each of these conventions, delegates asserted that the proposed Constitution would allow the courts to exercise judicial review. There is no record of any delegate to a state ratifying convention who indicated that the federal courts would not have the power of judicial review.[24]

For example, James Wilson asserted in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention that federal judges would exercise judicial review: "If a law should be made inconsistent with those powers vested by this instrument in Congress, the judges, as a consequence of their independence, and the particular powers of government being defined, will declare such law to be null and void. For the power of the Constitution predominates. Anything, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto will not have the force of law."[25]

In the Connecticut ratifying convention, Oliver Ellsworth likewise described judicial review as a feature of the Constitution: "This Constitution defines the extent of the powers of the general government. If the general legislature should at any time overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void."[26]

During the ratification process, supporters and opponents of ratification published pamphlets, essays, and speeches debating various aspects of the Constitution. Publications by over a dozen authors in at least twelve of the thirteen states asserted that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power of judicial review. There is no record of any opponent to the Constitution who claimed that the Constitution did not involve a power of judicial review.[27]

After reviewing the statements made by the founders, one scholar concluded: "The evidence from the Constitutional Convention and from the state ratification conventions is overwhelming that the original public meaning of the term 'judicial power' [in Article III] included the power to nullify unconstitutional laws."[28]"
Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[kaz]

Well Kaz, you ignorant slut- you are the one who started a thread with an inane argument on why gay couples should not be treated equally.

Like they are not in a few remaining states right now.

Yet he defends the courts ruling states cannot prevent whites and blacks from marrying. To show how retarded he is, he argues gays are not treated unequally since they can marry someone of the opposite gender -- applying that logic to blacks is like saying blacks were not treated unequally ... they could have married any other black of the opposite gender.

Being black changed who you could marry for ... every ... black
Being gay changed who you could marry for ... zero ... gays

What part of that don't you understand?

You're a moron. Banning interracial marriage was the same type of bigoted vile authoritarian bull shit that bigots like you are doing to gays today.

Whether on a personal level it is the same bigoted bull shit or not, the law isn't about fairness, it's about the law and a literal reading of it. And literally, gays are treated the same as everyone else.

But you like to compare that there weren't gay specific laws to actual laws to dictate to blacks where they can sit, drink and go to the bath room. You are full of shit that they are the same, not at all

They are not treated the same as everyone else, despite your repeated pleas. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love. Homosexuals are denied the right to marry the person they love.

Only in a demented brain are those equal.

Sorry I made you cry, guy. Toxic did warn me about that.

"who they love" and isn't a legal standard, it's one for you and your gay boy friends to hold hands and cry over while you pick out tapestry

 

[kaz]

No, you are wrong. The Constitution did not make the Supreme Court any arbiter of Constitutionality much less the "final" one. You are ... wait for it ... wrong ... You're used to that, aren't you?

So answer the question. It's a simple one. Who "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review? Stop running and hiding and answer the question, Spanky. So you admit you can't?

The Constitution created the courts, the balance of power, and American history made it into what it is today, the final arbiter of constitutionality.

What?

The Constitution does not mention judicial review. You are WRONG.

Who did "task" the supreme court with it? There is a very specific answer to that question

Not sure where you get your nonsense from, but abandon it:

Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

A lot of words, and none of them give the SCOTUS the power of judicial review. Do you know who actually "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review? Are you just going with no, you don't?

Last time I help:

"The state ratification debates

Judicial review was discussed in at least seven of the thirteen state ratifying conventions, and was mentioned by almost two dozen delegates. In each of these conventions, delegates asserted that the proposed Constitution would allow the courts to exercise judicial review. There is no record of any delegate to a state ratifying convention who indicated that the federal courts would not have the power of judicial review.[24]

For example, James Wilson asserted in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention that federal judges would exercise judicial review: "If a law should be made inconsistent with those powers vested by this instrument in Congress, the judges, as a consequence of their independence, and the particular powers of government being defined, will declare such law to be null and void. For the power of the Constitution predominates. Anything, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto will not have the force of law."[25]

In the Connecticut ratifying convention, Oliver Ellsworth likewise described judicial review as a feature of the Constitution: "This Constitution defines the extent of the powers of the general government. If the general legislature should at any time overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void."[26]

During the ratification process, supporters and opponents of ratification published pamphlets, essays, and speeches debating various aspects of the Constitution. Publications by over a dozen authors in at least twelve of the thirteen states asserted that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power of judicial review. There is no record of any opponent to the Constitution who claimed that the Constitution did not involve a power of judicial review.[27]

After reviewing the statements made by the founders, one scholar concluded: "The evidence from the Constitutional Convention and from the state ratification conventions is overwhelming that the original public meaning of the term 'judicial power' [in Article III] included the power to nullify unconstitutional laws."[28]"
Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Opinions and discussions at the Constitutional convention aren't a power. The question is ... who ... gave the Supreme court that power? Who "tasked" them with judicial review? It's not in the Constitution, and opinions aren't granting a power. Who did?

 

[toxicmedia]

It means normally found in nature, not man-made.

Most sex in nature is heterosexual, if that's your standard then everything is "natural"

I follow nature's guidelines, you reject them.

Actually, eating only vegetables and fish and seafood is found in nature. So according to you, it is natural.

Why does it bother you? I don't get what you're driving at

Humans are omnivores, and have the teeth for it, they are not vegetarians of any kind. They are predators, meat-eaters.

Gays can't reproduce, so their natural act on their own accord would lead to their doom, heterosexual sex saves them from extinction. Doesn't sound very natural

The ratio of gays to straights must be static, or gays would not continue to exist.

There will always be plenty of breeders, so allowing gays to legally marry will not change a thing about long term human viablity

 

[kaz]

You mean like sex being between men and women? No wait, that was you rejecting nature...

Heterosexuality is natural. So is homosexuality, and bi, and pan, and asexuality. Nature, unlike you, doesn't think in black and white. That's why there are many sexes, many genders, and many sexual orientations.

There are "many" sexual orientations? Let's count. One, two. Wow, that's not "many"

And no, gay is not the norm, if the norm is your standard, then gay marriage is out. Only 2.2% of the population are gay according to the CDC who studies the gay disease

Many sexual orientations?

...LBGT.......that's too confusing for you?

But within the context of marriage, there is really only same sex, and opposite sex

I know you need that part of the argument to include confusion.

Allowing same sex marriage actually simplifies the measurable factors that define marriage.

Instead of 2 adults, a male, and a female, of sound mind and body

We have 2 adults, of sound mind and body.

Paint said there are "many" not me

Yes, my mistake, I stand corrected.

However, the context she used is different than what I thought yours was. And that had to do with your qualitative opinion about what is "natural"...in so far as same sex attraction.

If you are alive, you're natural. Describing any human behavior as unnatural is completely foundationless, and the only justification offered is that an omnipotent deity, gets to override that definition. You've simply invoked God, as portrayed in the bible

Appreciate admitting you made the mistake, thanked you for that.

I am not really arguing a view as to what "natural" means, I just find it an ambiguous term and challenge Paint what he meant by that

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Constitution created the courts, the balance of power, and American history made it into what it is today, the final arbiter of constitutionality.

What?

The Constitution does not mention judicial review. You are WRONG.

Who did "task" the supreme court with it? There is a very specific answer to that question

Not sure where you get your nonsense from, but abandon it:

Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

A lot of words, and none of them give the SCOTUS the power of judicial review. Do you know who actually "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review? Are you just going with no, you don't?

Last time I help:

"The state ratification debates

Judicial review was discussed in at least seven of the thirteen state ratifying conventions, and was mentioned by almost two dozen delegates. In each of these conventions, delegates asserted that the proposed Constitution would allow the courts to exercise judicial review. There is no record of any delegate to a state ratifying convention who indicated that the federal courts would not have the power of judicial review.[24]

For example, James Wilson asserted in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention that federal judges would exercise judicial review: "If a law should be made inconsistent with those powers vested by this instrument in Congress, the judges, as a consequence of their independence, and the particular powers of government being defined, will declare such law to be null and void. For the power of the Constitution predominates. Anything, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto will not have the force of law."[25]

In the Connecticut ratifying convention, Oliver Ellsworth likewise described judicial review as a feature of the Constitution: "This Constitution defines the extent of the powers of the general government. If the general legislature should at any time overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void."[26]

During the ratification process, supporters and opponents of ratification published pamphlets, essays, and speeches debating various aspects of the Constitution. Publications by over a dozen authors in at least twelve of the thirteen states asserted that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power of judicial review. There is no record of any opponent to the Constitution who claimed that the Constitution did not involve a power of judicial review.[27]

After reviewing the statements made by the founders, one scholar concluded: "The evidence from the Constitutional Convention and from the state ratification conventions is overwhelming that the original public meaning of the term 'judicial power' [in Article III] included the power to nullify unconstitutional laws."[28]"
Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Opinions and discussions at the Constitutional convention aren't a power. The question is ... who ... gave the Supreme court that power? Who "tasked" them with judicial review? It's not in the Constitution, and opinions aren't granting a power. Who did?

Even if I agreed with you, and I don't, why, exactly, do you think it would matter? Oh right, it doesn't.

 

[kaz]

Most sex in nature is heterosexual, if that's your standard then everything is "natural"

I follow nature's guidelines, you reject them.

Actually, eating only vegetables and fish and seafood is found in nature. So according to you, it is natural.

Why does it bother you? I don't get what you're driving at

Humans are omnivores, and have the teeth for it, they are not vegetarians of any kind. They are predators, meat-eaters.

Gays can't reproduce, so their natural act on their own accord would lead to their doom, heterosexual sex saves them from extinction. Doesn't sound very natural

The ratio of gays to straights must be static, or gays would not continue to exist.

There will always be plenty of breeders, so allowing gays to legally marry will not change a thing about long term human viablity

I agree with that, but my point was I am challenging Paint's standard of "natural" which still strikes me as completely arbitrary

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I am not really arguing a view as to what "natural" means, I just find it an ambiguous term and challenge Paint what he meant by that

And I've cleared that up for you so now you know what natural is.

 

[kaz]

What?

The Constitution does not mention judicial review. You are WRONG.

Who did "task" the supreme court with it? There is a very specific answer to that question

Not sure where you get your nonsense from, but abandon it:

Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

A lot of words, and none of them give the SCOTUS the power of judicial review. Do you know who actually "tasked" the Supreme Court with judicial review? Are you just going with no, you don't?

Last time I help:

"The state ratification debates

Judicial review was discussed in at least seven of the thirteen state ratifying conventions, and was mentioned by almost two dozen delegates. In each of these conventions, delegates asserted that the proposed Constitution would allow the courts to exercise judicial review. There is no record of any delegate to a state ratifying convention who indicated that the federal courts would not have the power of judicial review.[24]

For example, James Wilson asserted in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention that federal judges would exercise judicial review: "If a law should be made inconsistent with those powers vested by this instrument in Congress, the judges, as a consequence of their independence, and the particular powers of government being defined, will declare such law to be null and void. For the power of the Constitution predominates. Anything, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto will not have the force of law."[25]

In the Connecticut ratifying convention, Oliver Ellsworth likewise described judicial review as a feature of the Constitution: "This Constitution defines the extent of the powers of the general government. If the general legislature should at any time overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void."[26]

During the ratification process, supporters and opponents of ratification published pamphlets, essays, and speeches debating various aspects of the Constitution. Publications by over a dozen authors in at least twelve of the thirteen states asserted that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power of judicial review. There is no record of any opponent to the Constitution who claimed that the Constitution did not involve a power of judicial review.[27]

After reviewing the statements made by the founders, one scholar concluded: "The evidence from the Constitutional Convention and from the state ratification conventions is overwhelming that the original public meaning of the term 'judicial power' [in Article III] included the power to nullify unconstitutional laws."[28]"
Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Opinions and discussions at the Constitutional convention aren't a power. The question is ... who ... gave the Supreme court that power? Who "tasked" them with judicial review? It's not in the Constitution, and opinions aren't granting a power. Who did?

Even if I agreed with you, and I don't, why, exactly, do you think it would matter? Oh right, it doesn't.

I didn't ask an opinion, I asked who "tasked" the supreme court with judicial review. So far you are striking out on that