Will the left leaning supreme court come back to the center by voting

[Redfish]

A majority of states could ratify a constitutional amendment to allow gay marriage.

No they couldn't. They'd need far, far more than a majority for a constitutional amendment.

yes, 38 states, not a simple majority. I misstated it.

 

[Skylar]

Ruling against constitutionally guaranteed rights is not centrist action.

Citizens United was not a liberal ruling.

ACA ruling was not a conservative ruling.

Your premise is severely flawed.

how were those "constitutional guaranteed rights" established? Any idea? Did they exist in this country before the constitution was ratified? Do they exist in north korea?

By a group of men that got together and wrote them. How would constitutionally guaranteed rights exist before the Constitution was ratified? No, NK has not adopted the US Constitution. What does any of that have to do with voting against rights guaranteed by the Constitution today?

my point, which many of you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that the rights we enjoy were established by a majority vote, not by minority dictate.

But in the case of gay marriage, the left wants the decision made by judicial dictate, that is what is unconstitutional.

You could always just state your point rather than dance around asking vague questions. People would probably get your point much easier that way.

Short of a constitutional amendment, those rights are not removable by a simple majority vote.

true, what I am trying to get the libs to understand is that those rights were created by a majority vote.

Amendments aren't created with a majority vote. Review the 5th article again and tell us what proportion of the States are required to ratify an amendment.

 

[Redfish]

Ruling against constitutionally guaranteed rights is not centrist action.

Citizens United was not a liberal ruling.

ACA ruling was not a conservative ruling.

Your premise is severely flawed.

how were those "constitutional guaranteed rights" established? Any idea? Did they exist in this country before the constitution was ratified? Do they exist in north korea?

By a group of men that got together and wrote them. How would constitutionally guaranteed rights exist before the Constitution was ratified? No, NK has not adopted the US Constitution. What does any of that have to do with voting against rights guaranteed by the Constitution today?

my point, which many of you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that the rights we enjoy were established by a majority vote, not by minority dictate.

So when the majority of representatives in Chicago outlawed certain handguns.......you were down with that, siding against McDonald in Chicago v. McDonald?

Or did you side with the 'minority dictate' that found that such laws violated constitutional guarantees?

apples and oranges. we were talking about establishing rights by majority vote, not testing the constitutionality of a gun ban.

try to stay on topic.

 

[RKMBrown]

YOU were talking about public accommodation laws, try to keep up.

And I wouldn't have an issue working at a Gay wedding either. What I don't feel is the need to force my morality on others, more importantly I detest those who use the government to do it instead of doing it themselves.

I'm sorry, just exactly how do you want gays to force their states to hand them marriage licenses? Guns?

By convincing enough of their fellow citizens to vote people in who will change marriage laws.

Ok. Well both are happening. IMO suing for injury is a perfectly valid way to address a grievance. Interesting that you think all grievances against the state should be addressed by elected officials. Interesting, but I like our system as is. Mostly cause I don't trust our elected political party representatives to do their jobs.

If you are such a sissy that you think having to get another baker is "injury" I suggest posting your balls on the back of a milk carton.

I don't disagree with that statement. You'll note that I've never sued anyone for anything.

 

[Redfish]

how were those "constitutional guaranteed rights" established? Any idea? Did they exist in this country before the constitution was ratified? Do they exist in north korea?

By a group of men that got together and wrote them. How would constitutionally guaranteed rights exist before the Constitution was ratified? No, NK has not adopted the US Constitution. What does any of that have to do with voting against rights guaranteed by the Constitution today?

my point, which many of you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that the rights we enjoy were established by a majority vote, not by minority dictate.

But in the case of gay marriage, the left wants the decision made by judicial dictate, that is what is unconstitutional.

You could always just state your point rather than dance around asking vague questions. People would probably get your point much easier that way.

Short of a constitutional amendment, those rights are not removable by a simple majority vote.

true, what I am trying to get the libs to understand is that those rights were created by a majority vote.

Amendments aren't created with a majority vote. Review the 5th article again and tell us what proportion of the States are required to ratify an amendment.

correct, not a simple majority, 38 states. 75%. But such a vote of 38 states could create a new amendment or repeal a previous one.

my point is that constitutional rights that we enjoy were establshed by voting, not govt decree.

 

[Conservative65]

how were those "constitutional guaranteed rights" established? Any idea? Did they exist in this country before the constitution was ratified? Do they exist in north korea?

By a group of men that got together and wrote them. How would constitutionally guaranteed rights exist before the Constitution was ratified? No, NK has not adopted the US Constitution. What does any of that have to do with voting against rights guaranteed by the Constitution today?

my point, which many of you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that the rights we enjoy were established by a majority vote, not by minority dictate.

But in the case of gay marriage, the left wants the decision made by judicial dictate, that is what is unconstitutional.

You could always just state your point rather than dance around asking vague questions. People would probably get your point much easier that way.

Short of a constitutional amendment, those rights are not removable by a simple majority vote.

true, what I am trying to get the libs to understand is that those rights were created by a majority vote.

Amendments aren't created with a majority vote. Review the 5th article again and tell us what proportion of the States are required to ratify an amendment.

So a minority number can create an amendment? It takes a majority vote to create an amendment. 2/3 of either method to propose is a majority and 3/4 of either way to ratify is a majority. A majority, by definition, is at least 50% + 1 but it can be more.

 

[RKMBrown]

First, the 14th does not only apply to gay marriage. Not sure why you asked that silly question.

Second, the 14th does not incorporation all of the federal restrictions to the states. If it incorporated the 2nd amendment it would have also said something like, nor shall the states infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Third, you "ask how can NYC tell me I can't carry a handgun." The same way any city sets up laws. It passes a law stating that you can't carry a handgun within the city limits then it enforces that law.

The wording of the 2nd amendment states the people's rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the 14th amendment precludes the States from "make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." If that is the case, how can a State "infringe" on my right to carry a firearm. I'm not talking about making me get a CCW permit as infringing, NYC states I have to have a reason THEY approve of.

Easy. The 2nd amendment is a restriction on the federal government stating that the federal government can't infringe, not a right granted by the federal government that can't be infringed. As much as I dislike it, the states, cities and such have always infringed on this right.

The document says nothing about restrictions by just the feds, it says the rights of the people cannot be infringed.

Its amazing you are arguing in favor of government power.

And btw, if this is all a snark attempt by a libertarian trying to be all smart, go fuck yourself. We have enough fake assholes on this site.

No sir. First off that's not even close to what I said.

Second, these ten amendments include declaratory clauses and restrictive clauses.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

You should read the entire transcript for the bill of rights amendments, not just the amendments. The restrictive clauses in the bill of rights apply restrictions to the federal government not to the states, except and unless it states that the restriction applies to the states. More particularly the 10th stated that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." IOW if they 2nd amendment were to be applied to the feds and the states as you so imagine, then the 2nd would have had to say "shall not be infringed by congress or the states." But clearly it does not and clearly the states have been restricting our right to keep and bear arms before, during, and after the bill of rights were signed into law.

I'm not being a fake asshole, I'm a gun proponent that's telling you a fact about the 2nd amendment that not to many understand.

If it isn't in the document, what bearing does it have besides a view into intent, which is debatable.

And if you are not a fake, then you are not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. You are a statist. Not as bad as Farkey over there, but in the same ballpark.

Uhmm, listen nimrod, can I call you nimrod? Not only is it in the document, I quoted the document. Not only does the portion I cited have bearing, it is also well understood that the bill of rights are not really a listing of rights but rather a listing of restrictive clauses that apply to the federal government to restrict the power of the federal government.

I know it's hard to believe that you don't know everything about such an important document, but there it is nonetheless.

I'm not a statist. Not by any measure.

Do you have a right to keep and bear arms? Yes. That is a natural right. That natural right can't be taken from you by the federal government, per the 2nd amendment. However, each individual state, and cities, and private owners can restrict this right within their jurisdiction.

Do I like that states can do this? No. But that's why we have a republic. Do I like that individual can restrict it within their property? Yes within reason.

 

[Seawytch]

My argument is with any asshole who gets a chubby from forcing other people to comply with their morality or face being economically ruined.

The other thing that is different in these cases is the scope of the services being denied, and the size of the population being denied.

The world will not end if a gay couple has to use another baker or photographer.

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

That's the same thing, and you know it.

Or are you using a modification of the Nuremberg Defense? "Sorry, I really don't want to be a prick, but I was just following the law"

So you are comparing public accommodation laws to Nazi war crimes?

Really?

It is not the same thing. No more than objecting to the income tax taking advantage of every tax break.

As long as the law is valid, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person using the law.

The funny thing is that their argument should be for states rights when it comes to PA laws....if they were worried about consistency.

The only thing your side does consistently is shit on the constitution when it suits you.

Except PA laws have been found Constitutional.

 

[Redfish]

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

That's the same thing, and you know it.

Or are you using a modification of the Nuremberg Defense? "Sorry, I really don't want to be a prick, but I was just following the law"

So you are comparing public accommodation laws to Nazi war crimes?

Really?

It is not the same thing. No more than objecting to the income tax taking advantage of every tax break.

As long as the law is valid, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person using the law.

The funny thing is that their argument should be for states rights when it comes to PA laws....if they were worried about consistency.

The only thing your side does consistently is shit on the constitution when it suits you.

Except PA laws have been found Constitutional.

yes, they have. So what? That has nothing to do with SCOTUS and gay marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

That's the same thing, and you know it.

Or are you using a modification of the Nuremberg Defense? "Sorry, I really don't want to be a prick, but I was just following the law"

So you are comparing public accommodation laws to Nazi war crimes?

Really?

It is not the same thing. No more than objecting to the income tax taking advantage of every tax break.

As long as the law is valid, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person using the law.

The funny thing is that their argument should be for states rights when it comes to PA laws....if they were worried about consistency.

The only thing your side does consistently is shit on the constitution when it suits you.

Except PA laws have been found Constitutional.

yes, they have. So what? That has nothing to do with SCOTUS and gay marriage.

I was, however, directly responding to a post about PA laws.

You're right though....(for once)...despite anti gay bigots trying to conflate the two issues, they have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Ubiquitor]

Ruling against constitutionally guaranteed rights is not centrist action.

Citizens United was not a liberal ruling.

ACA ruling was not a conservative ruling.

Your premise is severely flawed.

how were those "constitutional guaranteed rights" established? Any idea? Did they exist in this country before the constitution was ratified? Do they exist in north korea?

By a group of men that got together and wrote them. How would constitutionally guaranteed rights exist before the Constitution was ratified? No, NK has not adopted the US Constitution. What does any of that have to do with voting against rights guaranteed by the Constitution today?

my point, which many of you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that the rights we enjoy were established by a majority vote, not by minority dictate.

But in the case of gay marriage, the left wants the decision made by judicial dictate, that is what is unconstitutional.

You could always just state your point rather than dance around asking vague questions. People would probably get your point much easier that way.

Short of a constitutional amendment, those rights are not removable by a simple majority vote.

true, what I am trying to get the libs to understand is that those rights were created by a majority vote.

How is that relevant to the topic of the SCOTUS taking up gay marriage today? I'm pretty sure everyone knows how they were established.

 

[Redfish]

how were those "constitutional guaranteed rights" established? Any idea? Did they exist in this country before the constitution was ratified? Do they exist in north korea?

By a group of men that got together and wrote them. How would constitutionally guaranteed rights exist before the Constitution was ratified? No, NK has not adopted the US Constitution. What does any of that have to do with voting against rights guaranteed by the Constitution today?

my point, which many of you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that the rights we enjoy were established by a majority vote, not by minority dictate.

But in the case of gay marriage, the left wants the decision made by judicial dictate, that is what is unconstitutional.

You could always just state your point rather than dance around asking vague questions. People would probably get your point much easier that way.

Short of a constitutional amendment, those rights are not removable by a simple majority vote.

true, what I am trying to get the libs to understand is that those rights were created by a majority vote.

How is that relevant to the topic of the SCOTUS taking up gay marriage today? I'm pretty sure everyone knows how they were established.

the relevance? its very relevant because we currently have a minority view that is being forced on the majority by government dictate rather than the will of the people.

if a majority, or super majority, of americans want gay marriage, then so be it. All I want is for the people to be heard-----------------all of the people, not just those on one side.

 

[Seawytch]

By a group of men that got together and wrote them. How would constitutionally guaranteed rights exist before the Constitution was ratified? No, NK has not adopted the US Constitution. What does any of that have to do with voting against rights guaranteed by the Constitution today?

my point, which many of you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that the rights we enjoy were established by a majority vote, not by minority dictate.

But in the case of gay marriage, the left wants the decision made by judicial dictate, that is what is unconstitutional.

You could always just state your point rather than dance around asking vague questions. People would probably get your point much easier that way.

Short of a constitutional amendment, those rights are not removable by a simple majority vote.

true, what I am trying to get the libs to understand is that those rights were created by a majority vote.

How is that relevant to the topic of the SCOTUS taking up gay marriage today? I'm pretty sure everyone knows how they were established.

the relevance? its very relevant because we currently have a minority view that is being forced on the majority by government dictate rather than the will of the people.

if a majority, or super majority, of americans want gay marriage, then so be it. All I want is for the people to be heard-----------------all of the people, not just those on one side.

You were saying?

 

[Redfish]

my point, which many of you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that the rights we enjoy were established by a majority vote, not by minority dictate.

But in the case of gay marriage, the left wants the decision made by judicial dictate, that is what is unconstitutional.

You could always just state your point rather than dance around asking vague questions. People would probably get your point much easier that way.

Short of a constitutional amendment, those rights are not removable by a simple majority vote.

true, what I am trying to get the libs to understand is that those rights were created by a majority vote.

How is that relevant to the topic of the SCOTUS taking up gay marriage today? I'm pretty sure everyone knows how they were established.

the relevance? its very relevant because we currently have a minority view that is being forced on the majority by government dictate rather than the will of the people.

if a majority, or super majority, of americans want gay marriage, then so be it. All I want is for the people to be heard-----------------all of the people, not just those on one side.

You were saying?

approval of interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Good thing for you that we don't elect by polls, otherwise Romney would be president and obozo would be working with Sharpton to stir up racial unrest-------------oh wait, he is doing that.

 

[Ubiquitor]

By a group of men that got together and wrote them. How would constitutionally guaranteed rights exist before the Constitution was ratified? No, NK has not adopted the US Constitution. What does any of that have to do with voting against rights guaranteed by the Constitution today?

my point, which many of you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that the rights we enjoy were established by a majority vote, not by minority dictate.

But in the case of gay marriage, the left wants the decision made by judicial dictate, that is what is unconstitutional.

You could always just state your point rather than dance around asking vague questions. People would probably get your point much easier that way.

Short of a constitutional amendment, those rights are not removable by a simple majority vote.

true, what I am trying to get the libs to understand is that those rights were created by a majority vote.

How is that relevant to the topic of the SCOTUS taking up gay marriage today? I'm pretty sure everyone knows how they were established.

the relevance? its very relevant because we currently have a minority view that is being forced on the majority by government dictate rather than the will of the people.

if a majority, or super majority, of americans want gay marriage, then so be it. All I want is for the people to be heard-----------------all of the people, not just those on one side.

We do? What view is that? The majority of Americans do support gay marriage right now. However, we have a representative democracy because mob rules, aka democracy, means that the minority could have basic rights taken away. The SCOTUS should be ruling on its interpretation of the Constitution not what the majority says. So really how these rights were established is irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Seawytch]

You could always just state your point rather than dance around asking vague questions. People would probably get your point much easier that way.

Short of a constitutional amendment, those rights are not removable by a simple majority vote.

true, what I am trying to get the libs to understand is that those rights were created by a majority vote.

How is that relevant to the topic of the SCOTUS taking up gay marriage today? I'm pretty sure everyone knows how they were established.

the relevance? its very relevant because we currently have a minority view that is being forced on the majority by government dictate rather than the will of the people.

if a majority, or super majority, of americans want gay marriage, then so be it. All I want is for the people to be heard-----------------all of the people, not just those on one side.

You were saying?

approval of interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Good thing for you that we don't elect by polls, otherwise Romney would be president and obozo would be working with Sharpton to stir up racial unrest-------------oh wait, he is doing that.

You're contradicting yourself. Either you think the majority should rule in all things or you don't.

Discrimination based on animus is discrimination based on animus.

 

[Ubiquitor]

You could always just state your point rather than dance around asking vague questions. People would probably get your point much easier that way.

Short of a constitutional amendment, those rights are not removable by a simple majority vote.

true, what I am trying to get the libs to understand is that those rights were created by a majority vote.

How is that relevant to the topic of the SCOTUS taking up gay marriage today? I'm pretty sure everyone knows how they were established.

the relevance? its very relevant because we currently have a minority view that is being forced on the majority by government dictate rather than the will of the people.

if a majority, or super majority, of americans want gay marriage, then so be it. All I want is for the people to be heard-----------------all of the people, not just those on one side.

You were saying?

approval of interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Good thing for you that we don't elect by polls, otherwise Romney would be president and obozo would be working with Sharpton to stir up racial unrest-------------oh wait, he is doing that.

Only if you are going to ignore the fact that gay marriage is following the same trend and both are civil rights issues.

 

[Redfish]

my point, which many of you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that the rights we enjoy were established by a majority vote, not by minority dictate.

But in the case of gay marriage, the left wants the decision made by judicial dictate, that is what is unconstitutional.

You could always just state your point rather than dance around asking vague questions. People would probably get your point much easier that way.

Short of a constitutional amendment, those rights are not removable by a simple majority vote.

true, what I am trying to get the libs to understand is that those rights were created by a majority vote.

How is that relevant to the topic of the SCOTUS taking up gay marriage today? I'm pretty sure everyone knows how they were established.

the relevance? its very relevant because we currently have a minority view that is being forced on the majority by government dictate rather than the will of the people.

if a majority, or super majority, of americans want gay marriage, then so be it. All I want is for the people to be heard-----------------all of the people, not just those on one side.

We do? What view is that? The majority of Americans do support gay marriage right now. However, we have a representative democracy because mob rules, aka democracy, means that the minority could have basic rights taken away. The SCOTUS should be ruling on its interpretation of the Constitution not what the majority says. So really how these rights were established is irrelevant to the topic.

BS, the very blue state of california voted it down twice.

my discussion of how rights came about was in response to a few lefties who claimed that minority rights somehow just came to be out of thin air rather than by a vote of a majority.

 

[Redfish]

true, what I am trying to get the libs to understand is that those rights were created by a majority vote.

How is that relevant to the topic of the SCOTUS taking up gay marriage today? I'm pretty sure everyone knows how they were established.

the relevance? its very relevant because we currently have a minority view that is being forced on the majority by government dictate rather than the will of the people.

if a majority, or super majority, of americans want gay marriage, then so be it. All I want is for the people to be heard-----------------all of the people, not just those on one side.

You were saying?

approval of interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Good thing for you that we don't elect by polls, otherwise Romney would be president and obozo would be working with Sharpton to stir up racial unrest-------------oh wait, he is doing that.

You're contradicting yourself. Either you think the majority should rule in all things or you don't.

Discrimination based on animus is discrimination based on animus.

no contradiction here, the majority vote should prevail in all issues. otherwise we have either a dictatorship or anarchy.

 

[Seawytch]

You could always just state your point rather than dance around asking vague questions. People would probably get your point much easier that way.

Short of a constitutional amendment, those rights are not removable by a simple majority vote.

true, what I am trying to get the libs to understand is that those rights were created by a majority vote.

How is that relevant to the topic of the SCOTUS taking up gay marriage today? I'm pretty sure everyone knows how they were established.

the relevance? its very relevant because we currently have a minority view that is being forced on the majority by government dictate rather than the will of the people.

if a majority, or super majority, of americans want gay marriage, then so be it. All I want is for the people to be heard-----------------all of the people, not just those on one side.

We do? What view is that? The majority of Americans do support gay marriage right now. However, we have a representative democracy because mob rules, aka democracy, means that the minority could have basic rights taken away. The SCOTUS should be ruling on its interpretation of the Constitution not what the majority says. So really how these rights were established is irrelevant to the topic.

BS, the very blue state of california voted it down twice.

my discussion of how rights came about was in response to a few lefties who claimed that minority rights somehow just came to be out of thin air rather than by a vote of a majority.

Yes, interracial marriage came to be because of a majority vote by judges. (Like gay marriage has been).