- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,860
- Reaction score
- 30,125
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
With this "living constitution," they're only someone's rights until someone decides that they're not.
John Marshall was the one who gave the judicial branch the power you despise.
And since John Marshall was a distant relative of Thomas Jefferson, I can safely say that he was a founding father.
No, he wasn't. And Thomas Jefferson was the major voice telling the court they did NOT have the power they assumed. Also against the court's decision to grab power was Madison, the father of the constitution.
That's not what I was asked. Go back and look. You didn't reference the 19th, and some of those others had nothing to do with gender. Plenty of other decisions have been made based using the 14th that had to do with other characteristics, including citizenship or noncitizenship, blood relation vs adopted relation, ability to pay for defense, and others. The 14th extended the US Constitution as being applicable in whole to the states, meaning that if the federal government could not infringe upon a person's right due to the Constitution, then neither could the state government, whether this was religion, speech, due process, unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.
Nope, entirely wrong on wording. There is no "right" here to suppress.
With this "living constitution," they're only someone's rights until someone decides that they're not.
Individual liberty is the default. You want to restrict the action.
But tell me more about this "I can't suppress a right because I say they don't have it," mr small-government type. That certainly seems consistent with your supposed worldview.
Certainly don't hold your breath for me, I don't believe same-sex marriages are being "banned."
Nope. I think you need to bone up on when and why the 14th was proposed and then ratified. Again, the decisions you posted are decisions AFTER another amendment addressing gender was in place. Otherwise women would have had the vote federally before the 19th was passed using the 14th.
Except not all the decisions made where the 14th was used were based off of gender. Plus, that was not what was asked, so you are correcting yourself because you know you're wrong.
Plus, last I looked, the 19th says absolutely nothing about application of the 14th Amendment. That would indicate that what I said to begin with was absolutely correct. It merely brought women up to the level where Equal Protection applied to them, even though it is not actually stated in any part of the Constitution.
Right. You support big state government trampling on individual liberty. I'm aware.Get it right, I'm for small FEDERAL government, restricted by the grants of power given it by Constitution only. You large government types always fail to recognize there is more than the federal government.
Yes, every single person in history wanting to restrict another's freedom has started with the claim that the other person doesn't have freedom. Black people didn't have the right to be free. Women didn't have the right to own property. Japanese-Americans didn't have the right of due process. Because if you were to say there is a right to marriage, your fighting tooth and nail against someone else's most personal, intimate choices would look awfully bad, wouldn't it?And yes, no one can suppress something that does not exist.
You're not paying attention. The 14th wasn't applied to women until the 19th gave them equal constitutional footing.
Oh, well then it must also an argument for forced castration. Castration makes anal sex impossible, as any of the left-wingers here will tell you. The wholesale reduction in the rate of anal sex reduces the spread of disease. Yet another state interest in forced castration of MSM.
:roll:
Right. You support big state government trampling on individual liberty. I'm aware.
Yes, every single person in history wanting to restrict another's freedom has started with the claim that the other person doesn't have freedom. Black people didn't have the right to be free. Women didn't have the right to own property. Japanese-Americans didn't have the right of due process. Because if you were to say there is a right to marriage, your fighting tooth and nail against someone else's most personal, intimate choices would look awfully bad, wouldn't it?
You'll forgive me if "restricting that action is justified because I say they don't have the right to it" isn't a compelling argument in of itself.
Yeah, and I'm going to make the wild statement that it was wrong to wait that long.
Yes, to bring black males into the fold. The 14th did not deal with sexuality or gender. It took another amendment to deal with gender. Thus far, no such amendment for sexual orientation.
the 14th amendment does not mention race and has been applied to various groups, not just lgbt. It could even be used to 'protect' current majorities someday. For instance, hispanics will likely become the majority and white people may need protection from discrimination. The beauty in the amendment lies in the *principle* or don't you think equal protection is a good thing?
Oh let me guess, it's only objectionable when it protects lgbt
Good thing then that it wasn't intended as "a reason to ban same-sex marriage."This another "statement of facts" that isn't actually a reason to ban same-sex marriage? Because it sure sounds like that.
Inability to provide a reason to ban same-sex marriage seems like an awfully common phenomenon!
Get it right, I'm for small FEDERAL government, restricted by the grants of power given it by Constitution only. You large government types always fail to recognize there is more than the federal government.
And yes, no one can suppress something that does not exist.
Yes, and I hear that the price of tea in China has gone up due to unusual weather this season."In 2003, during Moore's first term as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, he refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments (which he had commissioned) from the Alabama Judicial Building despite orders to do so from a federal judge. On November 13, 2003, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary unanimously removed Moore from his post as Chief Justice.... Moore contended that federal judges who ruled against his actions consider "obedience of a court order superior to all other concerns, even the suppression of belief in the sovereignty of God."[1]..."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore
No, I think ignoring intent leaves us wide open for this living constitution bullcrap. Want to add sexual orientation to the list, do it the right way, through constitutional amendment. Or hell, just do it the half right way and have the SCOTUS add sexual orientation to the list of protected classes (something they've refused to do).
Really? Because I always thought that compelling state interest referred to intituting barbaric crimes against humanity. It's good that there are so many brilliant posters in this thread to set me straight."compelling governmental interest" refers to matters of denying equal protection, not instituting barbaric crimes against humanity as you are suggesting here
You're entirely wrong in your little rant. I do not support a massive state government. And no, until the constitution was amended black folk did not have the right to be free, at least federally speaking. The same goes for women's rights. You are soooo wrong about the Japanese-American example. Despite your silly use of the hyphenation - they were fully American and that their rights weren't honored was fully down to the FEDERAL government and judicial misconduct.
Claiming rights that do not exist is indeed a popular concept that you seem very comfortable with, but it also is not a valid argument.
Are you for equal rights? Size of a Govt is not relevant.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?