- Jul 21, 2004
- Reaction score
The Constitution of the United States should NEVER be used to limit ANY rights.
Interesting way to look at it...LiberalFINGER said:Our contitution is wired to give rights, not take away.
True... but it still made my point... The Constitution doesn't just GIVE rights... it can in some cases take things away. They took the freedom to choose out of paying your taxes.heyjoeo said:The 16th amendment mainly had to do with the fact that the Articles of Confederation had optional taxes. You can't have a government run off of donations, nobody will pay.
I would argue that the Constitution was created to protect basic individual rights, but in so doing, it has to include some limitations on other rights.LiberalFINGER said:Our contitution is wired to give rights, not take away.
Excellent point BrianfPeople don't have a Constitutionally protected right, for example, to take away our freedom to peacefully assemble. So, it is essential to define what "rights" are, first of all. Then, if they are understood, there may be arguments that the Constitution cannot be used to restrict those rights.
Well... just remember most people don't know you as well as we do Bud....CSA_TX said:Excellent point Brianf
I have been trying to figure out why my right to keep and bear arms is continualy being infringed on.
Who, may I ask, then, determines what the constitution should say?Hoot said:The will of the people should have nothing to do with a constitutional amendment.
This is why the Constitution was created in such a manner to be amendable, would you not agree?Hoot said:Should we change the constitution because society changes and a majority have differing attitudes?
The Supreme Court has nothing to do with amendments to the constitution, either in establishing them, or in repealing them. It is, in fact, entirely left to the discretion of the legislature, nationally, and in 2/3 of the states, to amend the constitution as they see fit, based upon the people that they represent, since our government receives its power from the consent of the governed.Hoot said:When the Supreme Court makes a mistake, such as the 18th amendment, they repeal it, ( the 21st amendment) because no amendment should be part of the constitution that infringes upon the rights of the people.
The problem here is that a constitutional amendment is not treated as a federal law. It becomes part of the Constitution, and cannot, by definition, be unconstitutional.Hoot said:You're quite right, but under the power of "judicial review," the USSC has the right to deem any federal law as unconstitutional...even laws passed by Congress and 2/3's of the states.
Again, the Supreme Court cannot say that a constitutional amendment is uncostitutional, and it has no power to repeal an amendment. That power is reserved for the Congress, and legislatures of the states.Hoot said:Believe me, if the USSC determines the "gay-marriage" amendment to be unconstitutional, it will never become part of the Constitution, or at the least, repealed.
The Congress is supposed to determine the winner when there is no candidate with a majority of electoral votes, true, but there was a winner in 2000, the results were challenged in court. The issue put to rest in the Supreme Court (we hope it was put to rest, anyway) was that little part of the Constitution that says that the states determine how their electoral votes will be determined. The Supreme Court ruled that the issue was up to the state, and under the application of Florida's state law, George W. Bush won the election, by 529 votes. There was no usurpation by the Supreme Court.Hoot said:For instance, it's supposed to be the job of Congress to determine the outcome of elections when neither side has a majority, yet the USSC usurped this right in the 2000 election.
My comment simply acknowledges that after being approved by a supermajority in the House of Representatives and the Senate, the proposed amendment must be ratified by three forths of the state legislations. If this not a sign of the will of the people, what in the world is it?Hoot said:The process is sufficiently difficult that if legislation finally results in an amendment, it may truly be considered to be the will of the people. <Fantasea
The will of the people should have nothing to do with a constitutional amendment.
Should we change the constitution because society changes and a majority have differing attitudes?
No...the constitution is the constitution...period.
Judicial bodies should never change law based on public opinion, but only on the interpretation of existing law.
When the Supreme Court makes a mistake, such as the 18th amendment, they repeal it, ( the 21st amendment) because no amendment should be part of the constitution that infringes upon the rights of the people.
This is precisely why there should never be a "gay-marriage" amendment to our US constitution. This takes away the rights of the people, therefore the USSC should neither condone it, nor condemn it, but leave it to the will of the people of the individual states.
Yes, that irrational homophobia is rampant in America.Fantasea said:In the matter of same-sex marriage, the people in eleven states who thus far had an opportunity to do so have spoken quite loudly, and with a single voice.
Why is it OK for folks to lean to the left, if they choose, but not to the right, if they choose?argexpat said:Yes, that irrational homophobia is rampant in America.
I don't know what you're talking about here.Fantasea said:Why is it OK for folks to lean to the left, if they choose, but not to the right, if they choose?
Your "sarcasm" lends me to think that you believe these psychiatrists were too swift in their decision to de-disease-ify homosexuality. C'mon Fantasea, don't beat around the bush, do you believe homosexuality is a disease?Fantasea said:I understand that until 1973, homosexuality was listed by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental disorder. At the 1973 meeting, by a show of hands by members in attendance, it was removed. This had to be the swiftest eradication a disease in history. Perhaps they could be encouraged to turn their attention to cancer.
Without using religious or moral rationals, tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry anyone I damn well please?Fantasea said:...marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.
Yes, like the birth of GWBush.Fantasea said:...you could probably come up with a lengthy list of social and economic problems that could be solved or avoided by 'abstinance'.
Your comments lead me to suspect that you did not understand what I wrote. May I respectfully suggest that you reread the post to which you're responding until my statements and the facts contained therein become clear?argexpat said:I don't know what you're talking about here.
Your "sarcasm" lends me to think that you believe these psychiatrists were too swift in their decision to de-disease-ify homosexuality. C'mon Fantasea, don't beat around the bush, do you believe homosexuality is a disease?
Without using religious or moral rationals, tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry anyone I damn well please?
Yes, like the birth of GWBush.