Are you really that ignorant of constitutional law. The 14th is part of the constitution. I lists, specifically, things the states cannot do. Since it is part of the constitution, then if you actually where to read the 10th(hint: you might want to do that) you will see why one of the two exceptions listed in the 10th will apply. I will walk you through this, here is the 10th again: "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." Bolding and underlining should help. Power goes to the states, except in two cases, listed in the 10th.Now let us look at the relevant portion of the 13th, with again some handy highlighting: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Are you still confused?
View attachment 67180506
Rouguenuke said "...the Amendment was basically voided by another Amendment enacted later."Hahaha Who said the 14th voided the 10th Why do you continue to make stuff up? Also there is no conflict its simply a limit. This is really basic stuff.
Rouguenuke said "...the Amendment was basically voided by another Amendment enacted later."
Listen, I've been polite to you, why are you adopting the worst attitude of the worst on this site so soon?
If you want to do that, practice on someone else.
I didn't say that the 10th was voided by the 14th. I was pointing out that later Amendments can change earlier ones, just as they are meant to change the Constitution itself, because the Amendments are part of the Constitution. In the case of the 14th, it limited the power of the states when it comes to the individual liberties/rights within the states. It made the people part of the 10th much more important than the states part of the 10th.
You are misreading the 14th. It has nothing to do with the power of the federal government, but the individual rights of the people as being more important. The people come before the states, which is why we now have tests that require states to show "state interest" when it comes to laws that impact people particularly certain groups of people who are being treated differently than other people within those states.
You did say basically voided ... but let's let that go.
I think we're in basic agreement.
Really, the question is, will the 14th Amendment be successfully used to overturn SSM prohibitions nationally or will enough of the Justices be swayed by a States Rights argument since marriage isn't specifically addressed as a matter for Congress in the Constitution.
I'd imagine the 14th might have greater weight with the USSC.
Oh no no no. The 10th was not voided by the 14th. You're terribly wrong about that. Maybe "voided" was just an unfortunate choice.
"The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising."
The 14th says (among other things) "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
And that's the conflict. The 14th will be used to try to grant SSM. The problem is that the definition of marriage wasn't specifically granted to the US Congress. That brings us to where we are today.
Hey Redress, Ya know what's the best part of trying to talk with someone we all recognize as deliberately irritating and full of themselves as you?
It's knowing that while chuckling at post after post of growing bizarre obnoxious behavior, sooner or later you'll screw up so bad even you can't deny it.
You quoted the 14th Amendment, my friend, not the 13th.
How sweet it is.
Yup. Basically what I said in #254. The only question is whether SSM will be a good enough fit for 5 of them.Not really. The 14th amendment exists to ensure that states apply their own laws equally. It could be any law. The state is required by the US Constitution to provide equal protection of its laws. Some people twist words to say the feds are infringing in marriage, which is not discusses in the Constitution, and thus not their domain,but the reality is they are looking at equal protection, which is.a Constitutional obligation that all states have with their own laws, of which marriage is just one
Yup. Basically what I said in #254. The only question is whether SSM will be a good enough fit for 5 of them.
Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage - CNN.com
wow what a waste of time and money, also nothing like making sure you wont be president either lol Equal rights is coming bigots . .. give it up
again im not saying this one topic SHOULD decide who could be president but any candidate that comes out against equal rights and they make it "PART OF THEIR CAMPAIGN AND RUNNING PLATFORM" is sure to lose lol
its just the way politics will be in 2016
lastly traditional marriage is in no danger by equal rights, its a made up subjective thing, it wont be impacted at all
next "the obama administration forcing it"? It doesnt get any dumber than that. :lamo
good lord
the war is over but its entertaining seeing the last desperate attempts of bigotry, it shows peoples true colors
Yup. Basically what I said in #254. The only question is whether SSM will be a good enough fit for 5 of them.
Yup. Basically what I said in #254. The only question is whether SSM will be a good enough fit for 5 of them.
Hey Redress, Ya know what's the best part of trying to talk with someone we all recognize as deliberately irritating and full of themselves as you?
It's knowing that while chuckling at post after post of growing bizarre obnoxious behavior, sooner or later you'll screw up so bad even you can't deny it.
You quoted the 14th Amendment, my friend, not the 13th.
How sweet it is.
Rouguenuke said "...the Amendment was basically voided by another Amendment enacted later."
Listen, I've been polite to you, why are you adopting the worst attitude of the worst on this site so soon?
If you want to do that, practice on someone else.
And the conservatives are so much FOR the constitution. Except of course when it crowds their agenda.
Agreed.The SCOTUS would be screwing itself, subjecting it and many other US courts to a ton of legal cases in the future on this issue if they don't strike down these laws. This isn't going away until the SCOTUS rules that same sex couples must be allowed to legally marry in every state.4 of the Justices are solid, and a fifth is almost certain due to his previous stances on such issues.
Loving dealt with interracial marriages.I really do not think you understand. You should probably start by reading Loving. V. Virginia.
Basically is still not correct. Your contention is that the Federal government is determining and redefining "marriage". That is incorrect.
The Supreme court in Windsor v US stated that the states...not the federal government had the historical authority to define and regulate marriage. The ruling also established that the states could not violate the rights of their resident in doing so.
So lets recap. Federal government ruled not to have a historical right to regulate marriage in Windsor and DOMA.
States do have the right to regulate marriage based on historical precedent...and states although have the right to regulate, do not have the right to violate the rights of their residents in the applications of their rules...[14th].
That will be the judicial reasoning used in the court to affirm that states can not ban SS couples from marring and by violating their equal protections under the law..
You did say basically voided ... but let's let that go.
I think we're in basic agreement.
Really, the question is, will the 14th Amendment be successfully used to overturn SSM prohibitions nationally or will enough of the Justices be swayed by a States Rights argument since marriage isn't specifically addressed as a matter for Congress in the Constitution.
I'd imagine the 14th might have greater weight with the USSC.
Loving dealt with interracial marriages.
As I said earlier, it's being used as precedent in the case of SSM by some, and others are saying it's not relevant.
I'm not denying any of that now and haven't before.
How is what you said different than what I said in #254?
Loving dealt with interracial marriages.
As I said earlier, it's being used as precedent in the case of SSM by some, and others are saying it's not relevant.
This is proof positive you have little understanding or judicial reasoning.
Don't group us all together, I certainly lean right and many on the right are for the constitution. Don't let that idiot set a bad example for the group.
The Loving decision is being used as a precedent in the argument in favor of striking laws banning SSM.
You're mistaken if you say it isn't.
State law defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g. Loving v. Virginia
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?