- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
argexpat said:This is why gays have the right to marry:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If this is "forcing" anything on you, it's the idea that civil liberties are to be extended to everyone, regardless of personal bigotry. If you don't like that, you just don't like democracy.
I can't believe I have to remind a Republican about the very cornerstone of our democracy. Actually, I'm not surprised.
The founders of the Constitution were still around when the 1803 decision of Marbury v Madison occurred, which endowed the courts with the ability to interpret the meaning behind the constitution. It's interpretation that you're confusing with law creation. There's a big difference in that you're believing they're making a silk purse out of the sow's ear when it turns out they've got the fabric on their sewing machine.RightatNYU said:I agree that it is actually a republic, however you misinterpret both the words and intent of the founders.
Judges were intended to rule on legal matters and declare laws unconstitutional if they felt them to be so. They were NOT intended to legislate by themselves. The judiciary does not have the power to make laws out of nothing. If the government passes a law making gay marraige illegal, the court can declare that law unconstitutional. It cannot, however, use that as a spring board to mean that gay marraige IS constitutional.
shuamort said:The founders of the Constitution were still around when the 1803 decision of Marbury v Madison occurred, which endowed the courts with the ability to interpret the meaning behind the constitution. It's interpretation that you're confusing with law creation. There's a big difference in that you're believing they're making a silk purse out of the sow's ear when it turns out they've got the fabric on their sewing machine.
If you believe that the SCOTUS has at any point made laws from the bench, please show me the case and we'll go from there.
Question PresentedRightatNYU said:United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (1979) - Supreme Court held that private enterprises could in fact practice racial quotas and preferences. This was an example of the courts expanding a federal law on the books to the private sector, something they had no constitutional right to do.
Question PresentedRightatNYU said:Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - Supreme court overturned Wolf v. Colorado, which said that each state had the right to determine its own threshold for "unreasonable search and seizure." This was an example of the court acting as a legislature, making a policy decision for the states, as noted by the dissenting justices.
You have a case number on this one? After a bit of googling I'm coming up empty.RightatNYU said:A federal Judge in Missouri ordered the state to pay for 2.6 billion dollars in capital improvement in school districts, causing the state, because of the stage of the budget process it was in, to be forced to raise it's taxes immediately. This is an example of a Judge usurping the powers of Congress, the only branch with the power of the purse and taxation.
Sure.RightatNYU said:Do you want more examples?
You mean that the Supreme Court has been acting illegally and no one has done anything about it? Ever?RightatNYU said:They might be making a silk purse out of the silk that's already on the machine, but there's a law against them actually making that purse, to use your analogy.
Here's the link to Title VII, the bill doesn't make sense and would be worthless if it didn't require the steps. It would have been a gesture instead of a law enacted by congress.RightatNYU said:"The Court held that the training scheme was legitimate because the 1964 Act "did not intend to prohibit the private sector from taking effective steps" to implement the goals of Title VII."
The Act didn't prohibit the private sector from taking steps, but it also wasn't meant to require it. The Supreme Court's ruling in that case set forth a precedent, forcing the private sector's hand. That is legislation by edict.
The exclusionary rule has been around since 1914 that was created by the U.S. congress. So not only was there the constitution, but a law as well that backed up this case. The law predates the SCOTUS decision by 47 years.RightatNYU said:""Wow, so the court agreed with what was written in the Bill of Rights? I still don't see your point nor agree with the dissenting judges there either."
Show me where in the 4th Amendment it mentions excluding evidence. It was unconstitutional to illegally search a persons home or property, but the laws defining exactly what was and was not legal were defined by the individual states, follow? Therefore, this ruling should have only addressed whether the evidence in this specific case should have been inadmissable under the constitution, which it in fact was. If the ruling had been limited to that, that would be fine. But the ruling stretched beyond that. It actually redefined what was and was not legal for every single state in terms of evidence, overruling the laws on the book in each state. Each state has "its own peculiar problems in criminal law enforcement," as one of the dissenters noticed, but this ruling forced all the states to adhere to a new set of federal laws ill fitted to those problems. That's the issue I have with that case.
It looks like the judge ruled that the way the school district was set-up was unconstitutional by means of segregation. A judge has latitude to award damages and in this case, ordered that the situation be remedied. I don't agree with the decision but I agree with the process.RightatNYU said:Here's a link to a policy paper talking about the case in MO. I don't have the actual case number off the top of my head, but it's explained in here.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298es.html
Ahh, Andrew Jackson, should there be something said about the Commander-In-Chief, the head of the enforcement of laws, ignoring what the laws are? You're not going to hold Jackson's feet to the fire for that? (Amongst his other wonderful accomplishments.) Maybe we can coin a new term like Activist President or Presidential Fiat for that. 200+ years of supreme court decisions, almost the length of the country's history under the constitution and it's still a problem? Maybe it's just never been one.RightatNYU said:And yes, I do mean the Supreme Court has been acting illegally and no one has done anything about it. What would be done? The only way for a legislature to overturn a decision is to amend the constitution. The last time it was tried outside of that is when Andrew Jackson said about Marshall's most recent ruling, "Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."
That's all that CAN be done about it.
chelle said:Man judges by their own interpretation of ones actions. The Lord judges by the very heart and soul of us. Someones true intentions may not always be seen by his peers but God knows us all down to our very core. I believe that I was born gay and in that same respect am I not one of God's children? If I we are all born into this life innocent and free of sin, why would then God condemn me? He has blessed me with a beautiful daughter and a devoted partner. Don't judge me, lest I judge you...
The exclusionary rule is the point and that's why the justices included it in their opinion as part of their basis.RightatNYU said:The exclusionary rule isn't the point. The case SHOULD have been decided against the state. The problem was that they took this case and used it as a vehicle to override 50 individual state laws by creating a new federal law. That is the issue.
RightatNYU said:I'm not saying they should go away, at all. I'm for gay marraige. I just want it to be done right, by legislation rather than judicial fiat, unlike Roe.
You are mistaken though, in that states can in fact pass laws to prohibit gay marraige. I don't know about the federal courts, but then again, the court system is horribly screwed up in our country.
RightatNYU said:Urethra-
Well, I'm 6'1", 175, I have sandy blonde hair, I enjoy long walks on the beach....
RightatNYU said:You're right, second hand smoke DOES kill. So are you in favor of banning all smoking in any public places on the grounds that it might kill? That sounds like something a "repressive" state might do.....
Right on. I oppose all control, all censorship. People can use the off button, and parents who whinge should be exercising more control. My father knew exactly what I was watching on the TV, because unlike today's spoilt brats we had ONE family TV set in the living room, and that was enough. I didn't have TV in my room. In my room I read BOOKS. Now that would be a novelty for today's youth.RightatNYU said:So what about morality laws, such as the ones that regulate what can and can't be shown on TV, etc. Porno on TV doesn't hurt anyone, right? You make these broad statements, and then avoid the fact that ironing out the details is impossible......
RightatNYU said:And regarding whether or not they should marry: You're right! I support gay marraige, and I think it would be a good thing, or civil unions at least. But here in a democracy, the best way to do something is through legislation, rather than an overactive judiciary. I support the efforts of individual states or the federal government to push through legislation allowing civil unions, but I do NOT support the efforts of crusading judges, because that's not how our country was intended to be run.......
You're wasting your time. I don't do Republicans. You never know what you might catch.RightatNYU said:How you lookin, baby girl?
vauge said:I guess I do not see the contradiction. Help me out.
1. I do not HATE anyone.
2. I understand that there are differences in sexual preferences.
3. I completely disagree with allowing gay marriage and do not believe it is a 'right'.
4. I think that allowing gay marriage would harm the nation as a whole. Not today, but tommorrow - years from now. Gay marriage would lead to something else worse down the line. What that worse IS, who knows? A majority of youths becoming confused in thier sexual orientation maybe? Simply because it would be considered ok. *
5. I respect everyone's opinion. All I am asking is for others to respect mine.
Urethra, about the pic, let me see what I can come up with. Will you reciprocate?
* Clinton's issue with Monica told the world that oral sex was not sex and it was ok. Now, we have kids under the age of 12 giving oral sex on school buses.
Is this NEW? No way. Is this becoming an acceptable pastime amoung our youths? Yes.
No, that's not as "repressive" as being forced to inhale other's smoke.
In my room I read BOOKS. Now that would be a novelty for today's youth.
I don't care how it's achieved, let's just get equality to our gay citizens. We need to agitate for it as hard as possible because the rabid right are nutcases. Ciivil union AND marriage available to gay AND straight - choice for all.
You're wasting your time. I don't do Republicans. You never know what you might catch.
RightatNYU said:So you would support the banning of all smoking in all public places? What about if I have two small children at home? Should I be outlawed from smoking in my house because of the danger it poses to my children?
What do you think about this court case?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1899231.stm...
IndependentTexan said:Look, gay people are everywhere. Some of my friends are gay. I don't agree with their lifestyle but they are some of the nicest people it has ever been my pleasure to know.
RightatNYU said:This is the most overused argument I've ever heard.
RightatNYU said:I'm so sick and tired of explaining this, but here goes.
RightatNYU said:Just because it says all men have "certain unalienable rights", does it mean that EVERYTHING they construe to be "their right," they get? NO!
RightatNYU said:If doing something illegal makes them happy, then are they free to pursue happiness however they want? NO!
RightatNYU said:The whole point of that statement is that people have certain rights which cannot be taken away, but the decision as to what those right are and how they are legislated was left up to the government.
RightatNYU said:It says all "men." Does that mean that only men deserve all those rights, and women deserve none? Well, the government operated that way for a long time, until it allowed all women the same rights as men through legislation, much the same as it did to minorities with the Civil Rights Act. Again, the government legislated to elaborate on who would receive what "inalienable rights," as it was intended to.
RightatNYU said:And guess what? The government decided that gay marriage was not one of the rights. The system worked exactly the way it was meant to, so don't claim it's broken because it didn't turn out the way you or I wanted.
RightatNYU said:I can't believe I had to explain to a Democrat the actual meaning of a quote he was using. Actually, I'm not surprised.
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?