Judge barrett, she calls herself an originalist.

[VanceMack]

There are secular rights, tax benefits, and freedoms involved with marriage so the federal government has the right to regulate it.

What is your objection to LGBTI marriage equality? Do you also have an equal objection to interracial marriage as decided by the same idea of marriage equality in Loving v. Virginia, or maybe you don't want to admit to being a racist? Conservtives states also voted to deny interracial couples the right to marry and the SCOTUS rightfully threw that vote out when they decided Loving'.

SO...I take it thats a "I cant find marriage anywhere in the Constitution".

 

[Lisa]

Does it read the right of the people to keep and bear arms only while in a militia? Of course it doesn't. The BOR pertains to individual rights.

The right to own arms is a well-regulated militia. It was never meant to support the free-for-all and extremist militias that we have now, which are the source of most of the violence. That Second Amendment created what we would now call the National Guard, so the idea of citizen-soldiers having guns is mute when we have the state NGs that are organized as part of the Pentagon. Those who are the loudest supporters of the 2nd have never stood up to tyrannical governments but instead, have supported them. We saw that is nazi Germany and now see it under Donald Trump.

SO...I take it thats a "I cant find marriage anywhere in the Constitution".

There are tax dollars and rights involved so the government must be there to regulate it.

The Constitution isn't an absolute listing of rights as you want to portray it to be. That idea would be the opposite of freedom. Conservatives don't get to deny equal rights that others enjoy when they already enjoy those rights.

 

[Gaius46]

There is this assumption among gun nuts that 'without 2a' we wouldn't be allowed to own guns.

that's nuts. States can regulate them as they see fit, with or without 2a.

Personally, I don't feel they should be a right ,and if a state wants their citizens to own them, it's up to the states.

I favor repealing 2a, but I'm not saying guns should be banned. I just don't feel they should be a 'right'.

I favor replacing 2a and make health care a right. Of course, 2A will never be repealed, so the right has nothing to fear.

But, 100 years from now, who knows?

There is a long history that suggests otherwise. With a couple of exceptions firearms are regulated at the state level with some states being fairly permissive and some being burdensome well beyond any legitimate government interest. With the 2A - more accurately when the 2A was incorporated against the states - states are no longer free to regulate firearms as they see fit. McDonald v Chicago, the case that incorporated the 2A was about exactly that point. If places like DC and Chicago and NYC weren't so draconian regarding firearms legislation it probably would never have been a issue. I have no sympathy for them.

 

[Gaius46]

So the US government cannot defend the nation from threats both foreign and domestic that threaten the lives and wellbeing of its citizens?

The US government can and does. What does that have to do with routine healthcare?

 

[Questerr]

The US government can and does. What does that have to do with routine healthcare?

Is someone who is killed by a disease or injury somehow less dead than someone killed by a bullet or bomb? Why are the former undeserving of an army to protect them while the latter should have one?

 

[Lisa]

The US government can and does. What does that have to do with routine healthcare?

What are you afraid of by having universal healthcare in the manner of expanding Medicare to cover all people? The people who have Medicare love it, so what is the objection?

 

[TurtleDude]

Hi!

It's differences of opinion that makes horse racing a viable industry. The same's true of politics.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

people should not have to worry about their rights disappearing based on an election

 

[VanceMack]

The right to own arms is a well-regulated militia. It was never meant to support the free-for-all and extremist militias that we have now, which are the source of most of the violence. That Second Amendment created what we would now call the National Guard, so the idea of citizen-soldiers having guns is mute when we have the state NGs that are organized as part of the Pentagon. Those who are the loudest supporters of the 2nd have never stood up to tyrannical governments but instead, have supported them. We saw that is nazi Germany and now see it under Donald Trump.



There are tax dollars and rights involved so the government must be there to regulate it.

The Constitution isn't an absolute listing of rights as you want to portray it to be. That idea would be the opposite of freedom. Conservatives don't get to deny equal rights that others enjoy when they already enjoy those rights.

Marriage has tradtiionally been viewed as far more a religious arrangement than a secular. The better decision regarding tax benifits and legal status would have been found under civil union, not marital definitions. By failing to do that, congress made a hell of a mess. Marriage is not found in the Constitution so basing tax law off 'marriage' was a mistake. COULD have been rectified by amendmdent but it never has been. Then again...when those laws were made, its unlikely anyoenwould have believed we would reach a point where gay marriage was a 'thing'.

 

[TurtleDude]

Barrett agreed that laws against interracial marriage are unconstitutional. How do originalists reconcile that with the 10th amendment?

13-15th amendments

 

[Lisa]

people should not have to worry about their rights disappearing based on an election

Such as women and minorities whose rights are threatened, ar or are you just referring to white men who think they have the right to harass and kill people as well as kidnap politicians because of their rational policies?

 

[TurtleDude]

What is a "well regulated" militia? And why do gun lovers refrain from referring to it? For instance, it is omitted from the quote on the wall of the NRA's front lobby.

gun banners never can find any language in Article One Section 8 to justify gun restrictions

 

[TurtleDude]

Such as women and minorities whose rights are threatened, ar or are you just referring to white men who think they have the right to harass and kill people as well as kidnap politicians because of their rational policies?

wow is that moronic. what Rights of minorities are threatened. and how did you manage to throw anti white racism into this?

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't know about that, but the Heller ruling is not originalist. If 'militia' was not meant to be coupled with gun ownership, why was in included in the amendment?

Gun fetishers should thank that non originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

I cannot help it if you cannot figure out that the first part of the second amendment was stating one of many reasons. Can you find any power for the federal government to prevent private citizens from owning arms in Article One Section 8?

 

[Lisa]

Marriage has tradtiionally been viewed as far more a religious arrangement than a secular. The better decision regarding tax benifits and legal status would have been found under civil union, not marital definitions. By failing to do that, congress made a hell of a mess. Marriage is not found in the Constitution so basing tax law off 'marriage' was a mistake. COULD have been rectified by amendmdent but it never has been. Then again...when those laws were made, its unlikely anyoenwould have believed we would reach a point where gay marriage was a 'thing'.

Marriage is not religious in the US or anywhere else and the government does not force any church to marry anyone because religious matrimony is not part of marriage. A chich or other religious institution cannot be forced by the government to marry anyone, even if they are white, members of the religion, and heterosexual. Obergefell and Loving only apply to a secular marriage and the right to be married by a judge, justice of the peace, or Elvis impersonator in a quickie wedding on a cruise ship.

wow is that moronic? what Rights of minorities are threatened. and how did you manage to throw anti-white racism into this?

The rights of women (abortions and gender equality,) as well as minorities such as black people, Hispanics, immigrants, and LGBT are under attack by Trump and his new SCOTUS handmaiden. Do you really think that Portman will be reelected after kissing the orange melon's keister for 4 years?

 

[TurtleDude]

The only nonsense is the RW using term like originalist to defend their actions.

lefties see the constitution as an obstacle in the way of their desire to create a collectivist society.

 

[VanceMack]

Marriage is not religious in the US or anywhere else and the government does not force any church to marry anyone because religious matrimony is not part of marriage. A chich or other religious institution cannot be forced by the government to marry anyone, even if they are white, members of the religion, and heterosexual.

"Marriage has tradtiionally been viewed as far more a religious arrangement than a secular." If you disagree with that fact you are simply being dishonest. The redefining of marriage in the US has come even decades after religion and marriage has lost much of its importance in Europe. Beyond that, none of what you wrote disagrees with nor had anything to do with my comment.

 

[VanceMack]

wow is that moronic. what Rights of minorities are threatened. and how did you manage to throw anti white racism into this?

'She' is a leftist. Its all they know.

 

[SCrider]

lefties see the constitution as an obstacle in the way of their desire to create a collectivist society.

Not at all. The right sees it as a weapon to twist to their latest leanings.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not at all. The right sees it as a weapon to twist to their latest leanings.

how so: at worst, some on the right don't find court created "rights" to be valid

 

[Lisa]

wow is that moronic. what Rights of minorities are threatened. and how did you manage to throw anti white racism into this?

The rights of women(abortions and gender equality), as well as minorities such as black people, Hispanics, immigrants, and LGBT are under attack by Trump and his new SCOTUS handmaiden. Do you really think that Portman will be reelected after kissing the orange melon's keister for 4 years?

lefties see the constitution as an obstacle in the way of their desire to create a collectivist society.

All societies are interdependent and will get more interdependent as the population grows and we get more advanced. The US Constitution was written as a way to organize an interdependent society, so unless you want to toss it out the window and go live in the woods that collectivism is here to stay. All societies are inherently collectivist because it is how a group of people are interdependent to increase the quality of life and survival.

how so: at worst, some on the right don't find court created "rights" to be valid

What rights are you referring to? Are you suggesting that those rights are instead privileges for some people but not for all?

 

[Yakshi]

Meaning she takes the words of the founding fathers literally.

Is she going to declare the air force unconstitutional? Is it unconstitutional?

Yep, another one of those.

Invent a new interpretative method in the 1980s. In it, pretend to understand the hive mind of the Founding Fathers. To make it seem old, call it Originalism.

Then rule that corporations are people, because that's what the Founding Fathers thought.

Also, rule that walking into a Starbucks with an AR-15 is an individual right, because the Founding Fathers always remembered to bring their assault weapons when picking up a tall latte with non-fat almond milk and caramel drizzle.

As Fox News has shown us, conservatives get conned so easily.

 

[Logician Man]

lefties see the constitution as an obstacle in the way of their desire to create a collectivist society.

Another unproven positive claim that isn't based in reality. *sigh*

 

[Lisa]

how so: at worst, some on the right don't find court created "rights" to be valid

What rights are you referring to?

"Marriage has tradtiionally been viewed as far more a religious arrangement than a secular." If you disagree with that fact you are simply being dishonest. The redefining of marriage in the US has come even decades after religion and marriage has lost much of its importance in Europe. Beyond that, none of what you wrote disagrees with nor had anything to do with my comment.

There is nothing to even suggest that you must be a member of any religion to be married. The Christian religion didn't get involved in marriage until the 5th century and marriage existed long before that by ancient states.

 

[VanceMack]

What rights are you referring to?

There is nothing to even suggest that you must be a member of any religion to be married. The Christian religion didn't get involved in marriage until the 5th century and marriage existed long before that by ancient states.

You seem to really be struggling with reading comprehension or you are deliberately imposing your own bias.

 

[TurtleDude]

What rights are you referring to?

There is nothing to even suggest that you must be a member of any religion to be married. The Christian religion didn't get involved in marriage until the 5th century and marriage existed long before that by ancient states.

I am asking you to support your claim that the Right uses the constitution as a weapon? what is idiotic is liberals can claim that the ninth amendment should be read to allow abortion-past the time of viability and gay marriage but there is no right expressed in the bill of rights for individuals to own firearms. They also pretend that the right of association , does not include a right to not to associate with those you don't want to associate with