- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 59,458
- Reaction score
- 39,040
- Location
- Best Coast Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Would you be surprised that they are enforced after the SCOTUS ruling?I don't know, nor do I care. If they are unenforceable, what difference does it make?
How exactly does this legislation "launch a preemptive strike" against the upcoming Supreme Court ruling? Assuming the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, this law will simply be ignored, and even if Texas could push the issue, clerks would likely refuse to issue licenses altogether in order to stay in bounds of the law. I doubt that would last long.Texas Republicans are pushing legislation to bar local officials from granting same-sex couples licenses to marry, launching a preemptive strike against a possible U.S. Supreme Court ruling next month that could declare gay marriage legal.
Supporters of the measure, which is scheduled for a vote as soon as Tuesday in the Texas House, said it would send a powerful message to the court. Taking a cue from the anti-abortion movement, they said they also hoped to keep any judicially sanctioned right to same-sex marriage tied up in legal battles for years to come.
Very good point! Such ability to enforce would directly infringe on privacy and due process, so there's no legal way to do so.
Would you be surprised that they are enforced after the SCOTUS ruling?
Would you be surprised that they are enforced after the SCOTUS ruling?
What? No one here has even implied that state laws against sodomy were still valid after Lawrence.
No, they rewrite it. Take for instance copyright law. The constitution explicitly states 14 years as the period of patent before it enters the public domain. The SCOTUS ruled that could mean 2000 years if congress set that as the figure. That is a direct rewrite of the text of the constitution.
The Constitution does not talk of copyright law so they do not in any way rewrite the text of the Constitution by ruling on any such laws. You are making absolutely no sense.
Could you provide the Article and Section number that specifies this?
I believe he's referring to Article I Section 8 that says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;".
But I could be wrong, we'll have to wait and see where the Constitution explicitly provides a time frame.
>>>>
I wouldn't be surprised if they tried, followed by an immediate smackdown by SCOTUS.
If refusal continued, SCOTUS can send the US Marshals Service to enforce penalties. Other historical precedents involved the National Guard.
True, they were unConstitutional to begin with.
I don't agree, and I think the reasoning in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Lawrence was very weak.
I don't agree, and I think the reasoning in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Lawrence was very weak.
I did not know that the Supreme Court had sent marshals or activated the National Guard.
I wouldn't be surprised if they tried, followed by an immediate smackdown by SCOTUS.
If refusal continued, SCOTUS can send the US Marshals Service to enforce penalties. Other historical precedents involved the National Guard.
Yeah, he clarified enough for that but then failed to show where the Constitution itself specified it, only showing that some of the founding fathers had a specific time frame in mind, but did not get that time frame enshrined into the Constitution. And while I'm personally against copyrights that last very long times, it still doesn't make it unconstitutional to extend them when no specific time was written into the Constitution.
The SCOTUS simply wasn't wrong in how they ruled in the example he tried to use. The Constitution is wrong for not specifying a length of time, being too vague. It needs to be changed but people simply don't care enough to do it.
If democrats focused even a tenth of the energy they've expended with frustrating the will of the people on something useful we would see a much better America...
You dont think that sodomy laws were unConstitutional?
I would like to say I am surprised that anyone would ask such a silly question on these forums--but I am not. The Supreme Court invalidated state sodomy laws twelve years ago in Lawrence v. Texas. Whatever the Court may soon decide about state laws that exclude same-sex partners, the decision will have no effect whatever on long-dead state laws against sodomy.
Oops, our bad. But it was on the books! Such was the response, essentially, of the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office, after The Advocate newspaper reported on Sunday that at least 12 men had been arrested since 2011 under a sodomy law invalidated by the Supreme Court a decade ago. Most of these men were arrested after being approached by a male undercover cop at a public park and agreeing to have sex at a private residence. No money changed hands.
In 2003, the landmark Lawrence v Texas Supreme Court case declared a Texas statute prohibiting oral or anal sex – a so-called “sodomy law” — unconstitutional. Louisiana’s then-attorney general announced that a similar law in his state was not enforceable. But today the statute is still in Louisiana’s criminal code and similar laws remain on the books in at least a dozen other states. And the Baton Rouge case shows that in some pockets of the U.S., gays still have reason to be wary of police.
Two men were arrested in Louisiana earlier this month under the state's law barring "unnatural carnal copulation" between two people of the same gender.
The unnamed men were arrested after engaging in sexual activity in a car, and charged under the law, even thought it was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court 12 years ago under the landmark case, Lawrence v. Texas.
The US Marshals is SCOTUS' tool for such things. Resistance to segregation being eliminated ended up involving the National Guard.
You mean the largely democrat South? :mrgreen:
Hasnt this been tried before in other states? And overturned?
And if SCOTUS decides TX must allow SSM, wouldnt this be useless anyway? As well as SCOTUS if also decides that other states must recognized SSMs from other states?
No, they weren't. The feds didn't have the grant of power to ban sodomy. However, the state and local does, and such laws existed all throughout the lifetime of the founders. Had they been unconstitutional, don't you think they would have known, having written the constitution?
Didn't read the whole thing did you? The feds don't, but the states do.
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?