• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump's Policy Preferences

matchlight said:
I thought the position Sen. Cruz took on same-sex marriage is that because it raises no constitutional issues, it is strictly a matter for each state to decide. What a resident of any state thinks of any other state's policy on that matter should be irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It can't be irrelevant because of reciprocity. If a couple marries in one state all the other states are supposed to honor that. The pressure to make it a national issue is pretty high because none of the states have the power to ban it if one state does not. If the gays in state A, where gay marriage is not legal, just go to state B to get married then state A de facto has gay marriage.
 
LowDown said:
It can't be irrelevant because of reciprocity. If a couple marries in one state all the other states are supposed to honor that. The pressure to make it a national issue is pretty high because none of the states have the power to ban it if one state does not. If the gays in state A, where gay marriage is not legal, just go to state B to get married then state A de facto has gay marriage.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court held Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act invalid in Windsor in 2013. The basis for Section Two of the DOMA was the second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article IV, sec. 1, which qualifies its first sentence. Congress has power to make general laws that "prescribe the manner in which the "acts, records, and proceedings" referred to in the first sentence of the clause "shall be proved, and the effect thereof." In Section Two of the DOMA, Congress exercised that power by specifying that no state was required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state regarding same-sex marriage:

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."
 
matchlight said:
The Supreme Court held Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act invalid in Windsor in 2013. The basis for Section Two of the DOMA was the second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article IV, sec. 1, which qualifies its first sentence. Congress has power to make general laws that "prescribe the manner in which the "acts, records, and proceedings" referred to in the first sentence of the clause "shall be proved, and the effect thereof." In Section Two of the DOMA, Congress exercised that power by specifying that no state was required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state regarding same-sex marriage:

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."
Click to expand...

On 26 June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in Obergefell v. Hodges that states cannot prohibit the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, or to deny recognition of lawfully performed out-of-state marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This ruling invalidated same-sex marriage bans in any U.S. State and certain territories.

Odd that if you google this you get a bunch of stuff about concealed carry.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Those come across more as positions as opposed to actual policies.
Click to expand...

Trump University speakers were trained to "sell feelings, not results". The list above is a pretty good example. He's the Republican version of "Hope and Change".



Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
LowDown said:
On 26 June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in Obergefell v. Hodges that states cannot prohibit the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, or to deny recognition of lawfully performed out-of-state marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This ruling invalidated same-sex marriage bans in any U.S. State and certain territories.

Odd that if you google this you get a bunch of stuff about concealed carry.
Click to expand...

I've written quite a bit about Obergefell on these forums. I believe it is an illegitimate, arbitrary decree that has no basis in the Constitution. So did four Supreme Court justices. You are right that in effect Obergefell struck down section two of the DOMA, although that law was not at issue and was not discussed.
 
matchlight said:
I've written quite a bit about Obergefell on these forums. I believe it is an illegitimate, arbitrary decree that has no basis in the Constitution. So did four Supreme Court justices. You are right that in effect Obergefell struck down section two of the DOMA, although that law was not at issue and was not discussed.
Click to expand...

Obergefell sets up a standard that can be used to justify just about anything the Court wants to do. Basically, the Court has reserved to itself the power to decide which rights are central to our dignity as human beings and which are not. Those that are not, like the right to bear arms or whatever else the Court happens not to like, are not protected by this principle.

So, how did the Court decide that the right to marry someone of the same sex is central to our dignity as human beings? Why, just because they said so.
 
LowDown said:
Obergefell sets up a standard that can be used to justify just about anything the Court wants to do. Basically, the Court has reserved to itself the power to decide which rights are central to our dignity as human beings and which are not. Those that are not, like the right to bear arms or whatever else the Court happens not to like, are not protected by this principle.

So, how did the Court decide that the right to marry someone of the same sex is central to our dignity as human beings? Why, just because they said so.
Click to expand...

The arbitrariness you are talking about has always been the problem with the doctrine of substantive due process. The Chief Justice discussed this in his dissenting opinion, comparing the majority's decision to Lochner, the decision which kicked off the thirty-odd year-long "substantive due process era." During that time, the Supreme Court applied that doctrine to invalidate about 200 laws, on the ground they violated an implied "liberty of contract" the Court had discovered in the due process clauses.

Chief Justice Roberts also could have compared Obergefell to Roe v. Wade, which is another substantive due process turkey. Where Justice Kennedy and his four fellow legislators discovered a fundamental right for homosexuals to marry each other in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Blackmun and the others in Roe had earlier discovered there a fundamental right to abortion. Just as a person who lies looking up at the clouds can discover all sorts of things in their forms, there seems to be almost no limit to what an imaginative judge can discover in the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
cpwill said:
Trump University speakers were trained to "sell feelings, not results". The list above is a pretty good example. He's the Republican version of "Hope and Change".

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That, and it's just now surfacing how he's a crook, purposefulluy stiffing sub-contractors for decades and ignoring court orders to pay attorneys fees, etc... To say nothing of the fact that he's like neck deep in Russian and (likely) Russian mob money.

Just scum from head to toe.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
That, and it's just now surfacing how he's a crook, purposefulluy stiffing sub-contractors for decades and ignoring court orders to pay attorneys fees, etc... To say nothing of the fact that he's like neck deep in Russian and (likely) Russian mob money.

Just scum from head to toe.
Click to expand...
Eh. It's not just now surfacing so much as now the media is willing to tank him.

But yeah. He belongs nowhere near the presidency.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom