Heller Struck Down

[AtlasShrieked]

and since, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE, they would have no grounds to overturn a marriage ban. How many states have declared their marriage restrictions so far, Ravi? Indeed, you sure do see a path being beaten strait ....

Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights

Amendment Text | Annotations
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[Ravi]

and since, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE, they would have no grounds to overturn a marriage ban. How many states have declared their marriage restrictions so far, Ravi? Indeed, you sure do see a path being beaten strait to scotus with each state whose LEGISLATURE makes a decision, dont you?


no, Ravi, I brought up the interstate commerce clause to illustrate the hokey bullshit that those gifted in legalese use to contort how our governement is supposed to work. Ask Jillian about the joke that is the Interstate Commerce Clause.

You keep thinking that the constitution give us rights. What it does is protect our rights and it only lists those outright that were felt the most important. It doesn't matter if marriage is listed or not.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

You keep thinking that the constitution give us rights. What it does is protect our rights and it only lists those outright that were felt the most important. It doesn't matter if marriage is listed or not.

The Constitution grants us rights:

Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights

Amendment Text | Annotations
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
__________________

oops!!!! the Constitution does not grant rights...it enumerates them

sorry for the confusion

 

[Shogun]

You keep thinking that the constitution give us rights. What it does is protect our rights and it only lists those outright that were felt the most important. It doesn't matter if marriage is listed or not.

ah contraire mofrair


Read the tenth Amendment. Equal protection sprung strait from the 14th and 15 application of racial discrimination. There is NO assumption that "marriage rights" fall under the umbrella of of equal protection outside of laughable stretching akin to the joke that is, again, the application of the interstate commerce clause.

 

[Shogun]

Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights

Amendment Text | Annotations
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

yea, i'm a big fan of the ninth myself...


Try wrapping your brain around the Tenth, now.

 

[Ravi]

NO, all rights are assumed to be ours. The constitution doesn't say we have the right to free speech, rather it says congress shall make no laws to limit it. A subtle, but huge, difference.

 

[Shogun]

The Constitution grants us rights:

Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights

Amendment Text | Annotations
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
__________________

Tenth Amendment

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.


which... AGAIN, brings me back to the farce that is the application of the interstate commerce clause.

 

[Shogun]

NO, all rights are assumed to be ours. The constitution doesn't say we have the right to free speech, rather it says congress shall make no laws to limit it. A subtle, but huge, difference.

im sorry, you are wrong. You do not have the assumed right to jack off in a public swimming pool either. Indeed, by clarifying that congress shall make no law limiting free speech it IS stated that such is your right. The ninth assumes that you have rights outside of those listed in the bill of rights. The tenth clarifies the LIMITATION of the federal gov to step into the legislative preogative of the states... well, until the interstate commerce clause was invented to broaded federal jurisdiction...



You don't have a right to get married, ravi. not with the expectation that the state must observe your nuptuals outside of their LEGISLATED peramiters.


Again, how many states have already declared that marriage is between a man and a woman? Care to venure a guess how this has come to be despite what you think is a federal right to marriage?

 

[AtlasShrieked]

Tenth Amendment

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.


which... AGAIN, brings me back to the farce that is the application of the interstate commerce clause.

ahhhhhh, a great point of interest.

it makes distinctions between the US/Federal government and the governments of the States and even between the people and the State and Federal governments.


very interesting. very interesting indeed

so a civil right not enumerated is a right reserved to the Sates or 'the people'?


.

 

[Ravi]

im sorry, you are wrong. You do not have the assumed right to jack off in a public swimming pool either. Indeed, by clarifying that congress shall make no law limiting free speech it IS stated that such is your right. The ninth assumes that you have rights outside of those listed in the bill of rights. The tenth clarifies the LIMITATION of the federal gov to step into the legislative preogative of the states... well, until the interstate commerce clause was invented to broaded federal jurisdiction...



You don't have a right to get married, ravi. not with the expectation that the state must observe your nuptuals outside of their LEGISLATED peramiters.


Again, how many states have already declared that marriage is between a man and a woman? Care to venure a guess how this has come to be despite what you think is a federal right to marriage?

Your actions in the swimming pool would be violating my rights, numnuts.

SCOTUS disagrees with you. It decided forty or so years ago that marriage is a fundamental right. Allowing gays to marry violates no ones rights, therefore it doesn't equate with you in the pool.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

Shogun, is a civil right not enumerated a right reserved to the Sates or 'the people'?

 

[Shogun]

Your actions in the swimming pool would be violating my rights, numnuts.

SCOTUS disagrees with you. It decided forty or so years ago that marriage is a fundamental right. Allowing gays to marry violates no ones rights, therefore it doesn't equate with you in the pool.

No, it decided that the RACIAL element involved with restricting interracial union violated the specific RACIAL requirment of the 14th amendment. Again, the equal protection clause is not a blank check for any behaviour to be interpreted as a right.

and, jacking off at the public swimming pool could be argues as a FIRST AMENDMENT right, Ravi. But, thankfully, we accept the state's prerogative despite ridiculous interpretations and desperate fabrications, eh?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Gee... I'm so shocked. But I have been saying that all the talk about which candidate is and isn't into guns is irrelevant since the court would decide the issue.

I can't find the Decision online yet... it's not on the Court's website.

But yesterday Bush's Court did decide that their good friends at Exxon weren't responsible for punitive damages in the Exxon Valdiz case.

I think they just lowered the amount from 2.5b to 507m.

 

[Shogun]

Shogun, is a civil right not enumerated a right reserved to the Sates or 'the people'?

marriage is not a civil right. Each state has it's own laws regarding marriage. There is a reason why Vegas marraige laws are night and day from every other state. Again, Im a big fan of the liberty involved with the ninth too. And, I HOPE that gays get to be marriage longer than it takes California to sweep up the turd that blossomed there this summer. But, i'm just not willing to shit on the Constitution in order to "feel good" about policy. This is why I am helping Ravi undertand that the equal protection clause sprung strait out of an actual amendment instead of some assumed liberty despite the tenth amendment.

 

[Ravi]

No, it decided that the RACIAL element involved with restricting interracial union violated the specific RACIAL requirment of the 14th amendment. Again, the equal protection clause is not a blank check for any behaviour to be interpreted as a right.

and, jacking off at the public swimming pool could be argues as a FIRST AMENDMENT right, Ravi. But, thankfully, we accept the state's prerogative despite ridiculous interpretations and desperate fabrications, eh?

Wrong on both counts. Jacking off in the pool isn't a speech issue, it's a public safety issue. Just like smoking in a bar. IF you wish to open a pool for the purpose of getting your jollies and give people the choice to join you then you are welcome to it. Just as I believe a bar owner should be allowed the same regarding smoking. However, both of these actions have the potential of violating someone else's civil rights in a way that gay marriage does not.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Great news.

 

[Ravi]

marriage is not a civil right. Each state has it's own laws regarding marriage. There is a reason why Vegas marraige laws are night and day from every other state. Again, Im a big fan of the liberty involved with the ninth too. And, I HOPE that gays get to be marriage longer than it takes California to sweep up the turd that blossomed there this summer. But, i'm just not willing to shit on the Constitution in order to "feel good" about policy. This is why I am helping Ravi undertand that the equal protection clause sprung strait out of an actual amendment instead of some assumed liberty despite the tenth amendment.

You aren't helping me understand anything. Once again, the constitution does not grant rights. It limits what laws can be passed to deny rights.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

Tenth Amendment

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.


which... AGAIN, brings me back to the farce that is the application of the interstate commerce clause.

any fool can cut & paste an amendment.

but ask them to explain what they mean and ...




...the 9th makes distinctions between the US/Federal government and the governments of the States and even between the people and the State and Federal governments.


very interesting. very interesting indeed

so a civil right not enumerated is a right reserved to the Sates or 'the people'?

 

[Shogun]

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shogun]

Wrong on both counts. Jacking off in the pool isn't a speech issue, it's a public safety issue. Just like smoking in a bar. IF you wish to open a pool for the purpose of getting your jollies and give people the choice to join you then you are welcome to it. Just as I believe a bar owner should be allowed the same regarding smoking. However, both of these actions have the potential of violating someone else's civil rights in a way that gay marriage does not.

Shall I remind you of the specific right ofthe FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION clarified by the first amendment? who are you do deem jacking off in a public pool as socially corrupt or a health issue? are you a doctor?


Hey Ravi, maybe you should spend less time crying over spilled milk and just SAYING im wrong and start posting your evidence...


you know.. Like..


On May 15, 2008 the California DOMA was found unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court as a violation of equal protection; the decision came into effect on June 16, 2008.[3][4] A proposed constitutional amendment overriding the Court's decision has been placed on the 2008 California general election ballot

Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia