Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Syriusly]

it should always be STATES rights. when you keep allowing this Federal government to encroach on that right. You are allowing for an oppressive and Fascist Fed. government. they are already FOCING you to purchase a product with the little tyrants name attached to it, (OscamCare) and if you don't they WILL FINE you. where is that in their job description of protecting and serving our country from an enemy foreign and domestic?

People better wake up and soon

So if we listened to you States would still be:

• have mixed race marriages illegal
• ban Americans from buying or using contraceptives
• still have racially segregated schools

Oh wait- you probably would be for those 'state's rights'.

 

[Skylar]

I do understand that the US Supreme Court reiterated 56 times in Windsor that the question of the physical structure of marriage should be dismantled by a gamut of alternative lifestyles (that will deprive children in marriage of a father and a mother) which in that case was called "same-sex marriage" was the "unquestioned authority" of the separate states.

.....subject to constitutional guarantees......

Please list how those protect lifestyles repugnant to the majority charged with protection of children who cannot vote? Then list all the possible lifestyles who would have access to this theoretical federal "marriage equality". If you omit any of them, please explain, in great detail, how you would disqualify them.

Article 4, Section 2 is not vague at all;

Of course it is. Note you couldn't answer any of my immediately germane questions regarding it. Does Article 4, section 2 mean that any law made in any state must be recognized in all states? Does it mean that any law applied federally must apply in all states? Which privileges and immunities are being referred to specifically?

And how does this relate to gay marriage? You've never been able to say.

The issue is obviously debatable as demonstrated by 2 centuries of debate on the topic and a litany of different interpretations. You imagine that anyone who disagrees with you must be part of some silly conspiracy. But like your main assertion, you have exactly dick to back any of that up.

....the only Thing vague, is the disingenuous, special pleading (and that form of frivolity in legal venues), of those of the opposing view.

Says you offering us your personal opinion as irrefutable fact. And you're nobody.

You can't carry your argument with evidence, you can't offer a factual rebuttal to the litany of different interpretations of that passage, nor can eve you even explain your own interpretation, or answer the simplest question about the passage.

When you have more than you citing yourself as an infallible legal arbiter, find us.

Nope: never was, never has been, from Inception. Article 4, Section 2 is a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the authority of the United States, should the People have to quibble, with the Judicature upon appeal to the supreme law of the land of the Union.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody. You can't even answer the simplest questions about Article 4, section 2.

When you have more than you citing yourself, assuring us you must be right because you say you are, feel free to show us.

Your claims that there can only be one interpretation of the passage remains disproven by the myriad of interpretations.

 

[Skylar]

it should always be STATES rights. when you keep allowing this Federal government to encroach on that right. You are allowing for an oppressive and Fascist Fed. government. they are already FOCING you to purchase a product with the little tyrants name attached to it, (OscamCare) and if you don't they WILL FINE you. where is that in their job description of protecting and serving our country from an enemy foreign and domestic?

People better wake up and soon

Article 4, Section 2 limits States' rights upon appeal to that body of laws.

Says who?

 

[Skylar]

it should always be STATES rights. when you keep allowing this Federal government to encroach on that right. You are allowing for an oppressive and Fascist Fed. government. they are already FOCING you to purchase a product with the little tyrants name attached to it, (OscamCare) and if you don't they WILL FINE you. where is that in their job description of protecting and serving our country from an enemy foreign and domestic?

People better wake up and soon

States don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. And rights trump powers. Why is it that so many conservatives become wild authoritarians at the state level, insisting that the States should be able to violate any constitutional right held by the people?

 

[danielpalos]

I do understand that the US Supreme Court reiterated 56 times in Windsor that the question of the physical structure of marriage should be dismantled by a gamut of alternative lifestyles (that will deprive children in marriage of a father and a mother) which in that case was called "same-sex marriage" was the "unquestioned authority" of the separate states.

.....subject to constitutional guarantees......

Please list how those protect lifestyles repugnant to the majority charged with protection of children who cannot vote? Then list all the possible lifestyles who would have access to this theoretical federal "marriage equality". If you omit any of them, please explain, in great detail, how you would disqualify them.

Article 4, Section 2 is not vague at all;

Of course it is. Note you couldn't answer any of my immediately germane questions regarding it. Does Article 4, section 2 mean that any law made in any state must be recognized in all states? Does it mean that any law applied federally must apply in all states? Which privileges and immunities are being referred to specifically?

And how does this relate to gay marriage? You've never been able to say.

The issue is obviously debatable as demonstrated by 2 centuries of debate on the topic and a litany of different interpretations. You imagine that anyone who disagrees with you must be part of some silly conspiracy. But like your main assertion, you have exactly dick to back any of that up.

....the only Thing vague, is the disingenuous, special pleading (and that form of frivolity in legal venues), of those of the opposing view.

Says you offering us your personal opinion as irrefutable fact. And you're nobody.

You can't carry your argument with evidence, you can't offer a factual rebuttal to the litany of different interpretations of that passage, nor can eve you even explain your own interpretation, or answer the simplest question about the passage.

When you have more than you citing yourself as an infallible legal arbiter, find us.

Nope: never was, never has been, from Inception. Article 4, Section 2 is a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the authority of the United States, should the People have to quibble, with the Judicature upon appeal to the supreme law of the land of the Union.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody. You can't even answer the simplest questions about Article 4, section 2.

When you have more than you citing yourself, assuring us you must be right because you say you are, feel free to show us.

Your claims that there can only be one interpretation of the passage remains disproven by the myriad of interpretations.

I already did; you merely need a clue and a Cause. All of the other interpretations are mere appeals to ignorance of the law. Article 4, Section 2 says what it means and means what it says; especially in federal venues.

 

[Skylar]

I do understand that the US Supreme Court reiterated 56 times in Windsor that the question of the physical structure of marriage should be dismantled by a gamut of alternative lifestyles (that will deprive children in marriage of a father and a mother) which in that case was called "same-sex marriage" was the "unquestioned authority" of the separate states.

.....subject to constitutional guarantees......

Please list how those protect lifestyles repugnant to the majority charged with protection of children who cannot vote? Then list all the possible lifestyles who would have access to this theoretical federal "marriage equality". If you omit any of them, please explain, in great detail, how you would disqualify them.

Article 4, Section 2 is not vague at all;

Of course it is. Note you couldn't answer any of my immediately germane questions regarding it. Does Article 4, section 2 mean that any law made in any state must be recognized in all states? Does it mean that any law applied federally must apply in all states? Which privileges and immunities are being referred to specifically?

And how does this relate to gay marriage? You've never been able to say.

The issue is obviously debatable as demonstrated by 2 centuries of debate on the topic and a litany of different interpretations. You imagine that anyone who disagrees with you must be part of some silly conspiracy. But like your main assertion, you have exactly dick to back any of that up.

....the only Thing vague, is the disingenuous, special pleading (and that form of frivolity in legal venues), of those of the opposing view.

Says you offering us your personal opinion as irrefutable fact. And you're nobody.

You can't carry your argument with evidence, you can't offer a factual rebuttal to the litany of different interpretations of that passage, nor can eve you even explain your own interpretation, or answer the simplest question about the passage.

When you have more than you citing yourself as an infallible legal arbiter, find us.

Nope: never was, never has been, from Inception. Article 4, Section 2 is a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the authority of the United States, should the People have to quibble, with the Judicature upon appeal to the supreme law of the land of the Union.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody. You can't even answer the simplest questions about Article 4, section 2.

When you have more than you citing yourself, assuring us you must be right because you say you are, feel free to show us.

Your claims that there can only be one interpretation of the passage remains disproven by the myriad of interpretations.

I already did; you merely need a clue and a Cause. All of the other interpretations are mere appeals to ignorance of the law. Article 4, Section 2 says what it means and means what it says; especially in federal venues.

Nope. You simply made up a conspiracy that you could back with nothing. You'll need to factually prove your little piece of batshit for it to actually be a cause. There are a myriad of different interpretations for Article 4, Section 2. This alone disproves your claim that there is only one interepretatiuon possible. There are obviously many. With the court's recognized interpretation being that States aren't allowed to treat citizens from other states any different than they treat their own.

That's it.

You insist that you define what Article 4, Section 2 is supposed to mean. Yet you can't even answer the simplest questions about your personal interpretation, or its relevance to the gay marriage debate.

When you have more than you citing yourself, show us. Until then, you're irrelevant.

 

[danielpalos]

I do understand that the US Supreme Court reiterated 56 times in Windsor that the question of the physical structure of marriage should be dismantled by a gamut of alternative lifestyles (that will deprive children in marriage of a father and a mother) which in that case was called "same-sex marriage" was the "unquestioned authority" of the separate states.

.....subject to constitutional guarantees......

Please list how those protect lifestyles repugnant to the majority charged with protection of children who cannot vote? Then list all the possible lifestyles who would have access to this theoretical federal "marriage equality". If you omit any of them, please explain, in great detail, how you would disqualify them.

Article 4, Section 2 is not vague at all;

Of course it is. Note you couldn't answer any of my immediately germane questions regarding it. Does Article 4, section 2 mean that any law made in any state must be recognized in all states? Does it mean that any law applied federally must apply in all states? Which privileges and immunities are being referred to specifically?

And how does this relate to gay marriage? You've never been able to say.

The issue is obviously debatable as demonstrated by 2 centuries of debate on the topic and a litany of different interpretations. You imagine that anyone who disagrees with you must be part of some silly conspiracy. But like your main assertion, you have exactly dick to back any of that up.

....the only Thing vague, is the disingenuous, special pleading (and that form of frivolity in legal venues), of those of the opposing view.

Says you offering us your personal opinion as irrefutable fact. And you're nobody.

You can't carry your argument with evidence, you can't offer a factual rebuttal to the litany of different interpretations of that passage, nor can eve you even explain your own interpretation, or answer the simplest question about the passage.

When you have more than you citing yourself as an infallible legal arbiter, find us.

Nope: never was, never has been, from Inception. Article 4, Section 2 is a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the authority of the United States, should the People have to quibble, with the Judicature upon appeal to the supreme law of the land of the Union.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody. You can't even answer the simplest questions about Article 4, section 2.

When you have more than you citing yourself, assuring us you must be right because you say you are, feel free to show us.

Your claims that there can only be one interpretation of the passage remains disproven by the myriad of interpretations.

I already did; you merely need a clue and a Cause. All of the other interpretations are mere appeals to ignorance of the law. Article 4, Section 2 says what it means and means what it says; especially in federal venues.

Nope. You simply made up a conspiracy that you could back with nothing. You'll need to factually prove your little piece of batshit for it to actually be a cause. There are a myriad of different interpretations for Article 4, Section 2. This alone disproves your claim that there is only one interepretatiuon possible. There are obviously many. With the court's recognized interpretation being that States aren't allowed to treat citizens from other states any different than they treat their own.

That's it.

You insist that you define what Article 4, Section 2 is supposed to mean. Yet you can't even answer the simplest questions about your personal interpretation, or its relevance to the gay marriage debate.

When you have more than you citing yourself, show us. Until then, you're irrelevant.

What "conspiracy" is that? There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

 

[Silhouette]

What "conspiracy" is that? There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Including the privelege of the blind to drive! And homosexuals to be "mother and father" vital and necessary to the best formative environment for kids!

You cannot violate the base structure of the privelege you are petitioning to enjoy..

 

[Skylar]

What "conspiracy" is that?

This one:

Every, other decision was an appeal to ignorance of the law; probably for political reasons having nothing to do with a moral of Faith in the execution of our own laws. Article 4,Section 2 has Never been Ambiguous, at all. And, our Ninth and Tenth Amendments gainsay your contention.

danielpalos
Post 69

Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You can't back any of that up with evidence. There are clearly more interpretations of Article 4, Section 2 than you admit. And even the one interpretation you do acknowledge, you can't answer the simplest questions about. Nor even tell us how its relevant to gay marriage.

You don't know what you're talking about.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Oh, I'm not ignorant of the court's findings on Article 4, Section 2. You are.

The court has found that this passage means that States must treat citizens of other States the same as they do their own citizens.

If you disagree, explain why. And present your evidence.

 

[mdk]

What "conspiracy" is that? There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Including the privelege of the blind to drive! And homosexuals to be "mother and father" vital and necessary to the best formative environment for kids!

You cannot violate the base structure of the privelege you are petitioning to enjoy..

Maybe if you click your heels next time and say marriage is a privilege it just may come to pass. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

 

[Skylar]

What "conspiracy" is that? There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Including the privelege of the blind to drive! And homosexuals to be "mother and father" vital and necessary to the best formative environment for kids!

You cannot violate the base structure of the privelege you are petitioning to enjoy..

Marriage isn't a privilege. Its a right.

See, this is the part of your process I've never understood. You say marriage is priveledge. The courts recognize it is a right. Why then would they ignore themselves and half a century of legal precedent.....to adopt your personal opinion? Your process doesn't make the slightest sense.

 

[Silhouette]

What "conspiracy" is that? There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Including the privelege of the blind to drive! And homosexuals to be "mother and father" vital and necessary to the best formative environment for kids!

You cannot violate the base structure of the privelege you are petitioning to enjoy..

Marriage isn't a privilege. Its a right.

See, this is the part of your process I've never understood. You say marriage is priveledge. The courts recognize it is a right. Why then would they ignore themselves and half a century of legal precedent.....to adopt your personal opinion? Your process doesn't make the slightest sense.

Nope. Even the Justices called your group out on this one. They said well, 56 times, in Windsor that the definition of weird quirky marriages like close cousins, 13 year olds etc. were up to the separate states: meaning if one state approved them, the others most certainly did not have to. So that blows your false premise right out of the water with a torpedo. They also confronted your attorneys in Windsor/Prop8 2013 Hearing where it was in the Constitution that marriage was listed as a right for homosexuals? The answer to their rhetorical question of course was "nowhere"..

So since it is in fact a qualified privelege, like driving with blind people, homosexuals defy the base structure and each state must decide if that's OK.

I'm about 90% sure, (though we are moving quite rapidly towards fascism in the courts with this LGBT aggression-lobby...hence the 10% doubt), that you will have this made very clear to you in the coming year by the Highest Court.

 

[danielpalos]

I do understand that the US Supreme Court reiterated 56 times in Windsor that the question of the physical structure of marriage should be dismantled by a gamut of alternative lifestyles (that will deprive children in marriage of a father and a mother) which in that case was called "same-sex marriage" was the "unquestioned authority" of the separate states.

.....subject to constitutional guarantees......

Please list how those protect lifestyles repugnant to the majority charged with protection of children who cannot vote? Then list all the possible lifestyles who would have access to this theoretical federal "marriage equality". If you omit any of them, please explain, in great detail, how you would disqualify them.

Article 4, Section 2 is not vague at all;

Of course it is. Note you couldn't answer any of my immediately germane questions regarding it. Does Article 4, section 2 mean that any law made in any state must be recognized in all states? Does it mean that any law applied federally must apply in all states? Which privileges and immunities are being referred to specifically?

And how does this relate to gay marriage? You've never been able to say.

The issue is obviously debatable as demonstrated by 2 centuries of debate on the topic and a litany of different interpretations. You imagine that anyone who disagrees with you must be part of some silly conspiracy. But like your main assertion, you have exactly dick to back any of that up.

....the only Thing vague, is the disingenuous, special pleading (and that form of frivolity in legal venues), of those of the opposing view.

Says you offering us your personal opinion as irrefutable fact. And you're nobody.

You can't carry your argument with evidence, you can't offer a factual rebuttal to the litany of different interpretations of that passage, nor can eve you even explain your own interpretation, or answer the simplest question about the passage.

When you have more than you citing yourself as an infallible legal arbiter, find us.

Nope: never was, never has been, from Inception. Article 4, Section 2 is a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the authority of the United States, should the People have to quibble, with the Judicature upon appeal to the supreme law of the land of the Union.

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody. You can't even answer the simplest questions about Article 4, section 2.

When you have more than you citing yourself, assuring us you must be right because you say you are, feel free to show us.

Your claims that there can only be one interpretation of the passage remains disproven by the myriad of interpretations.

I already did; you merely need a clue and a Cause. All of the other interpretations are mere appeals to ignorance of the law. Article 4, Section 2 says what it means and means what it says; especially in federal venues.

Nope. You simply made up a conspiracy that you could back with nothing. You'll need to factually prove your little piece of batshit for it to actually be a cause. There are a myriad of different interpretations for Article 4, Section 2. This alone disproves your claim that there is only one interepretatiuon possible. There are obviously many. With the court's recognized interpretation being that States aren't allowed to treat citizens from other states any different than they treat their own.

That's it.

You insist that you define what Article 4, Section 2 is supposed to mean. Yet you can't even answer the simplest questions about your personal interpretation, or its relevance to the gay marriage debate.

When you have more than you citing yourself, show us. Until then, you're irrelevant.

dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

What "conspiracy" is that? There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Including the privelege of the blind to drive! And homosexuals to be "mother and father" vital and necessary to the best formative environment for kids!

You cannot violate the base structure of the privelege you are petitioning to enjoy..

Nothing but fallacies of false Cause? This isn't Cuba where you can experiment with Communism to your heart's content. Would a blind person be able to pass a test meant for general safety of the general public, without current science fiction becoming science fact, even on the Peoples' dime.

 

[danielpalos]

What "conspiracy" is that?

This one:

Every, other decision was an appeal to ignorance of the law; probably for political reasons having nothing to do with a moral of Faith in the execution of our own laws. Article 4,Section 2 has Never been Ambiguous, at all. And, our Ninth and Tenth Amendments gainsay your contention.

danielpalos
Post 69

Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You can't back any of that up with evidence. There are clearly more interpretations of Article 4, Section 2 than you admit. And even the one interpretation you do acknowledge, you can't answer the simplest questions about. Nor even tell us how its relevant to gay marriage.

You don't know what you're talking about.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Oh, I'm not ignorant of the court's findings on Article 4, Section 2. You are.

The court has found that this passage means that States must treat citizens of other States the same as they do their own citizens.

If you disagree, explain why. And present your evidence.

The "evidence" is the legal fact of Article 4, Section 2; it means exactly what it says--there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Since Article 4, Section 2 was ratified by the several States, they ceded that formerly sovereign States' right, in writing; upon appeal to that venue of the general government of the Union.

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means. The Federalist Number 40

 

[danielpalos]

What "conspiracy" is that? There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Including the privelege of the blind to drive! And homosexuals to be "mother and father" vital and necessary to the best formative environment for kids!

You cannot violate the base structure of the privelege you are petitioning to enjoy..

Maybe if you click your heels next time and say marriage is a privilege it just may come to pass. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

Marriage is a natural right and purely private Act that is Only commuted public for full faith and credit purposes in our Union.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is a natural right and purely private Act that is Only commuted public for full faith and credit purposes in our Union.

Then in walked the rights of children to marriage....

And that changed the whole ball game. It's like you're discussing a contract with five parties and only hearing arguments from two of them; while the other three have the most vested interest in the contract of all five.

Children thrive best with a role model of their same gender in the home. There is no arguing this and further, the Prince's Trust study proves this. In this next Hearing, the Supreme Court will be forced to look at the welfare not just of some kids caught up in a lacking situation by the adults or adult in their lives, but also the 100s of millions of kids yet to be born in this lab experiment.

Since "parenting" kids with no role model of their gender present half the time is highly experimental (and statistically doomed to failure of the children's best interest and esteem), an absolute rock-bottom MUST is allowing the discreet communities this radical change will affect into time unforeseeable, the RIGHT to vote on whether or not this base structural change to marriage should or should not be allowed.

Anything less is a macabre tyranny, a forced perversion into the heart of American society without its expressed consent. And that violates the core structure of our country, on top of marriage.. Violating the core of things seems to be an ongoing theme with the aggressive group lobbying for these collosal changes without the permission of the governed for them.

 

[danielpalos]

Marriage is a natural right and purely private Act that is Only commuted public for full faith and credit purposes in our Union.

Then in walked the rights of children to marriage....

And that changed the whole ball game. It's like you're discussing a contract with five parties and only hearing arguments from two of them; while the other three have the most vested interest in the contract of all five.

Children thrive best with a role model of their same gender in the home. There is no arguing this and further, the Prince's Trust study proves this. In this next Hearing, the Supreme Court will be forced to look at the welfare not just of some kids caught up in a lacking situation by the adults or adult in their lives, but also the 100s of millions of kids yet to be born in this lab experiment.

Since "parenting" kids with no role model of their gender present half the time is highly experimental (and statistically doomed to failure of the children's best interest and esteem), an absolute rock-bottom MUST is allowing the discreet communities this radical change will affect into time unforeseeable, the RIGHT to vote on whether or not this base structural change to marriage should or should not be allowed.

Anything less is a macabre tyranny, a forced perversion into the heart of American society without its expressed consent. And that violates the core structure of our country, on top of marriage.. Violating the core of things seems to be an ongoing theme with the aggressive group lobbying for these collosal changes without the permission of the governed for them.

How many of them actually got married? Freedom of association is also a natural right.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is a natural right and purely private Act that is Only commuted public for full faith and credit purposes in our Union.

Then in walked the rights of children to marriage....

And that changed the whole ball game. It's like you're discussing a contract with five parties and only hearing arguments from two of them; while the other three have the most vested interest in the contract of all five.

Children thrive best with a role model of their same gender in the home. There is no arguing this and further, the Prince's Trust study proves this. In this next Hearing, the Supreme Court will be forced to look at the welfare not just of some kids caught up in a lacking situation by the adults or adult in their lives, but also the 100s of millions of kids yet to be born in this lab experiment.

Since "parenting" kids with no role model of their gender present half the time is highly experimental (and statistically doomed to failure of the children's best interest and esteem), an absolute rock-bottom MUST is allowing the discreet communities this radical change will affect into time unforeseeable, the RIGHT to vote on whether or not this base structural change to marriage should or should not be allowed.

Anything less is a macabre tyranny, a forced perversion into the heart of American society without its expressed consent. And that violates the core structure of our country, on top of marriage.. Violating the core of things seems to be an ongoing theme with the aggressive group lobbying for these collosal changes without the permission of the governed for them.

How many of them actually got married? Freedom of association is also a natural right.

You think you're being clever, but what you've actually done is underscored my points about kids and marriage.

Your arrogant point of view is apparent. It is "fuck kids, they aren't old enough to challenge this legally". My reply to that is, thanks for your honesty about your regards to a suffering demographic who is impotent to affect conditions for their best shot at life equal to others. Noted for the record.

Unfortunately for you and your ilk, there is someone old enough to advocate for these voiceless parties to the contract. That is the US Supreme Court. I hope they read this post.

 

[danielpalos]

Challenge what legally? In any Case, emancipation is available for those cognizant of their responsibilities as adults. You may be resorting to a fallacy of composition by confusing two separate issues.