Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What does DOMA violate if the 14th amendment is a restriction on the states?
Also, note you have determined a "line" where, in your opinion, equal protection does not apply. All I am doing is moving that line to the opposite side the gay marriage issue.
Once you can move the line on a "right", how much of a right is it? Wouldnt it be better to have it defined via legislation, or if really in favor of it, by amendment? If it is as popular as people say, getting it into various state consitutions should not be an issue. Then you would have a better fight against DOMA on 10th amendment grounds.
I don't believe the 14th amendment is restricted to states
You are welcome to cite any case law saying it doesn't apply to the federal government
Popularity is irrelevant. People should not have the right to vote on what rights others are entitled to have
So you would rather have 9 people decide what is a right than an entire coutry via the amendment process? How oligarchical of you.
Just remember any "right" you win via the courts can be taken away just as easily. With a amendment, not so much.
How does the 14th apply to the federal government if it specifically calls out the states to provide equal protection?
Man, if liberals were this interpretive of the 2nd amendment, we would all be required to have howitzers in our backyards.
Well, those liberal supreme court justices you are hoping for usually love it.
And I said Im hoping for liberal SC justices.... Where?
Considering you want the SC to find for gay marriage under equal protection, I would assume you realize strict constructionists would not decide that way, hence progressive, i.e. "liberal" justices.
Strict constructionists would require an amendment to guarantee the "right" to gay marriage. barring that, they would leave such decsions to legislatures, preferrably state level legislatures.
He doesn't have to fight for it. Its up to the states to decide whether they want it or not.
Geez, isn't it enough that he thinks same sex couples should be able to be married...does he actually have to go beyond the thinking part and fight battles on their behalf??
so NOW the teabag taliban wants to defend gays against obama?
funny how the right turns into 'concern trolls' for the gay community when it suits their agenda to manipulate anothers right to marry..if you would get the fuck out of the bedroom and start legislating something beside vag and gay marriage you might actually get something done.
you only care about gays if you can use them against obama..
and you should know..IF YOU WERENT CREEPIN IN GAY BEDROOMS ACROSS AMERICA AND DEFINING ANOTHER'S MARRIAGE..THIS WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE TO BEGIN WITH.
so fuck anyone 'concern trolling' the gay community. marriage isnt your word or you right to give and take or 'defend' when it suits your fucked up political agenda.
and in fact please do not pretend you defend the gays..it is a detriment to them..but you already knew that, yes?
I am the right and have been defending the rights of EVERYONE, gays included, for the last 20 years.
Quit trying to put a square peg in a round hole, your claims do not apply to the all of "the right".
The 14th amendment was designed to handle racial protection under the law. The use of it for gay marriage is beyond the scope of the intent of the amendment. If you want to use equal protection for that, then why not use it to ban affermative action, and paternity?
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If they wanted this to apply only to the rights of blacks, they could have. As written, it applies to all citizens of the United States.
I know this reply wasn't to me, but...
affermative action is unconstitutional,...
Unconstitutional
Yes, I agree affimrative action laws would be unconstitutional.
polygamy laws are unconsitutional,...
Constitutional
The compelling government treason being that the entire tax code and civil law structure involving Civil Marriage is based on the two person concept. It would be untenable for the government to expand Civil Marriage to single individual being Civilly Married to more than one man or woman because of the complexities of Divorce, Property Division, Inheretance, Child Custody, Taxation and Deductions, etc.
even denying me the use of the marriage tax bracket is unconsitutional.
Constitutional
Married tax bracket applies to two people, as a single person you are not two people. The married brackets require individuals to be Civilly Married and there is no discrimination as those are available to all Civilly Married couples. Well except for Same-sex Civilly Married couples at the federal level, but that is because Section 3 is unConstitutional, not because married tax brackets are unConstitutional.
Professional liscensure laws are unconsitutional,
Constitutional.
There is a compelling government interest, defined at the state level, to ensure that doctors, Psychiatrists, Lawyers, Dentists, Electricians, etc... Meet minimum standards of conduct, education, and training to protect the public.
all because it is not applied "equally"
The requirement isn't that in all cases things must be applied equally, it is that for the government to discriminate there must be a compelling.
Also note the language uses the word "state" hence I Dont see DOMA being overturned, as it is a federal act.
Federal equal protection is embodied in the 5th Amendment which is why in Gill v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. Section 3 of DOMA was found unconstitutional.
So Section 3 has already been found unconstitutional, now we wait to see if the SCOTUS will uphold the ruling or overturn it.
>>>>
I don't believe the 14th amendment is restricted to states
You are welcome to cite any case law saying it doesn't apply to the federal government
Popularity is irrelevant. People should not have the right to vote on what rights others are entitled to have
So you would rather have 9 people decide what is a right than an entire coutry via the amendment process? How oligarchical of you.
Just remember any "right" you win via the courts can be taken away just as easily. With a amendment, not so much.
How does the 14th apply to the federal government if it specifically calls out the states to provide equal protection?
Man, if liberals were this interpretive of the 2nd amendment, we would all be required to have howitzers in our backyards.
Yes, I would rather have 9 people decide
That is the Constitutional system of the United States and it has worked for 235 years
Our Congress is incapable of passing a budget, they are no longer capable of passing a Constitutional Amendment
Barack Obama isnt exactly famous for his loyalty; he has a history of jettisoning people once theyve outlived their usefulness to him. This time, its the gay community.
On Friday, Obama told an MTV audience that he would not fight for gay marriage his second term, intoning that it would be up to future generations of Americans to implement meaningful reform.
Heres the kicker; realizing that some states are now endorsing gay marriage, Obama suddenly became a champion of states rights, asserting, For us to try to legislate federally into this area is probably the wrong way to go.
Obama Won't Fight For Gay Marriage His Second Term
Laughing at liberals all the way!
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If they wanted this to apply only to the rights of blacks, they could have. As written, it applies to all citizens of the United States.
I know this reply wasn't to me, but...
Unconstitutional
Yes, I agree affimrative action laws would be unconstitutional.
Constitutional
The compelling government treason being that the entire tax code and civil law structure involving Civil Marriage is based on the two person concept. It would be untenable for the government to expand Civil Marriage to single individual being Civilly Married to more than one man or woman because of the complexities of Divorce, Property Division, Inheretance, Child Custody, Taxation and Deductions, etc.
Constitutional
Married tax bracket applies to two people, as a single person you are not two people. The married brackets require individuals to be Civilly Married and there is no discrimination as those are available to all Civilly Married couples. Well except for Same-sex Civilly Married couples at the federal level, but that is because Section 3 is unConstitutional, not because married tax brackets are unConstitutional.
Constitutional.
There is a compelling government interest, defined at the state level, to ensure that doctors, Psychiatrists, Lawyers, Dentists, Electricians, etc... Meet minimum standards of conduct, education, and training to protect the public.
The requirement isn't that in all cases things must be applied equally, it is that for the government to discriminate there must be a compelling.
Also note the language uses the word "state" hence I Dont see DOMA being overturned, as it is a federal act.
Federal equal protection is embodied in the 5th Amendment which is why in Gill v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. Section 3 of DOMA was found unconstitutional.
So Section 3 has already been found unconstitutional, now we wait to see if the SCOTUS will uphold the ruling or overturn it.
>>>>
I do appriciate you at least going into your reasoning to apply equal protection, most people just go "equal protection!" and dont back up the reasoning.
My concern is always that relying on the courts to expand established amendment based rights instead of merely clarifying them leads to the situation where the "rights" can be revoked by the same courts at a later date.
If you want something to be a "right" to be recognized by both state and federal governments, it must be quantified in the consitution, and be as explicit as possible.
Rights given by courts to me are not rights, as they are fleeting. States used to have the "right" to segregation, and it was taken away by the same courts 90 years later.
So you would rather have 9 people decide what is a right than an entire coutry via the amendment process?
Just remember any "right" you win via the courts can be taken away just as easily. With a amendment, not so much.
How does the 14th apply to the federal government if it specifically calls out the states to provide equal protection?
Man, if liberals were this interpretive of the 2nd amendment, we would all be required to have howitzers in our backyards.
I know this reply wasn't to me, but...
Unconstitutional
Yes, I agree affimrative action laws would be unconstitutional.
Constitutional
The compelling government treason being that the entire tax code and civil law structure involving Civil Marriage is based on the two person concept. It would be untenable for the government to expand Civil Marriage to single individual being Civilly Married to more than one man or woman because of the complexities of Divorce, Property Division, Inheretance, Child Custody, Taxation and Deductions, etc.
Constitutional
Married tax bracket applies to two people, as a single person you are not two people. The married brackets require individuals to be Civilly Married and there is no discrimination as those are available to all Civilly Married couples. Well except for Same-sex Civilly Married couples at the federal level, but that is because Section 3 is unConstitutional, not because married tax brackets are unConstitutional.
Constitutional.
There is a compelling government interest, defined at the state level, to ensure that doctors, Psychiatrists, Lawyers, Dentists, Electricians, etc... Meet minimum standards of conduct, education, and training to protect the public.
The requirement isn't that in all cases things must be applied equally, it is that for the government to discriminate there must be a compelling.
Federal equal protection is embodied in the 5th Amendment which is why in Gill v. Office of Pers. Mgmt. Section 3 of DOMA was found unconstitutional.
So Section 3 has already been found unconstitutional, now we wait to see if the SCOTUS will uphold the ruling or overturn it.
>>>>
I do appriciate you at least going into your reasoning to apply equal protection, most people just go "equal protection!" and dont back up the reasoning.
My concern is always that relying on the courts to expand established amendment based rights instead of merely clarifying them leads to the situation where the "rights" can be revoked by the same courts at a later date.
If you want something to be a "right" to be recognized by both state and federal governments, it must be quantified in the consitution, and be as explicit as possible.
Rights given by courts to me are not rights, as they are fleeting. States used to have the "right" to segregation, and it was taken away by the same courts 90 years later.
Thank you.
As to the bolded part, I disagree. Rights are not listed in the Constitution nor does it need to "explicitly" define them. The Constitution is not a list of rights, the fundamental concept is that rights exists and need not be listed by the government, that the Constitution is a limiting document of government and not a list of rights.
Which is why the Constitution itself (in the 9th Amendment) specifically says rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution.
BTW - States don't have rights, people have rights. States have powers. ("State Rights" is actually a misnomer for "State Powers".)
>>>>
What does DOMA violate if the 14th amendment is a restriction on the states?
Also, note you have determined a "line" where, in your opinion, equal protection does not apply. All I am doing is moving that line to the opposite side the gay marriage issue.
Once you can move the line on a "right", how much of a right is it? Wouldnt it be better to have it defined via legislation, or if really in favor of it, by amendment? If it is as popular as people say, getting it into various state consitutions should not be an issue. Then you would have a better fight against DOMA on 10th amendment grounds.
I don't believe the 14th amendment is restricted to states
You are welcome to cite any case law saying it doesn't apply to the federal government
Popularity is irrelevant. People should not have the right to vote on what rights others are entitled to have
So you would rather have 9 people decide what is a right than an entire coutry via the amendment process? How oligarchical of you.
Just remember any "right" you win via the courts can be taken away just as easily. With a amendment, not so much.
How does the 14th apply to the federal government if it specifically calls out the states to provide equal protection?
Man, if liberals were this interpretive of the 2nd amendment, we would all be required to have howitzers in our backyards.
So you would rather have 9 people decide what is a right than an entire coutry via the amendment process? How oligarchical of you.
Just remember any "right" you win via the courts can be taken away just as easily. With a amendment, not so much.
How does the 14th apply to the federal government if it specifically calls out the states to provide equal protection?
Man, if liberals were this interpretive of the 2nd amendment, we would all be required to have howitzers in our backyards.
Yes, I would rather have 9 people decide
That is the Constitutional system of the United States and it has worked for 235 years
Our Congress is incapable of passing a budget, they are no longer capable of passing a Constitutional Amendment
I dont agree. The courts are taking powers that were devolved to the legislatures. Basically you are allowing federally appointed people to make your laws for you. We might as well have a nobility at that point, because that is what we are creating.
You dont see a problem with one branch of the government trumping another? Even worse its the very branch that is supposed to be the referee in the situation. Its like allowing a football ref to decide its now 12 yards for a 1st down instead of 10.
The 14th amendment was about equal protection under the law for ALL Americans, not just limited to racial differences.It is not gay marriage that will not please me, its the courts deciding the issue. This should be handled via amendment or the legislatures, federal or state.
We already have an Amendment, the 14th Amendment. It is up to the courts to define the scope
Individual rights should not be decided by popular vote nor by individual states
We already saw that prior to the Civil War
The 14th amendment was designed to handle racial protection under the law. The use of it for gay marriage is beyond the scope of the intent of the amendment. If you want to use equal protection for that, then why not use it to ban affermative action, and paternity?
I do appriciate you at least going into your reasoning to apply equal protection, most people just go "equal protection!" and dont back up the reasoning.
My concern is always that relying on the courts to expand established amendment based rights instead of merely clarifying them leads to the situation where the "rights" can be revoked by the same courts at a later date.
If you want something to be a "right" to be recognized by both state and federal governments, it must be quantified in the consitution, and be as explicit as possible.
Rights given by courts to me are not rights, as they are fleeting. States used to have the "right" to segregation, and it was taken away by the same courts 90 years later.
Thank you.
As to the bolded part, I disagree. Rights are not listed in the Constitution nor does it need to "explicitly" define them. The Constitution is not a list of rights, the fundamental concept is that rights exists and need not be listed by the government, that the Constitution is a limiting document of government and not a list of rights.
Which is why the Constitution itself (in the 9th Amendment) specifically says rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution.
BTW - States don't have rights, people have rights. States have powers. ("State Rights" is actually a misnomer for "State Powers".)
>>>>
The constitution, via the bill of rights, is how we enumerate rights granted by the consitution. There may be others, but they are up to (or should be) up to the whims of the people via the legislature. One may claim the "right" to murder people, but unless everyone else recognizes that right in a legal manner, it is not so.
The only real way to assure a right, or at least make it difficult to remove, is to enumerate it in the consitution, even then bad courts can squash them for a time, as seen with segregation.
Yes, I would rather have 9 people decide
That is the Constitutional system of the United States and it has worked for 235 years
Our Congress is incapable of passing a budget, they are no longer capable of passing a Constitutional Amendment
I dont agree. The courts are taking powers that were devolved to the legislatures. Basically you are allowing federally appointed people to make your laws for you. We might as well have a nobility at that point, because that is what we are creating.
You dont see a problem with one branch of the government trumping another? Even worse its the very branch that is supposed to be the referee in the situation. Its like allowing a football ref to decide its now 12 yards for a 1st down instead of 10.
It is our system of checks and balances. It has worked for 235 years
Our supreme court does act like referees. They do not make the rules but they are the ones who spot the ball
The 14th amendment was about equal protection under the law for ALL Americans, not just limited to racial differences.We already have an Amendment, the 14th Amendment. It is up to the courts to define the scope
Individual rights should not be decided by popular vote nor by individual states
We already saw that prior to the Civil War
The 14th amendment was designed to handle racial protection under the law. The use of it for gay marriage is beyond the scope of the intent of the amendment. If you want to use equal protection for that, then why not use it to ban affermative action, and paternity?
I don't believe the 14th amendment is restricted to states
You are welcome to cite any case law saying it doesn't apply to the federal government
Popularity is irrelevant. People should not have the right to vote on what rights others are entitled to have
So you would rather have 9 people decide what is a right than an entire coutry via the amendment process? How oligarchical of you.
Just remember any "right" you win via the courts can be taken away just as easily. With a amendment, not so much.
How does the 14th apply to the federal government if it specifically calls out the states to provide equal protection?
Man, if liberals were this interpretive of the 2nd amendment, we would all be required to have howitzers in our backyards.
Majority rule is mob rule.
The majority wanted segregation.
Supreme Court interprets The Constitution.
If you do not like that then move to a country that has majority, mob rule.
We don't.
Nothing about liberals, THE LAW.
