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.
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
I have to disagree there. Roe V. Wade was the court making a rule. No where is the consitution is there a right to an abortion. The court made crap up, and we are left with the divided results to this day.
In the case of abortion, they pulled a "lucy" on charlie brown by pulling the ball away altogether.
So you would rather have 9 people decide what is a right than an entire coutry via the amendment process?
I don't ask judges to determine was is "right", it's not there job, their job is to determine was is legal (lower courts) and Constitutional (SCOTUS).
Just remember any "right" you win via the courts can be taken away just as easily. With a amendment, not so much.
Depends on the Amendment. Looks like Prop 8 (an amendement) will be struck down as a target removal of rights (although the decision will likely be narrowly tailored to fit California).
As for amendments, they are as easy to repeal as they were to pass. Only take 50% +1 to repeal them (as in State amendments).
How does the 14th apply to the federal government if it specifically calls out the states to provide equal protection?
Section 3 of DOMA was found unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment.
Man, if liberals were this interpretive of the 2nd amendment, we would all be required to have howitzers in our backyards.
Not a liberal. I support 2nd Amendment rights.
>>>>
No one expected Obama to "fight for gay marriage". Although they hope he will choose liberal supreme court justices.
Why do libs lie to themselves? I could give you empirical evidence to the contrary; but I'll just let you lie to yourself. You got your guy. You won the us vs. them election and that's what counts right? Good job.
Barack Obama isn’t exactly famous for his loyalty; he has a history of jettisoning people once they’ve outlived their usefulness to him. This time, it’s 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.”
Here’s 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!
Not a problem with this for three reasons:
1. He's already done more than any other President in our history.
2. At least he's not working against us like Romney would have.
3. It's now in the states and Supreme Court's lap.
You lie to yourself, A. Romney would not have touched you and B. It's always been in the hands of the States, Remember how you asswarps tried to crucify North Carolina for their choice. You really don't believe in choice do you, and thirdly this is lame excuses since he's now dumpted you cause. It was only to get ;himself re elected.. his "evolving" statement should have given you a clue.
Maybe in some states, but we have only had 1 amendment repealed in the history of the US, and that was prohibition, which was one of the dumbest amendments ever written. Repealing a federal amendment is much much harder. People new prohbition stunk 5 years into it, but it took the depression to finally get the backing to get rid of it.
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.
Segregation was against the intent of the amendments, a court CREATED the problem. It took courts AND legislation to solve it.
Its almost like liberals want to get rid of legislatures entirely, and let judges rule us by fiat, like unelected kings, appointed by the wise and mighty obama.
As hard as you try to make this a liberal versus conservative battle you will never get there.
As hard as you try to make this a liberal versus conservative battle you will never get there.
They'll try, because these types don't know what being a Goldwater Conservative really means.
>>>>
Gay marriage will become less and less a party line issue as more gays come out to their conservative friend and family.
Gay marriage will become less and less a line issue as more gays come out to their conservative friend and family.
Obama is a laugh a minute. This second term ought to be a riot
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.
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.
Segregation was against the intent of the amendments, a court CREATED the problem. It took courts AND legislation to solve it.
Its almost like liberals want to get rid of legislatures entirely, and let judges rule us by fiat, like unelected kings, appointed by the wise and mighty obama.
It would be Republican lawyers that have argued the case IN SUPPORT of gay marriage in many cases.
Ted Olson, "gay marriage is a conservative value"
As hard as you try to make this a liberal versus conservative battle you will never get there.
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.
Nine people arent deciding anything.
If states and local jurisdiction simply followed Constitutional case law and refrained from violating their residents civil liberties, there wouldnt be anything for judges and justices to decide.
You make the same mistake as most conservatives: creating this myth of a tyrannical Federal government unilaterally attacking helpless, innocent states; when in fact its residents of those states who are merely seeking relief from the tyranny of the states in Federal court.
The Supreme Court has always had interpretive authority as to what the Constitution means in the context of the doctrine of judicial review; and the courts dont make up rights, they simply acknowledge existing rights and exact greater limitations on governments to restrict those rights.
The 14th Amendment, among other things, requires the states to afford all persons within a state equal protection of the law, absent a compelling, legitimate reason.
A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Romer v. Evans (1996).
Thus a state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its marriage law.
The right to privacy, the right to marry, substantive due process, and incorporation doctrine are all tenets of Constitutional jurisprudence explored and acknowledged as settled law by conservative judges and justices both liberal and conservative jurists of good faith are in agreement. It is only conservative ideologues who object to this accepted and accurate understanding of the Founding Document.
Maybe in some states, but we have only had 1 amendment repealed in the history of the US, and that was prohibition, which was one of the dumbest amendments ever written. Repealing a federal amendment is much much harder. People new prohbition stunk 5 years into it, but it took the depression to finally get the backing to get rid of it.
Since the only amendments that have passed have been at the State level, that's what I assumed you were speaking of. Those passed with 50%+1 and can be repealed in the same way.
Discussing the difficulty in repealing a Federal Amendment limiting States ability to choose to provide for Same-sex Civil Marriage is a little premature. First of all such an amendment would need to pass, since polls show a majority of Americans disfavor such an amendment, which is highly unlikley. Before one would need to be repealed, it would need to be passed.
>>>>
First of all, an amendment is not part of the "founding document", it is an am endment.
And second, again, you may feel marriage by gays is a right, but it is nowhere in the consitution as a right. Its the same as abortion, merely a created "right" thought up by a judge who wished he was a legislator.
No one expected Obama to "fight for gay marriage". Although they hope he will choose liberal supreme court justices.
I am talking about amendments in general. Federal amendments require 2/3 legislature and 3/4 of the states.
I would also vote against any amendment banning gay marriage. Again, I merely object to the free use of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment to basically make anything " a right" just because people like the idea.
