BREAKING: FBI Arrests 87-Year-Old Concentration Camp Survivor for Singing Hymns Outside Abortion Clinic Door

[Curried Goats]

The Constitution is not legislation, it's the Constitution. Legislation is created under it's rules by the legislature.

Who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment? Elves?

Obergfell was based on flawed logic, just like Plessey and Roe.

More like Roe, as it assumed substantive due process, which is a bullshit legal concept.

Is bullshit legal concept the best rationale you have?

 

[martybegan]

Who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment? Elves?

Is bullshit legal concept the best rationale you have?

Well it wasn't ratified under itself, it was setup under the Articles and sent to the States.

It's not legislation per se as it is a Constitution, which explains how legislation is approved.

I figured Jiggery Pokery was already said about Substantive Due Process.

 

[Marener]

your Scalia hatred is telling. I lean toward Strict Construction, but not as much as him or Thomas.

And your assumptions on him would be wrong.

My assumptions are based on his dissents. His own description of his political philosophy.

All it takes to overturn Loving is for some shit bags to claim that interracial marriage bans aren’t about race.

 

[martybegan]

My assumptions are based on his dissents. His own description of his political philosophy.

All it takes to overturn Loving is for some shit bags to claim that interracial marriage bans aren’t about race.

Again, the 14th amendment was directly targeted on Race, so I doubt Scalia or Thomas would have issues with it.

SSM is a new concept, less than 2 decades old. That would be a strict constructionists issue with it, and thus my issue.

 

[Curried Goats]

Well it wasn't ratified under itself, it was setup under the Articles and sent to the States.

State legislators, right?

It's not legislation per se as it is a Constitution, which explains how legislation is approved.

Per se? Is a Constitution?

I figured Jiggery Pokery was already said about Substantive Due Process.

Got it.

 

[martybegan]

State legislators, right?

Per se? Is a Constitution?

Got it.

Or constitutional convention, depending on the State.

Yes, and it give the rules for Legislation.

 

[pknopp]

SSM is a new concept, less than 2 decades old. That would be a strict constructionists issue with it, and thus my issue.

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.

 

[Curried Goats]

Or constitutional convention, depending on the State.

Yes, and it give the rules for Legislation.

And how are amendments different intellectually from legislation? In fact you seem to be fine with the 14 Amendment (not legislation according to you) protecting interracial marriage.

 

[Marener]

Again, the 14th amendment was directly targeted on Race, so I doubt Scalia or Thomas would have issues with it.

SSM is a new concept, less than 2 decades old. That would be a strict constructionists issue with it, and thus my issue.

As a strict construction kind of guy, maybe you noticed that the equal protection clause doesn’t mention race.

I don’t think you’re a strict constructionist at all because the “concept” of same sex marriage being less than 2 decades old (even if that were true) is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what the text says.

You’re more of an originalist.

Scalia would have never voted for Loving. Interracial marriage bans were present at the origin of the nation and unbroken through our history. By his own admission, the equal protection clause doesn’t apply.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The thing is SSM isn't equal to hetero marriage, unless a legislature says it is.

 

[martybegan]

And how are amendments different intellectually from legislation? In fact you seem to be fine with the 14 Amendment (not legislation according to you) protecting interracial marriage.

Legislation creates the amendments, incorporation is via actions of the States, and their legislation.

Yes, because race doesn't intrinsically change anything in a marriage contract. Sexuality does.

 

[martybegan]

As a strict construction kind of guy, maybe you noticed that the equal protection clause doesn’t mention race.

I don’t think you’re a strict constructionist at all because the “concept” of same sex marriage being less than 2 decades old (even if that were true) is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what the text says.

You’re more of an originalist.

Scalia would have never voted for Loving. Interracial marriage bans were present at the origin of the nation and unbroken through our history. By his own admission, the equal protection clause doesn’t apply.

The intent of all the Reconstruction Amendments was race. That is cold hard fact.

 

[pknopp]

The thing is SSM isn't equal to hetero marriage, unless a legislature says it is.

Lame excuse............you give yourself and your arguments away.

 

[martybegan]

Lame excuse............you give yourself and your arguments away.

Not an excuse, just reality. For as radical a change as SSM is, it has to be done via the legislature. This isn't a right that was taken away, it's a brand new concept that radically changes how marriages are considered.

 

[pknopp]

Not an excuse, just reality. For as radical a change as SSM is, it has to be done via the legislature. This isn't a right that was taken away, it's a brand new concept that radically changes how marriages are considered.

You say it is radical, I say it was long a violation of the Constitution's equal protection.

 

[Curried Goats]

Legislation creates the amendments, incorporation is via actions of the States, and their legislation.

Yes, because race doesn't intrinsically change anything in a marriage contract. Sexuality does.

What are you suggesting is intrinsically changed?

 

[martybegan]

You say it is radical, I say it was long a violation of the Constitution's equal protection.

How can it be a long violation when it's an entirely new concept?

 

[Marener]

The intent of all the Reconstruction Amendments was race. That is cold hard fact.

That’s not strict constructionism. That’s originalism.

A constructionist would say that if they wanted equal protection to only apply to race, they would have said so.

You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

Don’t tell me you believe the authors of the reconstruction amendments were still racist as shit. They were. Claiming they intended interracial marriage to be banned by the 14th amendment is ******* stupid.

 

[martybegan]

What are you suggesting is intrinsically changed?

Try plugging a male socket into a male socket or a female socket into a female socket and get back to me on that.

Race doesn't change the plumbing, sexuality does in this case.

 

[pknopp]

How can it be a long violation when it's an entirely new concept?

It's been around since people have been around.