Steerpike
VIP Member
- Dec 17, 2007
- 1,847
- 182
- 83
True enough. But we can't, constitutionally, vote to deny someone's civil rights.
You can if what you're voting in is a Constitutional amendment.
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.
True enough. But we can't, constitutionally, vote to deny someone's civil rights.
But that illustrates my point EXACTLY. Prohibition DID happen. It DID become a matter voted on and it WAS passed. Later, it was repealed, which should convey the fluid nature of our Amendment process, but to say that gays ARE included as a discriminated class when they clearly are not won't keep CA from voting with the rest of the states this fall.
And no, It would not violate the Federal Constitution until gays have their version of the 14th Amendment OR are added to the list of protected statuses.
I love how you just have to talk shit at the end too, Jill. Do I strike you as the GOD type? And, since I've posted more evience than you have maybe you'd like to amend your little Play theory.
They do have a right to vote to amend their state constitution, but not, I think, on an issue that deals with civil rights.
I honestly don't think we need a flame zone poll on the subject, I'm pretty sure everyone can see that you have a lot of trouble with the written word.
If you'd stop ranting and raving, you'd see that my opinion (and I only posed it as an opinion) is that the Constitution shouldn't be used to abridge individual rights because that's counter to it's purpose.
Even you should be able to understand that.
As for your professed constitutional analysis... thanks anyway.
Sure they can. So long as you keep in mind the Federal Constitution trumps. State can have Constitutions that afford greater protections than the federal Constitution (the federal Constitution defining a minimum in that regard). The States are then free to amend their Constitutions to restrict civil rights so long as they don't go beyond the minimum guarantees of the Federal Constitution. Then, if people want to go further, they'd have to amend the federal Constitution.
Sure they can. So long as you keep in mind the Federal Constitution trumps. State can have Constitutions that afford greater protections than the federal Constitution (the federal Constitution defining a minimum in that regard). The States are then free to amend their Constitutions to restrict civil rights so long as they don't go beyond the minimum guarantees of the Federal Constitution. Then, if people want to go further, they'd have to amend the federal Constitution.
You don't know what evidence is. It isn't "evidence" if you misrepresent it... you know, like your article that you pretended said that women were using child support to pay the cable bill.
When you misrepresent, what you say is garbage.
And, frankly, your whole out-screaming anyone who disagrees with the person who thinks he has a constitutional right to smoke in a restuarant is getting a little old.
Hey, Shogie baby, read that ^^^^
now THAT is the standard for your little vote.
See, honey, some people get it right.
He's stated exactly what i've posted all along, jill. Without a Federal amendment otherwise states ARE FREE to vote to restrict gay marriage. Im really starting to question your credentials.
Do you know that "sure they can" means in light of Ravi's opinion or should I make a farce of your legal background some more?
Okay, physically they can. But it will be struck down because it is unconstitutional at the federal level. Therefore, the vote isn't valid.Sure they can. So long as you keep in mind the Federal Constitution trumps. State can have Constitutions that afford greater protections than the federal Constitution (the federal Constitution defining a minimum in that regard). The States are then free to amend their Constitutions to restrict civil rights so long as they don't go beyond the minimum guarantees of the Federal Constitution. Then, if people want to go further, they'd have to amend the federal Constitution.
Good point!Actually we could if we passed an amendment to that effect, Not that I in anyway want that.
Our constitution once made Slavery perfectly legal and even declared Slaves to equal 3/5th of a person. Sad but true.
Just saying.
Okay, physically they can. But it will be struck down because it is unconstitutional at the federal level. Therefore, the vote isn't valid.
No he hasn't. You make the assumption that there has to be some specific constitional provision applying to gays.
There isn't... the constitution very intentionally DOESN'T define every right... that's why we need SMART justices who understand that they actually have to think to decide these cases.
Keep on trying....
Whether it's is found unconstitutional at the federal level depends on what judges the next president appoints... and that's the honest truth. It might be under the current configuration or if it stays a split court (which it should) but not a chance if the loonies that Parsley and Hagee would want get put on the bench.
Okay, physically they can. But it will be struck down because it is unconstitutional at the federal level. Therefore, the vote isn't valid.
Okay, physically they can. But it will be struck down because it is unconstitutional at the federal level. Therefore, the vote isn't valid.