ICE suffers triple legal blow within hours

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All will be overturned in the SC

And as usual the reprehensible right attempts to defend the indefensible.

 

[martybegan]

Without the 14th, there would have been no Loving v Virginia

Have you seen me argue against the 14th in general?

My issue is when it gets overextended, like in Obergfell and Morris v Board of Estimates.

 

[postman]

Have you seen me argue against the 14th in general?

My issue is when it gets overextended, like in Obergfell and Morris v Board of Estimates.

As I said, the arguments to overturn Obergefell are the same that supported Scott v Sanford.

 

[westwall]

Very good.

The criminal Trump regime must follow the law.

The criminal regime was YOUR Joey bribem admin you feckless traitor.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

More lefty idiot district judges making up bullshit as they go.

More fodder for the appeals courts.

Just because the racist right hates immigrants of color doesn't justify the Trump regime violating the law.

 

[martybegan]

As I said, the arguments to overturn Obergefell are the same that supported Scott v Sanford.

No, because the Dredd Scott case was before the 14th amendment changed the Constitution.

 

[postman]

No, because the Dredd Scott case was before the 14th amendment changed the Constitution.

But if you think Obergefell was wrongly decided, then using the same arguments, Dredd Scott was rightly decided.

 

[martybegan]

But if you think Obergefell was wrongly decided, then using the same arguments, Dredd Scott was rightly decided.

Nope. I don't believe race and sexuality are the same thing to be treated as such by the Constitution.

Dredd Scott would be invalid due to the 14th amendment as well as the other reconstruction amendments, which answered the question on equality vis a vis race. Which was ignored in Plessey and corrected in Brown. It was also ignored before Loving when Miscegenation laws were allowed.

 

[postman]

Nope. I don't believe race and sexuality are the same thing to be treated as such by the Constitution.

Dredd Scott would be invalid due to the 14th amendment as well as the other reconstruction amendments, which answered the question on equality vis a vis race. Which was ignored in Plessey and corrected in Brown. It was also ignored before Loving when Miscegenation laws were allowed.

Actually Dredd Scott wasn't strictly about race, but on standing under the constitution.

 

[martybegan]

Actually Dredd Scott wasn't strictly about race, but on standing under the constitution.

Based on race and condition of servitude.

Servitude was eliminated by the 13th amendment, and race was eliminated at least for voting by the 15th.

Race was the primary concern of the 14th amendment, it just didn't list it explicitly.

 

[postman]

My issue is when it gets overextended, like in Obergfell and Morris v Board of Estimates.

Morris v Board is interesting in that the 14th extended equal protection to the states, without requiring it of the federal government.

 

[martybegan]

Morris v Board is interesting in that the 14th extended equal protection to the states, without requiring it of the federal government.

it's due to the wording of the 14th amendment, applying it directly to the States.

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.

My argument is that the equal protection issue doesn't mean "one man, one vote" across the board. All States/Cities had a house based on population, as well as one based on geography. The lower population based house covers the one person one vote requirement quite well.

Morris v Board basically made it so large cities can run the entire State they are part of.

 

[Lockback]

Actually the overturning of Obergefell uses the same legal arguments that would have upheld Plessy and Dredd Scott.

Why, of course! Fascism, right??

 

[postman]

Based on race and condition of servitude.

Servitude was eliminated by the 13th amendment, and race was eliminated at least for voting by the 15th.

Race was the primary concern of the 14th amendment, it just didn't list it explicitly.

All persons (using a strangely parsing of the term) 3/5ths counting to determine representation, were denied standing. The 13th only enfranchised those bound in slavery.

 

[martybegan]

All persons (using a strangely parsing of the term) 3/5ths counting to determine representation, were denied standing. The 13th only enfranchised those bound in slavery.

The 3/5th compromise was not about the standing of those counting as 3/5ths, it was a compromise on counting those in slavery to bolster census numbers for the South. The south wanted them to count as full and not vote, the north wanted them to not count at all (and still not vote).

And the 13th just abolished slavery/servitude except for criminal punishment. The 15th enfranchised all citizens regardless of race or previous condition of servitude.

 

[postman]

it's due to the wording of the 14th amendment, applying it directly to the States.



My argument is that the equal protection issue doesn't mean "one man, one vote" across the board. All States/Cities had a house based on population, as well as one based on geography. The lower population based house covers the one person one vote requirement quite well.

Morris v Board basically made it so large cities can run the entire State they are part of.

Re: Morris v Board basically made it so large cities can run the entire State they are part of.

No more so, than the large states decide the presidential election they are part of.

 

[postman]

The 3/5th compromise was not about the standing of those counting as 3/5ths, it was a compromise on counting those in slavery to bolster census numbers for the South. The south wanted them to count as full and not vote, the north wanted them to not count at all (and still not vote).

And the 13th just abolished slavery/servitude except for criminal punishment. The 15th enfranchised all citizens regardless of race or previous condition of servitude.

Those who were counted 3/5ths were outside of the body politic. And excluded from the constitution.

 

[martybegan]

Re: Morris v Board basically made it so large cities can run the entire State they are part of.

No more so, than the large states decide the presidential election they are part of.

The balancing of 2 EV's due to senate seats regardless of population mitigates that condition.

Geographical representation was seen by the founders as a speed brake on mass populations deciding things without regard for divisions between large and small, rural and urban.

 

[martybegan]

Those who were counted 3/5ths were outside of the body politic. And excluded from the constitution.

That wasn't because they were counted as 3/5ths, that condition was due to them being enslaved based on the laws of the individual States in question. the 3/5ths designation was just a consequence of a compromise, it had ZERO impact on those counted under it.

 

[postman]

That wasn't because they were counted as 3/5ths, that condition was due to them being enslaved based on the laws of the individual States in question. the 3/5ths designation was just a consequence of a compromise, it had ZERO impact on those counted under it.

NOPE. Everyone counted 3/5ths was excluded from the constitution.