Lefties & the Constitution

[DGS49]

Lefties refuse to engage in rational dialog on the Constitution.

While that is universally true, it is most easily illustrated in a brief analysis on the death penalty. Lefties abhor the death penalty, and they want it to go away. Unfortunately, the Constitution specifically sanctions the death penalty, twice. The 5th and 14th Amendments both say that one cannot be deprive m of LIFE without due process of law. Hence, one CAN be deprived m of life WITH d up process of law. This is not seriously in dispute.

If the Left wanted to outlaw the death penalty properly, they would have one of their Lefty Congress persons introduce a constitutional amendment to that effect, we could go through the amendment process, and that would be that. But they know that such an amendment would never succeed, and the issue would be put to bed. So what does the Left do? It votes for politicians who will install judges and justices who care not about the Constitution or anything in it. Justices who will simply pretend that the DP is "unconstitutional" even though anyone who can read knows that it is not.

Again, the point is that by using this stratagem they don't have to overtly engage in the argument about whether the death penalty SHOULD be eliminated; the claim is that it already IS off the table because THEY FIND IT "cruel and unusual." But this is also baloney. It is not up to judges to decide what punishments are unacceptable; that's what the state legislatures are for.

This is only one illustration among dozens. Take gay "marriage." They wanted no part of a national conversation on the issue among the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE in Congress. No, they wanted to remove the issue from the American people by claiming that the Constitution somehow DEMANDS this historically unprecedented outrage.

 

[Grandma]

A): You don't know what you're talking about;

B): The death penalty has nothing to do with gay marriage.

 

[Agit8r]

 

[candycorn]

Having your marriage be legal in one state then illegal in another is unconstitutinal. I'm sure you'll have no problem getting other states to believe you're dead.

 

[BULLDOG]

Lefties refuse to engage in rational dialog on the Constitution.

While that is universally true, it is most easily illustrated in a brief analysis on the death penalty. Lefties abhor the death penalty, and they want it to go away. Unfortunately, the Constitution specifically sanctions the death penalty, twice. The 5th and 14th Amendments both say that one cannot be deprive m of LIFE without due process of law. Hence, one CAN be deprived m of life WITH d up process of law. This is not seriously in dispute.

If the Left wanted to outlaw the death penalty properly, they would have one of their Lefty Congress persons introduce a constitutional amendment to that effect, we could go through the amendment process, and that would be that. But they know that such an amendment would never succeed, and the issue would be put to bed. So what does the Left do? It votes for politicians who will install judges and justices who care not about the Constitution or anything in it. Justices who will simply pretend that the DP is "unconstitutional" even though anyone who can read knows that it is not.

Again, the point is that by using this stratagem they don't have to overtly engage in the argument about whether the death penalty SHOULD be eliminated; the claim is that it already IS off the table because THEY FIND IT "cruel and unusual." But this is also baloney. It is not up to judges to decide what punishments are unacceptable; that's what the state legislatures are for.

This is only one illustration among dozens. Take gay "marriage." They wanted no part of a national conversation on the issue among the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE in Congress. No, they wanted to remove the issue from the American people by claiming that the Constitution somehow DEMANDS this historically unprecedented outrage.

I an not aware of any court that has ever found the death penalty to be cruel and unusual. Some methods of execution have been found to be. No matter what method is used, though, it is unconstitutional to put an innocent person to death, and that has been proven to have happened way too many times.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DGS49 SAID:

"Lefties refuse to engage in rational dialog on the Constitution."

This is a lie.

Liberals would be more than happy to engage in a rational dialog concerning the Constitution.

Snag is most on the right refuse to do so – most conservatives refuse to acknowledge settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence, most conservatives refuse to accept the doctrine of judicial review, the interpretive authority of the courts, and the settled and accepted fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

When conservatives are ready to engage in a constructive dialogue with liberals concerning the Constitution, let them know – they’ll be happy to accommodate you.

But clearly that time hasn’t arrived, the thread premise is evidence of that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DGS49 SAID:

“If the Left wanted to outlaw the death penalty properly…”

This fails as a straw man fallacy – ‘the left’ doesn’t want to ‘outlaw’ the death penalty, they consider 8th Amendment jurisprudence settled and accepted, and correctly understand that the states will in time do away with the practice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DGS49 SAID:

“This is only one illustration among dozens. Take gay "marriage." They wanted no part of a national conversation on the issue among the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE in Congress. No, they wanted to remove the issue from the American people by claiming that the Constitution somehow DEMANDS this historically unprecedented outrage.”

This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

The issue concerning same-sex couples accessing state marriage law was a conflict between same-sex couples and their respective states of residence – a matter having nothing whatsoever to do with Congress, a matter not for Congress to address or resolve.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that prohibits the states from engaging in class legislation – such as seeking to disadvantage gay Americans for no other reason than who they are – applies to state and local governments, not the Federal government.

Consequently, Obergefell is the progeny of this settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in; by doing so the states violated the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans.

Last, citizens’ rights are not subject to ‘debate’ or ‘majority rule’; the ‘majority’ has no authority at all to determine who will or will not have his civil rights.

 

[Centinel]

DGS49 SAID:

"Lefties refuse to engage in rational dialog on the Constitution."

This is a lie.

Liberals would be more than happy to engage in a rational dialog concerning the Constitution.

Snag is most on the right refuse to do so – most conservatives refuse to acknowledge settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence, most conservatives refuse to accept the doctrine of judicial review, the interpretive authority of the courts, and the settled and accepted fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

When conservatives are ready to engage in a constructive dialogue with liberals concerning the Constitution, let them know – they’ll be happy to accommodate you.

But clearly that time hasn’t arrived, the thread premise is evidence of that.

...and accepted fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Then how did the states know what they were even ratifying if at that point it didn't even exist?

 

[beagle9]

DGS49 SAID:

“If the Left wanted to outlaw the death penalty properly…”

This fails as a straw man fallacy – ‘the left’ doesn’t want to ‘outlaw’ the death penalty, they consider 8th Amendment jurisprudence settled and accepted, and correctly understand that the states will in time do away with the practice.

. The States will in time do away with the practice eh ? How so do you think that this will come about ? Will it be that the hopes of the left is to someday have enough power in each state in order to do something that is idiotic as doing away with the death penalty ? The left undoubtedy hopes that it someday can destroy any barrier that may be a deterrent towards someone committing horrible atrocious crimes in this nation. We see who the left supports, (the perps instead of the victims of horrible crimes). It is proven time and time again in their rhetoric and compassion for the perps instead of the victims... Look at Fort Hood for example, and how a judge concerned himself with the idea that he should let Hussan wear his beard or to shave. What about the Americans he slaughtered ?

 

[regent]

So this wasn't about the Constitution that was created during the liberal period of Enlightenment in history but was about the death penalty.
Perhaps MacArthur said it best: "For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."

 

[DGS49]

A few further elucidations, if you please...

There really was not much question that LEGAL marriages in any state must be recognized by the other states, or that the Feds must also recognize those marriages, even when they appear to contravene U.S. Law (i.e., DOMA). The question was whether there was (is) something in the Constitution or its amendments that prevent the states from defining "marriage" as a union between two people of the opposite sex. And there is no such principle in the Constitution or its amendments. The equal protection clause requires only that individuals (not couples) be treated equally, and as long as the states imposed the same restriction on everyone (i.e., if you want to get married, it must be to someone of the opposite sex), there is no equal protection issue.

But back to the basic point: the Left largely conducted this campaign through the COURTS, and not with the representatives of the people in the state legislatures - where it belonged. They did this because they knew that aside from a few Leftie states gay marriage would never be adopted nationally.

And this is why the Republicans are taking a more-then-defensible stand on the USSC nomination, as the Left - headed by Barry - seeks to install a majority on the court that considers the manipulation and obfuscation of the Constitution to be a legitimate means of implementing Prog public policies.

 

[Skylar]

A few further elucidations, if you please...

There really was not much question that LEGAL marriages in any state must be recognized by the other states, or that the Feds must also recognize those marriages, even when they appear to contravene U.S. Law (i.e., DOMA). The question was whether there was (is) something in the Constitution or its amendments that prevent the states from defining "marriage" as a union between two people of the opposite sex. And there is no such principle in the Constitution or its amendments.

That would be the due process and equal protection clauses. Both of which are in the 14th amendment.

The equal protection clause requires only that individuals (not couples) be treated equally, and as long as the states imposed the same restriction on everyone (i.e., if you want to get married, it must be to someone of the opposite sex), there is no equal protection issue.

Except that withholding marriage from same sex couples is not treating same sex couples equally. The criteria of exclusion has to be valid. As the courts taught many of the same states when they overturned interracial marriage bans.

But back to the basic point: the Left largely conducted this campaign through the COURTS, and not with the representatives of the people in the state legislatures - where it belonged. They did this because they knew that aside from a few Leftie states gay marriage would never be adopted nationally.

Most of the court cases involve rights. More legislation involves powers. Conservatives predictably prioritize government powers over individual rights. Trying to lift the 10th amendment above the 9th.

And this is why the Republicans are taking a more-then-defensible stand on the USSC nomination, as the Left - headed by Barry - seeks to install a majority on the court that considers the manipulation and obfuscation of the Constitution to be a legitimate means of implementing Prog public policies.

Republicans refusing to even have a hearing isn't 'defensible'. Its their legacy: partisan obstructionism above the business of the nation. They have no plausible narrative now that doesn't involve partisanship over nation. This last tantrum just removed any semblance of plausible deniability.

As if Trump hadn't done that already for the GOP. He commited the unforgivable sin for conservatives: he stated clearly what should only be strongly implied among conservatives.