Should an unelected Supreme Court overturn a State constitution as 'unconstitutional'? (Missouri)

[Bush92]

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

Equal protection of the laws does not apply to a sexual preference.

It applies to Citizens.

Not their sexual proclivity.

what part of behavior, is not the citizen?

Hmmmmmm, in my civics class and in all my poli sci classes, I never once heard that being a responsible citizen extends to sexual preference. Especially with regards to the will of the people as per a state proposition.

 

[Bush92]

14th Amendment needs to be negated completely. Example of liberals ruining our society.

 

[danielpalos]

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

Equal protection of the laws does not apply to a sexual preference.

It applies to Citizens.

Not their sexual proclivity.

what part of behavior, is not the citizen?

Hmmmmmm, in my civics class and in all my poli sci classes, I never once heard that being a responsible citizen extends to sexual preference. Especially with regards to the will of the people as per a state proposition.

You should have paid more attention:

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

 

[martybegan]

That depends....the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land....does the State Constitution violate the rights of the individual citizens..or the Bill of Rights?

Many states and cities are violating the 2nd Amendment Rights of their citizens..so I imagine you support the Supreme Court over turning their state laws on this even if they are in their constitution...right?

If the Supreme Court does in fact over turn state laws- or provisions of the State Constitution- because they are unconstitutional- yes I do support that- in general.

I don't always agree with the Supreme Courts ruling- but I agree that they have the authority to overturn an unconstitutional state law or constitution.

I am sure we both are able to find Supreme Court rulings that we disagree with- but do you agree with me that the Supreme Court has the authority to make those determinations?

Actually, no. They assumed that power in Marbury v. Madison and there needs to be a check on that power....9, unelected, politically appointed lawyers should not have the only say on what is or is not Constitutional.

So when the Supreme Court overturns a state gun law as being unconstitutional- you of course object that the Supreme Court has no authority to do so.

And of course you reject Citizen's United for the same reason.

RKBA is explicit in the constitution, The 1st amendment only prevents congress from establishing a religion. State Religions were actually allowed prior to incorporation under the 14th amendment.

There is also a difference in that RKBA is an individual right, and the establishment clause is really a direct limitation on government.

So you do agree that the Supreme Court is the body that determines whether a law is constitutional or not.

it is the body that does it, however it has been doing it wrongly in a lot of instances the past 4 decades or so.

 

[Syriusly]

If the Supreme Court does in fact over turn state laws- or provisions of the State Constitution- because they are unconstitutional- yes I do support that- in general.

I don't always agree with the Supreme Courts ruling- but I agree that they have the authority to overturn an unconstitutional state law or constitution.

I am sure we both are able to find Supreme Court rulings that we disagree with- but do you agree with me that the Supreme Court has the authority to make those determinations?

Actually, no. They assumed that power in Marbury v. Madison and there needs to be a check on that power....9, unelected, politically appointed lawyers should not have the only say on what is or is not Constitutional.

So when the Supreme Court overturns a state gun law as being unconstitutional- you of course object that the Supreme Court has no authority to do so.

And of course you reject Citizen's United for the same reason.

RKBA is explicit in the constitution, The 1st amendment only prevents congress from establishing a religion. State Religions were actually allowed prior to incorporation under the 14th amendment.

There is also a difference in that RKBA is an individual right, and the establishment clause is really a direct limitation on government.

So you do agree that the Supreme Court is the body that determines whether a law is constitutional or not.

it is the body that does it, however it has been doing it wrongly in a lot of instances the past 4 decades or so.

Well there we agree.

We just disagree on which cases the Supreme Court was wrong about.

Which is okay- if we had no disagreement on which cases the Supreme Court got wrong, considering the disparity in our political points of view, that would probably indicate a court which was completely off the rails.

 

[Syriusly]

14th Amendment needs to be negated completely. Example of liberals ruining our society.

LOL.

And by liberals- you mean the Republicans who passed the 14th Amendment.

But by all means- please have the modern GOP step up to openly repudiating its past leadership in turning around racial discrimination in America.

 

[Syriusly]

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

Equal protection of the laws does not apply to a sexual preference.

It applies to Citizens.

Not their sexual proclivity.

what part of behavior, is not the citizen?

Hmmmmmm, in my civics class and in all my poli sci classes, I never once heard that being a responsible citizen extends to sexual preference. Especially with regards to the will of the people as per a state proposition.

Clearly you only want 'equal protection' for citizens of the "correct" sexual preference.

 

[Syriusly]

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

They had the same protections of everyone of their gender to begin with, there was no discrimination.

There was no discrimination against gays? This is the most willfully stupid thing I've heard this month, and that is saying a lot considering I'm conversing with LaDexter right now.

Faghadist marriage was illegal at the time the 14th was ratified and time didn't change the 14th, 5 fucked up judges did. No where in the Constitution does it give judges the power to engage in social engineering.

Wow. Another one who is ignorant of constitutional law.

Hey, you know what else wasn't legal at the time the 14th was ratified? Income tax breaks for married people.

You dumb shits have never caught on that the whole gay marriage issue is about government gifts. Gays want the same protections of the laws which give out these gifts that are given to every other marriage.

Equal. Protection. Of. The. Laws.

That's it.

If the government enacted a law which gave out lollipops to every citizen in good standing "except faghadists", it would be in violation of equal protection of the laws.

If the government didn't give out gifts and protections to marriages, the gay marriage thing wouldn't even be an issue.

You are making the exact same arguments the bigots against interracial marriages made, by the way.

Your gay. We get it and nobody gives a ****. Back to the closet with you.

Your a homophobic bigot. And pissed off that you and 5 of your bravest friends can no longer go out and find some wimpy looking guy walking alone to bravely beat up. We get it and nobody gives a **** that you are pissed off that gays are out of the closet.

 

[g5000]

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

They had the same protections of everyone of their gender to begin with, there was no discrimination.

There was no discrimination against gays? This is the most willfully stupid thing I've heard this month, and that is saying a lot considering I'm conversing with LaDexter right now.

Faghadist marriage was illegal at the time the 14th was ratified and time didn't change the 14th, 5 fucked up judges did. No where in the Constitution does it give judges the power to engage in social engineering.

Wow. Another one who is ignorant of constitutional law.

Hey, you know what else wasn't legal at the time the 14th was ratified? Income tax breaks for married people.

You dumb shits have never caught on that the whole gay marriage issue is about government gifts. Gays want the same protections of the laws which give out these gifts that are given to every other marriage.

Equal. Protection. Of. The. Laws.

That's it.

If the government enacted a law which gave out lollipops to every citizen in good standing "except faghadists", it would be in violation of equal protection of the laws.

If the government didn't give out gifts and protections to marriages, the gay marriage thing wouldn't even be an issue.

You are making the exact same arguments the bigots against interracial marriages made, by the way.

Your gay. We get it and nobody gives a ****. Back to the closet with you.

You actually just made the "he must be a ***" argument! BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA! You're the kind of guy who thinks women who turn you down must be lesbians.

You are intellectually bankrupt and just went down in flames, retard.

 

[Syriusly]

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

They had the same protections of everyone of their gender to begin with, there was no discrimination. Faghadist marriage was illegal at the time the 14th was ratified and time didn't change the 14th, 5 fucked up judges did. No where in the Constitution does it give judges the power to engage in social engineering.

According to Justice Texas of course.

There were no laws against same gender marriage when the 14th Amendment was enacted.

Those laws were put in place by in the 1990's- who suddenly realized that there were no actual laws against same gender marriage.

So you rushed out to make them illegal.

Because you wanted to deny equal rights to same gender couples.

5 wise judges overturned your fucked up bigoted laws.

Right, that why your beloved W. J. Clinton signed the defense of marriage act. Also your dear leader and the hildabitch once held the opinion that marriage was between one man and one woman. They only change their mind for political expedience..

And meanwhile of course your dear leader- Herr Trump- changed his mind about gay marriage for political expedience- just as he changed his mind on abortion- and single payer health insurance.

 

[Syriusly]

Ah. So you are for the Constitution when it is convenient. Check.

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

They had the same protections of everyone of their gender to begin with, there was no discrimination.

There was no discrimination against gays? This is the most willfully stupid thing I've heard this month, and that is saying a lot considering I'm conversing with LaDexter right now.

Faghadist marriage was illegal at the time the 14th was ratified and time didn't change the 14th, 5 fucked up judges did. No where in the Constitution does it give judges the power to engage in social engineering.

Wow. Another one who is ignorant of constitutional law.

Hey, you know what else wasn't legal at the time the 14th was ratified? Income tax breaks for married people.

You dumb shits have never caught on that the whole gay marriage issue is about government gifts. Gays want the same protections of the laws which give out these gifts that are given to every other marriage.

Equal. Protection. Of. The. Laws.

That's it.

If the government enacted a law which gave out lollipops to every citizen in good standing "except faghadists", it would be in violation of equal protection of the laws.

If the government didn't give out gifts and protections to marriages, the gay marriage thing wouldn't even be an issue.

You are making the exact same arguments the bigots against interracial marriages made, by the way.

Faghadist had the same rights as anyone of their gender, they could marry any consenting adult of the opposite sex just like everyone else, so there was no discrimination when they are treated just like everyone. .

I don't know who 'Faghadists' are- are they like Trumpnazi's?

But gay Americans didn't have the same rights as everyone else- because Conservatives like yourself had passed laws giving Big Brother the power to decide what kind of sexual intercourse Americans were allowed to have.

It wasn't until the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas that your granting Big Brother permission to regulate private consensual sex between adults was reversed- that not it stopped some governments from trying to continue to enforce those laws for a few years afterwards.

Regarding marriage- yeah- gay Americans had the same marriage rights- in the same way that black Americans had the same marriage rights.

Gay Americans were free to marry anyone they wanted- so long as they were the opposite sex.
Black Americans were free to marry anyone they wanted- so long as they were the same race.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I don't want my tax dollars going to any religious organizations. Same as I don't want to fund pp

 

[OKTexas]

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

They had the same protections of everyone of their gender to begin with, there was no discrimination. Faghadist marriage was illegal at the time the 14th was ratified and time didn't change the 14th, 5 fucked up judges did. No where in the Constitution does it give judges the power to engage in social engineering.

According to Justice Texas of course.

There were no laws against same gender marriage when the 14th Amendment was enacted.

Those laws were put in place by in the 1990's- who suddenly realized that there were no actual laws against same gender marriage.

So you rushed out to make them illegal.

Because you wanted to deny equal rights to same gender couples.

5 wise judges overturned your fucked up bigoted laws.

Right, that why your beloved W. J. Clinton signed the defense of marriage act. Also your dear leader and the hildabitch once held the opinion that marriage was between one man and one woman. They only change their mind for political expedience..

And meanwhile of course your dear leader- Herr Trump- changed his mind about gay marriage for political expedience- just as he changed his mind on abortion- and single payer health insurance.

Honestly I don't really give a shit what opinion anyone holds on those 3 topics, none are federal functions and should be left to the States as the founders intended. I've already posted numerous times what they said on the topics.

 

[OKTexas]

I am for the Constitution always...that includes the Presidential oath to protect every man woman and child in the United States.

No, you just plainly said you don't like the Constitution when it allows gays to marry.

So when "equal protection of the laws" hurts your feelings, you DON'T love the Constitution.

They had the same protections of everyone of their gender to begin with, there was no discrimination.

There was no discrimination against gays? This is the most willfully stupid thing I've heard this month, and that is saying a lot considering I'm conversing with LaDexter right now.

Faghadist marriage was illegal at the time the 14th was ratified and time didn't change the 14th, 5 fucked up judges did. No where in the Constitution does it give judges the power to engage in social engineering.

Wow. Another one who is ignorant of constitutional law.

Hey, you know what else wasn't legal at the time the 14th was ratified? Income tax breaks for married people.

You dumb shits have never caught on that the whole gay marriage issue is about government gifts. Gays want the same protections of the laws which give out these gifts that are given to every other marriage.

Equal. Protection. Of. The. Laws.

That's it.

If the government enacted a law which gave out lollipops to every citizen in good standing "except faghadists", it would be in violation of equal protection of the laws.

If the government didn't give out gifts and protections to marriages, the gay marriage thing wouldn't even be an issue.

You are making the exact same arguments the bigots against interracial marriages made, by the way.

Faghadist had the same rights as anyone of their gender, they could marry any consenting adult of the opposite sex just like everyone else, so there was no discrimination when they are treated just like everyone. .

I don't know who 'Faghadists' are- are they like Trumpnazi's?

But gay Americans didn't have the same rights as everyone else- because Conservatives like yourself had passed laws giving Big Brother the power to decide what kind of sexual intercourse Americans were allowed to have.

It wasn't until the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas that your granting Big Brother permission to regulate private consensual sex between adults was reversed- that not it stopped some governments from trying to continue to enforce those laws for a few years afterwards.

Regarding marriage- yeah- gay Americans had the same marriage rights- in the same way that black Americans had the same marriage rights.

Gay Americans were free to marry anyone they wanted- so long as they were the opposite sex.
Black Americans were free to marry anyone they wanted- so long as they were the same race.

Still don't know the difference between genetics and behavior I see. Genetics say all races have 2 genders, male and female, there was no racial or gender discrimination in banning faghadist marriage. Everyone had the same rights, it's just that simple. And because there was no race or gender discrimination the feds had no say in the matter.

 

[meaner gene]

Honestly I don't really give a shit what opinion anyone holds on those 3 topics, none are federal functions and should be left to the States as the founders intended. I've already posted numerous times what they said on the topics.

The founding fathers also intended that gun rights to be a state issue as well. Hence the "well regulated militia" preface to the 2nd amendment. It was never intended to be a right of the people, but a right of the states to give to the people.

Do you still believe all those things should be left to the states?

 

[meaner gene]

Genetics say all races have 2 genders, male and female, .

Actually mother nature can be quite cruel. With several different chromosomal genders, including XX, XY, xY, Xx ,XYY

 

[OKTexas]

Honestly I don't really give a shit what opinion anyone holds on those 3 topics, none are federal functions and should be left to the States as the founders intended. I've already posted numerous times what they said on the topics.

The founding fathers also intended that gun rights to be a state issue as well. Hence the "well regulated militia" preface to the 2nd amendment. It was never intended to be a right of the people, but a right of the states to give to the people.

Do you still believe all those things should be left to the states?

Wrong answer, having a well regulated militia to maintain a free State, is a State power, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual power/right. The founders were very careful not to use any distinguishing terms interchangeably.

 

[meaner gene]

Wrong answer, having a well regulated militia to maintain a free State, is a State power, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual power/right. The founders were very careful not to use any distinguishing terms interchangeably.

The 2nd amendment is a single sentence long.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You can't just ignore the parts you don't like. Scalia was wrong to imply the right was an individual right, and had nothing to do with the states.

 

[OKTexas]

Genetics say all races have 2 genders, male and female, .

Actually mother nature can be quite cruel. With several different chromosomal genders, including XX, XY, xY, Xx ,XYY

Birth defects are anomalies, but you already knew that. Run along child, your pathetic argument is too weak.

 

[meaner gene]

Birth defects are anomalies, but you already knew that. Run along child, your pathetic argument is too weak.

We were all born dark skinned short people in Africa. Lack of melanin was a birth defect.