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.
Once again, states rights are not absolute . Powers reserved to the states must be exercised in accordance with the rights of thye individuals that are effected by what the state does. You can't keep emphasising the 10th amendment and pretend that the 14th does not matter. The 14th requires the states to provide equal protection under the law and due process.His point was, giving states back as much power as possible. If we are to adhere to the constitution, then does it not say that the there are certain things that we designate the federal government to do, the rest is reserved to the states and then the people?
States need to be constrained as well...by the federal courtsKeeping the government small and constrained, and only allowing it to do what it's supposed to do, and let the states have control over the rest means that you are only affected by the policies your state enacts.
We do not love majority rule when it comes to civil rights. We love the rules of lawnd your next question is "how do we keep states from enacting laws that violate our rights". My answer to that is, if it's something the constitution designates to the federal government, then they step in, if not, then the state is the first place where majority rules is viable, and since the left loves majority rules, they should be in favor of this.
Again, my statement want specifically about gay marriage vs gun rights, it was about believing that scotus has the power to create rights and laws governing abortion, forcing states to allow abortions, but then saying scotus doesn't have the power to say that no state can deny a citizen its right to bear arms. It's a double standard.The problem with that argument is obvious, or atleast should be. Same sex marriage was decided on the equal protect under the law clause and due process clause of the 14th Amendment . Simply put, gay people were not afforded equal protection under the law because marriage for heterosexual couples was treated as a right while gays were denied that opportunity. In short it was discrimination. Gays were denied due process until the federal courts interviened.
Guns are not a 14 amendment issue because, unlike same sex marriage, a law limiting where and how you can carry a gun applies equally to everyone. There is no discrimination or issue of unequal protection under the law. In addition, gun advocates have had ample access to due process in the courts at all levels. The courts and law makers must ballance public safet against the vague meaning of the second Amendment which says nothing about the right to bring a gun accross state lines.
In conclusion, yiu have fallen back on a false equivalency logical fallacy rather than actually arguing you point on its merits.
a law limiting where and how you can carry a gun applies equally to everyone
second Amendment which says nothing about the right to bring a gun accross state lines.
Yes, I agree with the 14th ammendment protection of gay marriage, but I also agree with Cruz that the government has no place to make laws governing marriage. If a state denies someone the right to marriage, then they can sue the state for equal protection violations, but I don't think the federal governments role is to create a law stating gay marriage is legal, because there are no laws against it, at least to my knowledge. I dinr believe there are any laws on the books specifically stating hetero marriage is legal either. Its just assumed. Its just not the federal governments job. Just like I don't think the federal government has the right to codify abortion into law. It's just not their responsibility.Wait!! What? What a glaring contadiction...! The 14 applies and gay marriage is protected by it BUT you agree with Cruz??? For the record, the federal government did not "create a law" The federal court determind that state laws banning gay marriage were unconstitutional. So yes , as YOU said made sure that people's rights are not being violated
Yes, but states have often thumbed their noses at the constitution as they did with bans on gay marriage. In that case the federal courts can and must step in. No rights or powers deligated to the states or the people are absolute
.Yes, but states have often thumbed their noses at the constitution as they did with bans on gay marriage.
No rights or powers deligated to the states or the people are absolute
Only as far as if a state is violating the rights of the people or not following cotus, then i think it's the duty of the federal government to step in and make sure equal protections are being adhered to. Beyond that, the federal government needs to remain neutral.States need to be constrained as well...by the federal courts
I meant majority rule when it comes to voting.We do not love majority rule when it comes to civil rights. We love the rules of law
You are pretty much describing what's already happened. All the way to the USSC. And they declared State laws that banned same-sex marriages unconstitutional.Yes, I agree with the 14th ammendment protection of gay marriage, but I also agree with Cruz that the government has no place to make laws governing marriage. If a state denies someone the right to marriage, then they can sue the state for equal protection violations, but I don't think the federal governments role is to create a law stating gay marriage is legal, because there are no laws against it, at least to my knowledge. I dinr believe there are any laws on the books specifically stating hetero marriage is legal either. Its just assumed. Its just not the federal governments job. Just like I don't think the federal government has the right to codify abortion into law. It's just not their responsibility.
I'm not disagreeing with that. States must adhere to the 14th ammendment because it's spelled out in cotus. Federal government must adhere to the 10th ammendment for the same reason.Once again, states rights are not absolute . Powers reserved to the states must be exercised in accordance with the rights of thye individuals that are effected by what the state does. You can't keep emphasising the 10th amendment and pretend that the 14th does not matter. The 14th requires the states to provide equal protection under the law and due process.
Because it would violate their 14th ammendment rights. I agree with this. I'm not advocating states be allowed to ban gay marriage, I'm saying the federal government has no right creating laws regulating marriage, especially since there are already protections in place for it.You are pretty much describing what's already happened. All the way to the USSC. And they declared State laws that banned same-sex marriages unconstitutional.
If States keep trying to undermine same-sex marriage, then a Federal law would be required. The federal gov has "skin in the game" as a number of tax and legal benefits are confered to married couples from the Feds.Because it would violate their 14th ammendment rights. I agree with this. I'm not advocating states be allowed to ban gay marriage, I'm saying the federal government has no right creating laws regulating marriage, especially since there are already protections in place for it.
Good. Should also bring back all VICE laws.The issue is Congress will try to pass a law making it illegal nationwide
To whom?Once again, states rights are not absolute . Powers reserved to the states must be exercised in accordance with the rights of thye individuals that are effected by what the state does. You can't keep emphasising the 10th amendment and pretend that the 14th does not matter. The 14th requires the states to provide equal protection under the law and due process.
No, federal law wouldn't be required, federal enforcement of the 14th ammendment would. Again, this is what the 14th ammendment is for. It was put into cotus for things like this.If States keep trying to undermine same-sex marriage, then a Federal law would be required. The federal gov has "skin in the game" as a number of tax and legal benefits are confered to married couples from the Feds.
Possibly. If the deadbeat claimed discrinination and if the state could not articulate a compelling government interest in denying the permit, then it could be a case of discrination. There was a SCOTUS case a while back where a state law prohibited men from remarrying if they owed child support. It was shot down. The state can't do that.Does it apply to a deadbeat dad applying for a concealed carry permit?
No it does not apply. No non citizens can vote. It is not discriminationA non-citizen going to the voting place?
There are no men on womens teams. Transwomen are women. To ban then is discriminationA man wanting to be on the women's volleyball team?
Now you are really reaching! A clump of cells is not a childA defenseless child in the womb?
You are sure twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to make me into some sort of hypocrite while trying to justify your opposition to Obergefell. Not working . All that you have done is, out of deparation, employed a logical fallacy....my favorite actually A Tu quoque.So is everything. You can either say "differences matter when applying the XIV," or "differences don't matter when applying the XIV."
What you want do say doesn't work. You want to say "Fourteenth amendment so I win!"
