The Semantics of Constitutionality

[San Souci]

Where exactly is that in the Constitution?

First Amendment-Establishment Clause.

 

[SavannahMann]

First Amendment-Establishment Clause.

Read the first amendment again. It says Congress shall pass no law. In my scenario it was the State of Michigan.

The claim you are making is a Supreme Court decision.

The Separation of Church and State: Everson v. Board of Education - FindLaw

In 1947, the Supreme Court was asked to decide just how separate our federal government needed to be from religious institutions. In Everson v. Board of Education, a closely divided Supreme Court decided a New Jersey program that helped children in Catholic schools did not violate the First...

supreme.findlaw.com

You object to the Supreme Court making law and creating rights out of thin air. You want the originality Constitution. So let’s go for it. No problem with a State establishing a religion. It isn’t Congress.

 

[San Souci]

Read the first amendment again. It says Congress shall pass no law. In my scenario it was the State of Michigan.

The claim you are making is a Supreme Court decision.

The Separation of Church and State: Everson v. Board of Education - FindLaw

In 1947, the Supreme Court was asked to decide just how separate our federal government needed to be from religious institutions. In Everson v. Board of Education, a closely divided Supreme Court decided a New Jersey program that helped children in Catholic schools did not violate the First...

supreme.findlaw.com

You object to the Supreme Court making law and creating rights out of thin air. You want the originality Constitution. So let’s go for it. No problem with a State establishing a religion. It isn’t Congress.

Should have gone through the Amendment Proceedure. The Courts CAN'T make law. But they do when Libs are in charge. 60 Million babies have been murdered because of "Roe".

 

[San Souci]

Read the first amendment again. It says Congress shall pass no law. In my scenario it was the State of Michigan.

The claim you are making is a Supreme Court decision.

The Separation of Church and State: Everson v. Board of Education - FindLaw

In 1947, the Supreme Court was asked to decide just how separate our federal government needed to be from religious institutions. In Everson v. Board of Education, a closely divided Supreme Court decided a New Jersey program that helped children in Catholic schools did not violate the First...

supreme.findlaw.com

You object to the Supreme Court making law and creating rights out of thin air. You want the originality Constitution. So let’s go for it. No problem with a State establishing a religion. It isn’t Congress.

PS--Did that decision make New Jersey a Catholic State? Case Closed.

 

[SavannahMann]

Should have gone through the Amendment Proceedure. The Courts CAN'T make law. But they do when Libs are in charge. 60 Million babies have been murdered because of "Roe".

So you admit that under your Originalist view there is no prohibition from the Muslims in Michigan banning Christianity?

The problem is that you like almost everyone views the Constitution like a Buffet. You go down the line and take what you like and reject the rest.

That isn’t how it works. The Constitution is a tapestry. When you pull one thread out you weaken and diminish the whole thing.

You have to embrace and vigorously defend every bit. Even the boys you don’t like. Especially those parts. Because if you don’t then you’ll find yourself victimized later.

I will always side with the Constitution. I will always argue for maximum restraint on the Government. I will always argue for maximum freedom for the citizens.

Not just the parts I like.

 

[SavannahMann]

PS--Did that decision make New Jersey a Catholic State? Case Closed.

Actually. You proved my point. The foundation of your argument was a Supreme Court Decision. Not written in the Constitution.

 

[rupol2000]

So wimmin's rights activists are now loudly claiming that the Texas law and standard violates women's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

The right decision here is to stigmatize whores who spread their legs in a swine frenzy, and then don't know what to do about it.
In right-wing politics, there should be no such thing as abortion exept if it is the result of rape

 

[danielpalos]

Better contraception at lower cost!

 

[rupol2000]

As practice shows, women are generally not capable of responsible behavior that takes into account the consequences, therefore, sex for women should be available only with the direct permission of the parents, and these parents should not be licentious. This is the protection of rights.
Freedom has nothing to do with a pigsty, where boars arbitrarily cover available females.

 

[danielpalos]

As practice shows, women are generally not capable of responsible behavior that takes into account the consequences, therefore, sex for women should be available only with the direct permission of the parents, and these parents should not be licentious. This is the protection of rights.
Freedom has nothing to do with a pigsty, where boars arbitrarily cover available females.

What practice? How many gangs of women roam the streets looking for guys to "empty out" so it won't ever occur to them to try to rape "nice girls".

 

[rupol2000]

What practice? How many gangs of women roam the streets looking for guys to "empty out" so it won't ever occur to them to try to rape "nice girls".

This is also part of the irresponsible behavior of women.

 

[danielpalos]

This is also part of the irresponsible behavior of women.

Saving "nice girls" from potential rape? Are not men more irresponsible.

 

[rupol2000]

Saving "nice girls" from potential rape? Are not men more irresponsible.

Nobody says that a man shouldn't response

 

[danielpalos]

Nobody says that a man shouldn't response

Men should be at least as responsible as women.

 

[pegwinn]

The Bill of Rights extends to every person via the 14th Amendment “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; …” That means that not only CONGRESS shall make no law it means States can’t either.

If I were a lawyer or played on on TV I’d argue that Same Sex Marraige in the religious sense is purely an article of Religion and thus protected under the First Amendment. Further I’d argue that Article 4 Section 1 requires that if one State allows legal Same Sex Marriage then the other 49 are required to recognize it so long as it was lawfully done. They are still allowed the option of not allowing the Marriage to lawfully originate in their State. The State of Intoxication records the act of the union and the license is duly filed means that the happy couple can move to the State of Confusion where such things cannot take place. But, any privileges granted to other married couples must be allowed to the newlyweds that just moved in. The relevant passage from A4S1 is “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” But, I am not a lawyer and don’t care about who you marry. None of my business.

I despise abortion. But, the 9th Amendment means you can assert any right you want to make up. Because assertion is affirmative you will have to prove it. If someone asserted the 9th Amendment the most obvious defense is to state the child is in fact a person and thus protected by the same Constitution. You have no right to murder. And, you cannot assert a right that takes away my rights. However this leaves the door open to disallow abortions that are actually a medical need to save the mothers life. Another can of worms.

The problem with and the strength of our Constitution is that it is a bitch to amend. That paradox is pretty cool IMHO.

The biggest problem is that people “interpret” it, read into it, and find shit that aint there. It says what it says and equally important doesn’t say what it doesn’t say. If you use a dictionary published near ratification you know what it meant as the ink was blotted. Every other reference is just empty calories and isn’t relevant as they have precisely zero legal authority. If you doubt me on that try to assert religious liberty and base the case on the Danbury Letter. It will fail as the letter is merely an historical document with no lawful authority. Same with the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers, or the most famous press release (aka the Declaration of Independence) in history.

 

[rupol2000]

Men should be at least as responsible as women.

In a normal society, only a man should be responsible, because it is he who should make decisions. In the leftist society, no one is responsible for anything. A woman may be in power, but there is no demand from her. In leftist feminism, collective responsibility.

 

[rupol2000]

The biggest problem is that people “interpret” it, read into it, and find shit that aint there. It says what it says and equally important doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.

Yes, and they read feminism and emancipation there, which are not there. It says only about equality in voting.

There is no gender equality in the US constitution.

 

[Rigby5]

Humans have a high rate of sexuality because we used to be prey and died like rabbits, so only a high reproduction rate allowed the human species to survive.
But now that we have tampered with nature by surviving so long, we have no choice but to artificially lower our reproductive rate with abortion.
It is either that or extinction once we over populate enough to destroy our environment.
It is weird that anyone would care about a fetus that was never sentient, since those who pretend to care so much about fetuses, seem to care nothing about adult humans.

 

[Rigby5]

The Bill of Rights extends to every person via the 14th Amendment “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; …” That means that not only CONGRESS shall make no law it means States can’t either.

If I were a lawyer or played on on TV I’d argue that Same Sex Marraige in the religious sense is purely an article of Religion and thus protected under the First Amendment. Further I’d argue that Article 4 Section 1 requires that if one State allows legal Same Sex Marriage then the other 49 are required to recognize it so long as it was lawfully done. They are still allowed the option of not allowing the Marriage to lawfully originate in their State. The State of Intoxication records the act of the union and the license is duly filed means that the happy couple can move to the State of Confusion where such things cannot take place. But, any privileges granted to other married couples must be allowed to the newlyweds that just moved in. The relevant passage from A4S1 is “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” But, I am not a lawyer and don’t care about who you marry. None of my business.

I despise abortion. But, the 9th Amendment means you can assert any right you want to make up. Because assertion is affirmative you will have to prove it. If someone asserted the 9th Amendment the most obvious defense is to state the child is in fact a person and thus protected by the same Constitution. You have no right to murder. And, you cannot assert a right that takes away my rights. However this leaves the door open to disallow abortions that are actually a medical need to save the mothers life. Another can of worms.

The problem with and the strength of our Constitution is that it is a bitch to amend. That paradox is pretty cool IMHO.

The biggest problem is that people “interpret” it, read into it, and find shit that aint there. It says what it says and equally important doesn’t say what it doesn’t say. If you use a dictionary published near ratification you know what it meant as the ink was blotted. Every other reference is just empty calories and isn’t relevant as they have precisely zero legal authority. If you doubt me on that try to assert religious liberty and base the case on the Danbury Letter. It will fail as the letter is merely an historical document with no lawful authority. Same with the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers, or the most famous press release (aka the Declaration of Independence) in history.

What is wrong is your idea that the Constitution or Bill of Rights is the source of legal authority.
It isn't.
It is an attempt to try to figure out what our inherent rights might be, and what jurisdiction levels of government might best have.
It is a work in progress so has many mistakes, and never remotely pretended to be the source of any rights. Rights have to already exist before they could even remotely be put into something like the Constitution. If the constitution created rights, then they would be arbitrary and could just as easily be eliminated.

 

[rupol2000]

Humans have a high rate of sexuality because we used to be prey and died like rabbits, so only a high reproduction rate allowed the human species to survive.
But now that we have tampered with nature by surviving so long, we have no choice but to artificially lower our reproductive rate with abortion.
It is either that or extinction once we over populate enough to destroy our environment.
It is weird that anyone would care about a fetus that was never sentient, since those who pretend to care so much about fetuses, seem to care nothing about adult humans.

This is the fruit of slave civilization. The matriarchy and priests benefited from high reproduction, because it provided more low-skilled labor and combat infantry for expansion. But this is not a property of all mankind.
There was no sexual licentiousness in patriarchal traditions.