The use of historical evidence to determine constitutional rights

[Hutch Starskey]

That's why they're lawyers and you're not. They read laws like you read the menu at Denny's.

I see you’re confounded.

 

[struth]

it’s not absurd if you understand the process in which the courts determine if someone is a substitive due process right

Explain it or admit you can't.

One of the first points that must be crossed is if something is a fundamental right....what the Court will look to is history and tradition....the Court has said that rights that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" _ traveling is what the entire nation was founded on...traveling from Europe....but then again in our founding, exploration, moving across the county. Travel is therefore a fundamental right.

 

[berg80]

The thing is gay marriage is a construct of the last 20 years or so, while inter-racial/tribe/class marriage was always around, and really only got banned in the US (and really only between blacks and non-blacks) as a response to the increasing angst over slavery, as well as the after effects of reconstruction failing.

Legal interracial marriage has only been the law across the US since Loving v VA in 1967.

 

[struth]

This is true but what makes you think that such matters?

The real point here is that the right leaning court overturned something that had been established for 50 years and was a considered by the left not only settled constitutional protections but also fundamental.

What makes you think the left is going to care one iota how well established the second is? If they ever manage to get 5 seats or they simply pack the court directly, they will absolutely overturn gun rights. The fact that the Row decision's reasoning will not apply is not really relevant as it is not the reasoning that brings the second into question here but rather the mere fact a precedent like this was overturned in the first place. That they overturned something that the left felt was firm win for them already is enough IMHO. The reasoning will come after.


It is not as though the left judges on the court have not already voiced their opinion on how the second is not a right whatsoever. They do that with every single gun challenge that comes before the court. The real problem here is that overturning Row gives the future court the cover to revisit almost anything. This is the problem with revisiting things like this, the idea of legal continuity is essentially gone and fights over what is and is not a constitutional right can now persist forever.

If the left wants to make abortion a consitutional amendment like the second, they have had years to do so, and nothing keeps them from doing it today

 

[hadit]

I see you’re confounded.

Ever try to read those laws? The bottom line remains, these guys read and understand them while we don't. We scratch around on the surface, squabbling about decisions we don't like without much understanding of the laws involved. Now, if they start referencing foreign law again, we have a problem. That, they've already done.

 

[berg80]

One of the first points that must be crossed is if something is a fundamental right....what the Court will look to is history and tradition....the Court has said that rights that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" _ traveling is what the entire nation was founded on...traveling from Europe....but then again in our founding, exploration, moving across the county. Travel is therefore a fundamental right.

You just made a case for the legality of abortion.

Opinion | What Alito Gets Wrong About the History of Abortion in America

Abortion in early pregnancy was not only commonplace but widely regarded as morally acceptable.

www.politico.com

 

[martybegan]

Legal interracial marriage has only been the law across the US since Loving v VA in 1967.

But it wasn't banned everywhere, and was allowed in places during colonial times, and in Europe beforehand.

SSM on the other hand is a new construct, something the world had not even considered until the past few decades.

That and race and sexual identity are not the same thing, despite the lefts desire for everything to be the same.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Ever try to read those laws? The bottom line remains, these guys read and understand them while we don't. We scratch around on the surface, squabbling about decisions we don't like without much understanding of the laws involved. Now, if they start referencing foreign law again, we have a problem. That, they've already done.

Let’s clarify.
While you don’t understand them, others do.

 

[struth]

You just made a case for the legality of abortion.

Opinion | What Alito Gets Wrong About the History of Abortion in America

Abortion in early pregnancy was not only commonplace but widely regarded as morally acceptable.

www.politico.com

Maybe so, but the majority of the Justices of the Court said it wasn't one. The better argument that the Court should have used for Roe, was under the Equal Protection clause.

Abortion, like many other medical procedures has been around for centuries, and certainly I would argue that you have a fundemental right to have access to medical care, but does that mean that all medical procedures can't be regulated? Of course not...you don't have a right for example to medically assisted sucide, a Govt can ban that

 

[hadit]

Let’s clarify.
While you don’t understand them, others do.

Where did you get your law degree?

 

[struth]

Legal interracial marriage has only been the law across the US since Loving v VA in 1967.

Actually it was legal in many states, some states, in particular dem run states, barred it with Jim Crow laws....those laws were always illegal. Marriage is a fundamental right for one, secondly they violated the equal protection clause of US Constitution. The laws were illegal, as were most Dem Jim Crow laws for that reason. Plessy v Ferguson was a SCOTUS case from 1896, it was "precedent" for 58 years, that allowed the idea of "seperate but equal" thankfully the Court overturned it

 

[bendog]

But it wasn't banned everywhere, and was allowed in places during colonial times, and in Europe beforehand.

SSM on the other hand is a new construct, something the world had not even considered until the past few decades.

That and race and sexual identity are not the same thing, despite the lefts desire for everything to be the same.

However, the first legal black-white marriage in the United States was that of African-American professor William G. Allen and a white student, Mary King, in 1853.[5] When their plans to marry were announced, Allen narrowly escaped being lynched. Their marriage was secret, and they left the country immediately for England, never to return.

While opposed to slavery, in a speech in Charleston, Illinois in 1858, Abraham Lincoln stated, "I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. I as much as any man am in favor of the superior position assigned to the white race".[7] By 1924, the ban on interracial marriage was still in force in 29 states.[6] While interracial marriage had been legal in California since 1948, in 1957 actor Sammy Davis Jr. faced a backlash for his relationship with a white woman, actress Kim Novak.[8] In 1958, Davis briefly married a black woman, actress and dancer Loray White, to protect himself from mob violence.[8]


In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that prohibiting interracial marriage was unconstitutional via the 14th Amendment adopted in 1868
In Social Trends in America and Strategic Approaches to the Negro Problem (1948), Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal ranked the social areas where restrictions were imposed on the freedom of Black Americans by Southern White Americans through racial segregation, from the least to the most important: basic public facility access, social equality, jobs, courts and police, politics and marriage. This ranking scheme illustrates the manner in which the barriers against desegregation fell: Of less importance was the segregation in basic public facilities, which was abolished with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

However, the most tenacious form of legal segregation, the banning of interracial marriage, was not fully lifted until the last anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in a unanimous ruling Loving v. Virginia.[1][2] The court's landmark decision, which was made on June 12, 1967, has been commemorated and celebrated every year on the Loving Day (June 12) in the United States

Interracial marriage in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[martybegan]

However, the first legal black-white marriage in the United States was that of African-American professor William G. Allen and a white student, Mary King, in 1853.[5] When their plans to marry were announced, Allen narrowly escaped being lynched. Their marriage was secret, and they left the country immediately for England, never to return.

While opposed to slavery, in a speech in Charleston, Illinois in 1858, Abraham Lincoln stated, "I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. I as much as any man am in favor of the superior position assigned to the white race".[7] By 1924, the ban on interracial marriage was still in force in 29 states.[6] While interracial marriage had been legal in California since 1948, in 1957 actor Sammy Davis Jr. faced a backlash for his relationship with a white woman, actress Kim Novak.[8] In 1958, Davis briefly married a black woman, actress and dancer Loray White, to protect himself from mob violence.[8]


In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that prohibiting interracial marriage was unconstitutional via the 14th Amendment adopted in 1868
In Social Trends in America and Strategic Approaches to the Negro Problem (1948), Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal ranked the social areas where restrictions were imposed on the freedom of Black Americans by Southern White Americans through racial segregation, from the least to the most important: basic public facility access, social equality, jobs, courts and police, politics and marriage. This ranking scheme illustrates the manner in which the barriers against desegregation fell: Of less importance was the segregation in basic public facilities, which was abolished with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

However, the most tenacious form of legal segregation, the banning of interracial marriage, was not fully lifted until the last anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in a unanimous ruling Loving v. Virginia.[1][2] The court's landmark decision, which was made on June 12, 1967, has been commemorated and celebrated every year on the Loving Day (June 12) in the United States

Interracial marriage in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The "bashing" of Lincoln for views that at the time were mainstream but are now reprehensible is why people can't stand progressives. Either a person is perfect or they are evil.


And there were probably plenty of interracial marriages before the one you list, it's just the government wasn't as interested in registering every single marriage.

 

[lennypartiv]

Legal interracial marriage has only been the law across the US since Loving v VA in 1967.

Yes, it can easily be reversed.

 

[FA_Q2]

If the left wants to make abortion a consitutional amendment like the second, they have had years to do so, and nothing keeps them from doing it today

And...?

That has nothing to do with my points whatsoever. It does not address anything I stated.

 

[struth]

And...?

That has nothing to do with my points whatsoever. It does not address anything I stated.

how does it not? what went over your head?

 

[easyt65]

Once the make up of the court changes, count on it.

And what exactly are you going to do when the ruling doesn't go in your favor?

Before you answer, just make sure you know the Congress just gave Justices extra protections at their homes. You know, in case you thought you might intimidate one with a gun.

Congress (Democrats) has given itself the most tax-payer funded protection of all...while personally threatening USSC Justices, inciting assassination attempts, and calling for intimidation of and violence against Justices.

 

[bripat9643]

I didn't say one was. I said Clarence and friends has set a standard by which interracial marriage, like gay marriage, because both were antithetical to beliefs at the time of the founding (read his concurring opinion in Roe), is open to being banned if a state so chooses.

The 14th Amendment repealed the ban on interracial marriage, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

Thanks for that sterling contribution to the conversation......Capt. Obvious. Neither is the right to walk down 5th Ave. with an AR-15.

"The freedom to bear arms shall not bee abridged." Apparently it is.

 

[bripat9643]

Yep. Before the Heller decision, the second amendment was construed to mean a state regulated militia.

Which makes the Heller decision wrongly decided, and can be overturned by a later court.

That historical precedent set by this court, will be a good pattern to be used for that very purpose in the future.

Not before 1930, moron.