• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge strikes down Idaho's same-sex marriage ban

Beaudreaux said:
On a Federal level, you're correct. On a local level, the Tenth Amendment allows it, yet those referendum cannot infringe on the rights granted in the US Constitution - Superiority of law.
Click to expand...

wrong...every state is to be republican in its form...it cannot be democratic...if a state and its people change their form of government,..then that state must leave the union...that is constitutional law.
 
Gipper said:
Won't survive appeals.
Click to expand...

I find that unlikely. The courts are not divided on this, they all are ruling the same way, that under EPC, SSM bans do not stand up to even Rational Basis Review. That there is a good case that SSM would fall under Intermediate Scrutiny makes it even more likely that these cases will be upheld. I have a suspicion that SCOTUS will end up refusing to hear the appeal, leaving the lower ruling intact while not actually taking a stand themselves.
 
the Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics. The people of each pledge themselves to preserve that form of government in all. Thus each becomes responsible to the rest, that no other form of government shall prevail in it, and all are bound to preserve it in every one.

But the mere compact, without the power to enforce it, would be of little value. Now this power can be no where so properly lodged, as in the Union itself. Hence, the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence." If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 295--304, 305--7 1829 (2d ed.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ernst barkmann said:
wrong...every state is to be republican in its form...it cannot be democratic...if a state and its people change their form of government,..then that state must leave the union...that is constitutional law.
Click to expand...

Citation regarding referendums (direct democracy on a state or local level)?

The referendum has been in existence since the late 1890's. You would think that if it was as abhorrent and unConstituional as you state it is, then it would have been overturned by a SCOTUS ruling by now.
 
ernst barkmann said:
bet you didn't think i would be on your side of the argument in the thread.?
Click to expand...

Sorry, my apologies I didn't read every post in this thread so im not aware what side you are on.
but curiosity peaked, tell me what the argument is and what side Im on.

I dont see any actual "argument" on this issue. Just reality and whats going down, and some people dont like it.
 
AGENT J said:
Sorry, my apologies I didn't read every post in this thread so im not aware what side you are on.
but curiosity peaked, tell me what the argument is and what side Im on.

I dont see any actual "argument" on this issue. Just reality and whats going down, and some people dont like it.
Click to expand...

since the amendment to the state Constitution was illegal, you cannot create an amendment to take away rights of people...
 
Beaudreaux said:
Citation regarding referendums (direct democracy on a state or local level)?

The referendum has been in existence since the late 1890's. You would think that if it was as abhorrent and unConstituional as you state it is, then it would have been overturned by a SCOTUS ruling by now.
Click to expand...

referendums are direct democracy....there can be no direct democracy in america.....even on the state level..and be constitutional.

however AMERICA is not running on constitutional law...and this is proof of it.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
Thanks for answering though.
Click to expand...

Well, so long as you get the basis for our beliefs right, then no problem. Otherwise, if you continue to assume we're basing our beliefs on state vs. Federal like you, or direct democracy vs. constitutional democracy, you're going to incorrectly conclude we're being hypocrites.
 
ernst barkmann said:
since the amendment to the state Constitution was illegal, you cannot create an amendment to take away rights of people...
Click to expand...

correct gay marriage is not a states rights issue since its an individual equal rights issue, this is why i see no actual argument against it. Peoples feelings are just hurt.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The referendum has been in existence since the late 1890's. You would think that if it was as abhorrent and unConstituional as you state it is, then it would have been overturned by a SCOTUS ruling by now.
Click to expand...

you are 100% correct, under what is known as the Oregon system, of the late 1800's progressives pushed the idea of referendums and initiatives in america and democracy.

states changed their forms....unconstitutional...they should have been kicked out of the union, however were allowed to stay violating constitutional law.......IE direct voting of senators before the 17th amendment was created.
 
ernst barkmann said:
you are 100% correct, under what is known as the Oregon system, of the late 1800's progressives pushed the idea of referendums and initiatives in america and democracy.

states changed their forms....unconstitutional...they should have been kicked out of the union, however were allowed to stay violating constitutional law.......IE direct voting of senators before the 17th amendment was created.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that the concept of Direct Democracy is not only unConstitutional in form, and against the numerously written opinions of the founders, I'm just saying that it is now part of our form of government on a state and local level.

To be clear, I don't like Direct Democracy. Why? Because it's a form of government where the rights of the individual are inferior to the will of the majority.

As this Idaho law, as well as NC's Amendment One are vivid examples.
 
beaudreaux said:
read this scotus ruling ernst:

223 u.s. 118

pacific states telephone and telegraph company v. Oregon (no. 36)

argued: November 3, 1911

decided: February 19, 1912
Click to expand...

if you read it said the congress decides what a republican form is.......that is false the constitution structure decides what a republican form is...


States were already direct voting for senators before the 17th amendment is ever created....that is unconstitutional...as is direct democrracy in america
 
AGENT J said:
correct gay marriage is not a states rights issue since its an individual equal rights issue, this is why i see no actual argument against it. Peoples feelings are just hurt.
Click to expand...

This is not true(and I point out again that "gay marriage" is a misnomer, there is no test for orientation to get married). States do have a right to regulate marraige, but only within the confines of what is allowed by the constitution. So it is a state and federal issue. This is important since SCOTUS reaffirmed the right of states in this area recently.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, so long as you get the basis for our beliefs right, then no problem. Otherwise, if you continue to assume we're basing our beliefs on state vs. Federal like you, or direct democracy vs. constitutional democracy, you're going to incorrectly conclude we're being hypocrites.
Click to expand...
No. You dont believe in natural rights
 
beaudreaux said:
to be clear, i don't like direct democracy. Why? Because it's a form of government where the rights of the individual are inferior to the will of the majority.
Click to expand...

100% correct...no one should ever want democracy..because it is always at war with individual rights.

Democracy puts all direct power into the hands of the people.

A republic puts only 1/2 of direct power into the Hand's of the people, the other half is granted to the states...not the people

this divides power into 2 HALFS, and prevents 1 single entity from having all direct power and becoming a tyrant.
 
Redress said:
1.)This is not true(and I point out again that "gay marriage" is a misnomer, there is no test for orientation to get married).
2.)States do have a right to regulate marraige, but only within the confines of what is allowed by the constitution. So it is a state and federal issue. This is important since SCOTUS reaffirmed the right of states in this area recently.
Click to expand...

1.)I agree saying gay marriage is kind of pointless and shouldnt be needed but unfortunatley it currently is.
2.) good thing i didnt say they have no right to regulate marriage, i said its not a states issue as far as individual rights, which, as you just said they can only do so within the confines of what is allowed by the constitution. so thank you for doubling down on what i said.

as it stands this is not a state issue as far as the topic goes "banning" and violating rights.
 
AGENT J said:
1.)I agree saying gay marriage is kind of pointless and shouldnt be needed but unfortunatley it currently is.
Click to expand...

No, you misunderstand. Laws against SSM base their restrictions on gender, not orientation. Men are not allowed to marry men, and women are not allowed to marry women. No state has a law in place that I know of preventing gay people to get married. Using misleading terms leads to faulty arguments.


2.) good thing i didnt say they have no right to regulate marriage, i said its not a states issue as far as individual rights, which, as you just said they can only do so within the confines of what is allowed by the constitution. so thank you for doubling down on what i said.

as it stands this is not a state issue as far as the topic goes "banning" and violating rights.
Click to expand...

It absolutely is a state issue. States have the right to regulate marriage. That is their right, and is part of the legal aspect of the cases. It is not the only part, but it is an important part.
 
ernst barkmann said:
if you read it said the congress decides what a republican form is.......that is false the constitution structure decides what a republican form is...


States were already direct voting for senators before the 17th amendment is ever created....that is unconstitutional...as is direct democrracy in america
Click to expand...

I just read it. It reads as it is. I was taught about this case way back when. SCOTUS refused to rule on what they deemed a political question where they ruled that the court has no jurisdiction, and that it lies with the Legislative Branch.

I didn't say whether I agree with it or not.
 
ernst barkmann said:
my question to you is: are you not one one the people on this forum who believes democracy and "will of the people" since this is a constitutional amendment which the people approved of.
Click to expand...

Ah the games people play... first the Constitutional Amendment is a STATE one and can be negated by the FEDERAL Court system. "The Will of the People" is not a pact with bigotry. That 'Will' must pass Federal Constitutional muster.

I believe 'we the people' can vote to make any law or definition- to include all Muslims wear Crescents on their clothes to all of German decent must pay a 1/3 of they income to the Holocaust Fund.

But I also believe the courts get to decide if such laws are acceptable in a nation with our Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom