• 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!

Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage

Redress said:
You might want to go look at when the current justices where appointed. Hint: there was little to no positive portrayals in popular media when most where appointed. And not a single one of the presidents who has appointed a current justice ran significantly on SSM. It was also highly unlikely to be a factor in any of their appointments, and certainly not on those who would be considered "swing" votes. So your popular media thing is just silly.

And I do not think any one is claiming the 10th does not apply. It does. So does the 14th. And since the 14th is part of the constitution, guess which takes precedence. Please learn the US Constitution, it is a very important document that I am rather fond of.
Click to expand...

The 10th and the 14th are both parts of the Constitution and traditionally what isn't delineated as a province of the Federal Government would be decided by the States.
Now, if you show me where the Constitution gives the Federal Government the authority to define marriage then there's no more discussion necessary.

And for you to suggest that the current USSC Justices view of SSM today couldn't be pretty accurately determined by looking at the Court makeup makes me think you're not serious.
They don't have to have made a ruling on it before to discern such a thing.
They got where they are today because of their experience & rulings in lower Courts and because the POTUS were aware of both.
It's silly to argue otherwise.
 
LaylaWindu said:
You haven't shown any evidence of "ultimate and absolute"
Who said POTUS wouldn't pick judges they like?
Click to expand...
You are really all over the map with random claims.

I notice you didn't answer my question or acknowledge the fact the 10th is limited.
Click to expand...


You seem to be suggesting they might.
Are you?
What criteria do you think a POTUS would use when they pick a nominee to the USSC?
 
bubbabgone said:
You seem to be suggesting they might.
Are you?
What criteria do you think a POTUS would use when they pick a nominee to the USSC?
Click to expand...

Good lord, suggesting who might what?

As for your question I don't know, it probably varies a little per POTUS. What does the question have to do with you not demonstrating anything you claimed, still ignoring my question bout loving and that the 10th is limited.

Until you answer that there will be no further discussion.
 
JasperL said:
Actually no. Same as incest. It should be simple enough to produce a reason(s) to ban polygamy/incest that meets some legitimate state purpose. If not, then let those bans go by the wayside.

Also the same sort of question as whether Islam or Buddhism or the worship of the FSM (assuming that's legitimate for this purpose) should enjoy the same religious protections as Christianity.
Click to expand...

Well regarding the religious stuff, there's constitutional protections for that already in place so that's not really at issue here. And incidentally I agree with you about the polygamy/incest and as I've tried to tell others, that's why the majority of conservatives oppose SSM at this time. Because quite frankly, there is no legitimate reason to stop any two consenting adults from entering into and receiving the same legal benefits as straight or, hopefully soon, SS marriages. That's all I've really been trying to say in this area.

CriticalThought said:
...huh? Does anyone who supports same-sex marriage oppose traditional marriage by that logic?
Click to expand...

Of course not, Jasper was asking a rhetorical question, so I was giving a rhetorical, if not sassy response.
 
LaylaWindu said:
Good lord, suggesting who might what?

As for your question I don't know, it probably varies a little per POTUS. What does the question have to do with you not demonstrating anything you claimed, still ignoring my question bout loving and that the 10th is limited.

Until you answer that there will be no further discussion
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure having a discussion with someone who can't even bring themselves to acknowledge that Justices bring their own Constitutional biases with them, a POTUS knows that, and that he/her makes his/her pick on that basis has much chance of a meeting of the minds anyway.

As for your question about the Loving decision, some courts use it and some don't when deciding SSM.
Beyond that I don't get your point.

If you keep insisting that the Justices don't bring their own interpretation of the Constitution despite the obvious, then you're right, there's no point continuing this.
If that's not what you're insisting then you need to explain what you ARE saying.
 
bubbabgone said:
I'm not sure having a discussion with someone who can't even bring themselves to acknowledge that Justices bring their own Constitutional biases with them, a POTUS knows that, and that he/her makes his/her pick on that basis has much chance of a meeting of the minds anyway.
Click to expand...
Who hasn't acknowledged it? You like strawmen a lot huh?
bubbabgone said:
As for your question about the Loving decision, some courts use it and some don't when deciding SSM.
Beyond that I don't get your point.
Click to expand...
It's not about SSM its about showing how your assertion is completely false and doesn't hold "ultimate and absolute" since most of america was against interracial marriage at the time it was ruled on. The obvious fact is that was a decision that "public opinion" and "pop culture" and "tv/movies/radio" had not impact on, just the law so it goes against your claims.
bubbabgone said:
If you keep insisting that the Justices don't bring their own interpretation of the Constitution despite the obvious, then you're right, there's no point continuing this.
Click to expand...
Sorry never did that one single time, not even close, could you quote me saying that. DO you often just make stuff up, ill make note of it.
bubbabgone said:
If that's not what you're insisting then you need to explain what you ARE saying.
Click to expand...

Already did explain multiple times you are just too busy creating your strawmen and avoiding my questions and points.
You suggestion falls, like you have already been told while influence "can" happen it obviously also doesn't matter and it most certainly is not "ultimate and absolute"

Since you also ignored the point about the fact that the 10th is limited good luck!
 
bubbabgone said:
The 10th Amendment seems in conflict with the 14th Amendment.
That conflict resolution shouldn't be decided by portrayals in (e.g.) movies that over time encourage changes in public attitude that over time encourage obsequious politicians one way or the other.
Click to expand...

It isn't in conflict at all. The Tenth clearly states the states and the people, plus the 14th came after the Tenth, so it would then hold more precedence in law where there would be a conflict. Just as prohibition is no longer in effect because the Amendment was basically voided by another Amendment enacted later.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Wanting to allow people of the states to determine if the State is going to recognize a legal arrangement is a far cry from locking up people just because of their sexual orientation. Get real.
Click to expand...

It's not when you consider that according to polls, most of those who oppose SSM also think gay consensual sex should be illegal. They are fascist pigs, so it is their marriages that should be subject to the whims and prejudices of a mob

Both jindal and cruz have said absolutely abhorrent filth about lgbt. That's why cruz was named "Bigot of the Year 2014" by "The Advocate"
 
Hamster Buddha said:
You realize you'd lose in a landslide right?
Click to expand...

I hope the irony isn't lost on you, since 60% now support SSM

You fail to relate to such an extent that you can't even conceive of how a mob even attempting to take away your basic rights and dignity would be enraging. Talk about the definition of 2nd class citizen
 
AGENT J said:
Cruz introduces bill defending states' rights on marriage - CNN.com



wow what a waste of time and money, also nothing like making sure you wont be president either lol Equal rights is coming bigots . .. give it up

again im not saying this one topic SHOULD decide who could be president but any candidate that comes out against equal rights and they make it "PART OF THEIR CAMPAIGN AND RUNNING PLATFORM" is sure to lose lol

its just the way politics will be in 2016

lastly traditional marriage is in no danger by equal rights, its a made up subjective thing, it wont be impacted at all

next "the obama administration forcing it"? It doesnt get any dumber than that. :lamo

good lord
the war is over but its entertaining seeing the last desperate attempts of bigotry, it shows peoples true colors[/

Is it possible that Cruz is really a Democratic plant working for the Obama administration.

Really, it would be hard to think of a more stupid stance for the Republican party to take.
Click to expand...
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Well regarding the religious stuff, there's constitutional protections for that already in place so that's not really at issue here. And incidentally I agree with you about the polygamy/incest and as I've tried to tell others, that's why the majority of conservatives oppose SSM at this time. Because quite frankly, there is no legitimate reason to stop any two consenting adults from entering into and receiving the same legal benefits as straight or, hopefully soon, SS marriages. That's all I've really been trying to say in this area.
Click to expand...

No dude, they oppose it because they hate gays, no other reason. The rest is just thinly veiled attempts to conceal that fact.
 
bubbabgone said:
I'm suggesting, actually more like claiming, that entertainment & pop culture can influence and sway popular opinion on subjects like SSM, and subsequently polls on the subject change.
When polls on a subject change, politicians will change with it if they think they have to in order to survive.
When politicians change, who they gather around them changes and that includes judicial appointees.
And that's what ultimately matters.
Click to expand...

I've said this recently to another but i'm not going to allow unchallenged this revisionism to diminish the hard work of activists, and the courage of many to come out, which is what truly ended the opposition.

TV reflects popular culture, not the other way around. I defy you to name any tv show that could seriously be considered progressive. The gay characters there are now are also no more than walking stereotypes. Movies? There are 0 gay characters in a top 100 grossing fantasy/sci fi film and none in any blockbuster film period. Only a few pop bands were in front on this issue either. There are 0 openly gay athletes in the 4 major pro sports and only 2 in Division 1 college sports.

It's also absurd to claim that Ginsburg's appointment or Kennedy or even that wannabe tyrant scalia had anything to do with SSM

Not sure where you get any of this from
 
chromium said:
It's not when you consider that according to polls, most of those who oppose SSM also think gay consensual sex should be illegal. They are fascist pigs, so it is their marriages that should be subject to the whims and prejudices of a mob

Both jindal and cruz have said absolutely abhorrent filth about lgbt. That's why cruz was named "Bigot of the Year 2014" by "The Advocate"
Click to expand...

I would love to see this poll. And please multiquote next time, saves on clutter.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I would love to see this poll. And please multiquote next time, saves on clutter.
Click to expand...

You quoted me twice separately yourself and are probably in the process of doing it again right now

Gay and Lesbian Rights | Gallup Historical Trends

1st poll - should *relationships* be legal : 30% say no
2nd poll - should marriages be legal : 44% say no

So there you have it, roughly 2/3 of those who oppose SSM want to return us to before "lawrence v texas" and ted cruz, from all i can discern from his outbursts on the subject, is definitely one of those

If you want me to pull out all his abhorrent comments about lgbt to use as weight of evidence, i will gladly do so


edit: also interesting that 38% say homosexuality is "morally wrong", meaning that one's own moral views almost entirely drives these fascist desires to arrest lgbt for consensual relationships. Thus i interpret the moral grandstanding by ted cruz and others as evidence he wants gay couples arrested

35% say "should not be able to adopt" and on and on. The results are very consistent. Bigots are bigots thru and thru
 
Last edited:
chromium said:
You quoted me twice separately yourself and are probably in the process of doing it again right now

Gay and Lesbian Rights | Gallup Historical Trends

1st poll - should *relationships* be legal : 30% say no
2nd poll - should marriages be legal : 44% say no

So there you have it, roughly 2/3 of those who oppose SSM want to return us to before "lawrence v texas" and ted cruz, from all i can discern from his outbursts on the subject, is definitely one of those

If you want me to pull out all his abhorrent comments about lgbt to use as weight of evidence, i will gladly do so


edit: also interesting that 38% say homosexuality is "morally wrong", meaning that one's own moral views almost entirely drives these fascist desires to arrest lgbt for consensual relationships. Thus i interpret the moral grandstanding by ted cruz and others as evidence he wants gay couples arrested
Click to expand...

Look at the question very carefully:

"Do you think homosexual relations between consenting adult should or should not be illegal?" It doesn't say "Do you think an adult caught committing a homosexual act should or should not be imprisoned?" I understand from someone who is a staunch support of SSM the difference is subtle or non-existent. But from someone whose been on both sides of the issue, I can tell you that gradience between "a relationship being legal" and "a marriage being legal" is very fine and not all the same as wanting them locked up.

Look as bad as you think Ted Cruz is on this issue, I'l guarantee my grandmother is worse. She is absolutely disgusted by the notion of two men together and it makes her boil any time the issue is brought up. And seeing as I am stuck with taking care of her this weekend, I went and asked her those two question "should gays be able to marry" and "should gays be locked up." The first question she replied with a quick no, saying "she didn't believe in it" (I've never known what believing has to do with the issue, so don't ask me). But when I presented her with the second question, she paused and thought on it, and finally said "No I don't believe that, it's their choice if they want to be that way but I don't believe they should be able to marry". Choice is the key here, as you see that of course most people who are against SSM believe that you're not born homosexual, that it's a lifestyle choice. And no more than you'd be locked up for choosing the wear baggy clothes.

But sure, if you can find me the time that Ted Cruz said that gays should be locked up or something very close to that statement, then I'd be welcome to see it.
 
bubbabgone said:
The 10th and the 14th are both parts of the Constitution and traditionally what isn't delineated as a province of the Federal Government would be decided by the States.
Now, if you show me where the Constitution gives the Federal Government the authority to define marriage then there's no more discussion necessary.
Click to expand...

Are you really that ignorant of constitutional law. The 14th is part of the constitution. I lists, specifically, things the states cannot do. Since it is part of the constitution, then if you actually where to read the 10th(hint: you might want to do that) you will see why one of the two exceptions listed in the 10th will apply. I will walk you through this, here is the 10th again: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Bolding and underlining should help. Power goes to the states, except in two cases, listed in the 10th. Now let us look at the relevant portion of the 13th, with again some handy highlighting: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Are you still confused?

And for you to suggest that the current USSC Justices view of SSM today couldn't be pretty accurately determined by looking at the Court makeup makes me think you're not serious.
They don't have to have made a ruling on it before to discern such a thing.
They got where they are today because of their experience & rulings in lower Courts and because the POTUS were aware of both.
It's silly to argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

strawman.jpg
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Look at the question very carefully:

"Do you think homosexual relations between consenting adult should or should not be illegal?" It doesn't say "Do you think an adult caught committing a homosexual act should or should not be imprisoned?" I understand from someone who is a staunch support of SSM the difference is subtle or non-existent. But from someone whose been on both sides of the issue, I can tell you that gradience between "a relationship being legal" and "a marriage being legal" is very fine and not all the same as wanting them locked up.
Click to expand...

If it's illegal (1st question) then imprisonment (2nd question) follows yes? I mean what is appropriate punishment for consensual relationships in your view before they cross the line into totalitarianism? And my point was to illustrate the kind of filth you're defending. Most, in fact 75% of those who oppose SSM also want adoption banned, and for gay relationships to be illegal. Most find it immoral and for religious reasons and most have never had a gay friend/family that they know of. All of this is very obvious and i see it plainly in ted cruz's hate speech

Hamster Buddha said:
of course most people who are against SSM believe that you're not born homosexual, that it's a lifestyle choice. And no more than you'd be locked up for choosing the wear baggy clothes.
Click to expand...

These polls prove otherwise. What is obvious is some "choices" are acceptable and others are not. Some cause immense harm and others do not. Bigots tend to not care. They believe that entire groups of people they don't approve of should be locked up or killed. Many of them furthermore do not care if the trait is a "choice." Ask a KKK member about that

Hamster Buddha said:
But sure, if you can find me the time that Ted Cruz said that gays should be locked up or something very close to that statement, then I'd be welcome to see it.
Click to expand...

That is not what i offered to do. He's a politician whose job is to mask his real intentions. If he wants to erase doubt, he can say so definitively. Because i can read between lines and wasn't born yesterday, all of this indicates to me he adamantly hates and wishes to oppress LGBT. He will do what he can get away with, just a modern day anita bryant:

The Texas Republican Party in 2010 published its party platform with the following language:

“We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.”

Ted Cruz was of course a part of this


from How Ken Cuccinelli's Position On Sodomy Could Set Numerous Sexual Predators Free | ThinkProgress

"The Family Foundation’s Cobb did not respond to a ThinkProgress inquiry about why her group has fought to keep oral and anal sex as a felony in Virginia, but the group featured Cuccinelli and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) this month at its annual fundraising gala. Table sponsors received free copies of Cuccinelli’s book. "

Cuccinelli btw was attorney general of virginia and staunchly opposed removing the unconstitutional anti sodomy laws from the state


Cruz spoke at notoriously anti gay FRC's "value's conference"

He also opposes anti discrimination laws, but only those that protect LGBT. He has attacked a mayor for taking part in a pride parade


After "DOMA" was overturned by SCOTUS, he attempted to pass a law allowing states to define marriage for *federal* rights purposes, just because he is that much of a sore loser. This was his reaction to "Windsor":

"The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states." - complete lie


He went on a show where the host earlier called the gay rights movement a "rainbow jihad"

He alleged that SSM would put pastors in prison, referring to a pastor in *sweden*, where there is no separation of church and state

He voted against a law that would ban "reparative therapy" being coerced onto minors
 
chromium said:
If it's illegal (1st question) then imprisonment (2nd question) follows yes? I mean what is appropriate punishment for consensual relationships in your view before they cross the line into totalitarianism? And my point was to illustrate the kind of filth you're defending. Most, in fact 75% of those who oppose SSM also want adoption banned, and for gay relationships to be illegal. Most find it immoral and for religious reasons and most have never had a gay friend/family that they know of. All of this is very obvious and i see it plainly in ted cruz's hate speech

These polls prove otherwise. What is obvious is some "choices" are acceptable and others are not. Some cause immense harm and others do not. Bigots tend to not care. They believe that entire groups of people they don't approve of should be locked up or killed. Many of them furthermore do not care if the trait is a "choice." Ask a KKK member about that
Click to expand...

No, these polls are only telling you what you want to hear. I get it though; you want to believe that the only reason for people to oppose SSM is because they're hateful, or bigoted, or just otherwise scum because it's easier for someone like you to understand and thus hate yourself. I know these people because a lot of these people are family and friends that oppose SSM I'm sad to admit. But I can guarantee you that not one of them would deprive them or liberty what they see as a personal choice. Find a poll that says Americans want very specifically that they want to lock up people for merely being gay and I'll change my mind. You won't find it of course.


chromium said:
That is not what i offered to do. He's a politician whose job is to mask his real intentions. If he wants to erase doubt, he can say so definitively. Because i can read between lines and wasn't born yesterday, all of this indicates to me he adamantly hates and wishes to oppress LGBT. He will do what he can get away with, just a modern day anita bryant:

The Texas Republican Party in 2010 published its party platform with the following language:

“We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.”

Ted Cruz was of course a part of this


from How Ken Cuccinelli's Position On Sodomy Could Set Numerous Sexual Predators Free | ThinkProgress

"The Family Foundation’s Cobb did not respond to a ThinkProgress inquiry about why her group has fought to keep oral and anal sex as a felony in Virginia, but the group featured Cuccinelli and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) this month at its annual fundraising gala. Table sponsors received free copies of Cuccinelli’s book. "

Cuccinelli btw was attorney general of virginia and staunchly opposed removing the unconstitutional anti sodomy laws from the state


Cruz spoke at notoriously anti gay FRC's "value's conference"

He also opposes anti discrimination laws, but only those that protect LGBT. He has attacked a mayor for taking part in a pride parade


After "DOMA" was overturned by SCOTUS, he attempted to pass a law allowing states to define marriage for *federal* rights purposes, just because he is that much of a sore loser. This was his reaction to "Windsor":

"The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states." - complete lie


He went on a show where the host earlier called the gay rights movement a "rainbow jihad"

He alleged that SSM would put pastors in prison, referring to a pastor in *sweden*, where there is no separation of church and state

He voted against a law that would ban "reparative therapy" being coerced onto minors
Click to expand...

As I stated before, you (and many others, including those on this topic I'd surmise) want Cruz to be your boogeyman. Easier to hate a man that way after all. And if you really want to believe that Cruz is the scum of the earth, worse than the devil himself then be my guest. It's not going to help bring any understanding with others of course. Then again, working with one another hasn't exactly been a strong suit of American politics of late. Hell, even if I could assuage you otherwise I wouldn't. After all, it's your choice.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Sidenote: You stole my picture, and I want it back.
Click to expand...

At least you admit you have no real solid argument and you just make stuff up. That counts for something.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
No, these polls are only telling you what you want to hear. I get it though; you want to believe that the only reason for people to oppose SSM is because they're hateful, or bigoted, or just otherwise scum because it's easier for someone like you to understand and thus hate yourself. I know these people because a lot of these people are family and friends that oppose SSM I'm sad to admit. But I can guarantee you that not one of them would deprive them or liberty what they see as a personal choice. Find a poll that says Americans want very specifically that they want to lock up people for merely being gay and I'll change my mind. You won't find it of course.
Click to expand...

Uh, the poll asked specifically if they want gay relationships to be ILLEGAL and 30% said yes. If you believe that's somehow more permissible or doesn't reflect their hatred, it says a lot more about you than me. And hate myself, what are you even on about here? Thanks for the lovely psychoanalysis, i guess, but i'll go to some other shrink

Hamster Buddha said:
As I stated before, you (and many others, including those on this topic I'd surmise) want Cruz to be your boogeyman. Easier to hate a man that way after all. And if you really want to believe that Cruz is the scum of the earth, worse than the devil himself then be my guest. It's not going to help bring any understanding with others of course. Then again, working with one another hasn't exactly been a strong suit of American politics of late. Hell, even if I could assuage you otherwise I wouldn't. After all, it's your choice.
Click to expand...

He is trying to come to power and he has a track record of trying to oppress homosexuals, even this week. Yeah he is the devil and the #1 enemy of the movement right now, within the US at least. I don't work with bigots either. There is no compromising away of equality or dignity
 
roguenuke said:
It isn't in conflict at all. The Tenth clearly states the states and the people, plus the 14th came after the Tenth, so it would then hold more precedence in law where there would be a conflict.
Just as prohibition is no longer in effect because the Amendment was basically voided by another Amendment enacted later.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Oh no no no. The 10th was not voided by the 14th. You're terribly wrong about that. Maybe "voided" was just an unfortunate choice.

"The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising."

The 14th says (among other things) "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

And that's the conflict. The 14th will be used to try to grant SSM. The problem is that the definition of marriage wasn't specifically granted to the US Congress. That brings us to where we are today.
 
bubbabgone said:
Oh no no no. The 10th was not voided by the 14th. You're terribly wrong about that. Maybe "voided" was just an unfortunate choice.

"The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising."

The 14th says (among other things) "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

And that's the conflict. The 14th will be used to try to grant SSM. The problem is that the definition of marriage wasn't specifically granted to the US Congress. That brings us to where we are today.
Click to expand...
Hahaha Who said the 14th voided the 10th Why do you continue to make stuff up? Also there is no conflict its simply a limit. This is really basic stuff.
 
chromium said:
I've said this recently to another but i'm not going to allow unchallenged this revisionism to diminish the hard work of activists, and the courage of many to come out, which is what truly ended the opposition.

TV reflects popular culture, not the other way around. I defy you to name any tv show that could seriously be considered progressive. The gay characters there are now are also no more than walking stereotypes. Movies? There are 0 gay characters in a top 100 grossing fantasy/sci fi film and none in any blockbuster film period. Only a few pop bands were in front on this issue either. There are 0 openly gay athletes in the 4 major pro sports and only 2 in Division 1 college sports.

It's also absurd to claim that Ginsburg's appointment or Kennedy or even that wannabe tyrant scalia had anything to do with SSM

Not sure where you get any of this from
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Don't be silly.
When Obama made his appointments, for example, he was well aware, in general terms, how each would very likely decide cases that would come before them.
Haven't you ever heard that one of the advantages to a political Party is having a POTUS of your party in a position to make Judicial appointments?
Why do you think that is?
 
bubbabgone said:
Oh no no no. The 10th was not voided by the 14th. You're terribly wrong about that. Maybe "voided" was just an unfortunate choice.

"The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising."

The 14th says (among other things) "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

And that's the conflict. The 14th will be used to try to grant SSM. The problem is that the definition of marriage wasn't specifically granted to the US Congress. That brings us to where we are today.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that the 10th was voided by the 14th. I was pointing out that later Amendments can change earlier ones, just as they are meant to change the Constitution itself, because the Amendments are part of the Constitution. In the case of the 14th, it limited the power of the states when it comes to the individual liberties/rights within the states. It made the people part of the 10th much more important than the states part of the 10th.

You are misreading the 14th. It has nothing to do with the power of the federal government, but the individual rights of the people as being more important. The people come before the states, which is why we now have tests that require states to show "state interest" when it comes to laws that impact people particularly certain groups of people who are being treated differently than other people within those states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom