• 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!

In your estimation, what percentage of the population is gay?

In your estimation, what percentage of the population is gay?


  • Total voters
    89
Is it a right when the government makes you buy a license?

The government makes you file a birth certificate when you have a child as well, does that mean that having children is not a right since the government makes you file paperwork to do it?
 
In every state that had a constitutional amendment on it gay marriage was voted down. That happened twice here in florida

And votes change with time, particularly with an issue where the support/opposition changes so fast for the issue.
 
And votes change with time, particularly with an issue where the support/opposition changes so fast for the issue.

They have not changed it is activist judges changing the law
 
They have not changed it is activist judges changing the law

Wrong. We have strong evidence that there has been a major change in the support and opposition of same sex marriage since the vast majority of those laws were passed, evidenced by the fact that a state ended up repealing their ban and voting to allow same sex marriage as well since these votes started.
 
They have not changed it is activist judges changing the law

Ensuring people's civil rights is what judges are supposed to do. It's not "activist" when they find laws which strip people of their rights unconstitutional. Of course that fact doesn't jibe with your prejudices. Now does it?
 
Ensuring people's civil rights is what judges are supposed to do. It's not "activist" when they find laws which strip people of their rights unconstitutional. Of course that fact doesn't jibe with your prejudices. Now does it?

they are not to legislate which is what they are doing when they change laws
 
they are not to legislate which is what they are doing when they change laws
Then what, exactly, is the purpose of the court? What you're essentially saying is that all laws are good and sacrosanct and should never be reviewed for proper Constitutionality.
 
they are not to legislate which is what they are doing when they change laws

Overturning laws that violate civil rights of a minority is "not to legislate."
 
Then what, exactly, is the purpose of the court? What you're essentially saying is that all laws are good and sacrosanct and should never be reviewed for proper Constitutionality.

No, I am saying the courts can not change law they can only show if it is constitutional.
 
No, I am saying the courts can not change law they can only show if it is constitutional.

When the law is found to be unconstitutional it is defacto null and void. What part of that sails over your head?
 
Yes it is. They explain the problem and send it to congress

Congress is free to write a new law. Do you somehow think an overturned law remains in effect?
 
When the law is found to be unconstitutional it is defacto null and void. What part of that sails over your head?
I think he's saying they should not rule one part of a law unconstitutional yet rule another part constitutional.

Or something?
 
I think he's saying they should not rule one part of a law unconstitutional yet rule another part constitutional.

Or something?
I think he's saying they should never rule laws he likes unconstitutional. ;)
 
they are not to legislate which is what they are doing when they change laws

Nope. Because they aren't actually "changing" laws, only striking them down, either in whole or in part, when they violate the Constitution. This then just simply makes the law neutral or reverts it to what it was before the unconstitutional part/law was enacted. In the case of same sex marriage bans that are found unconstitutional, it simply means that there can be no restriction on sex/gender within the rules of who can obtain a marriage license from the state, which means that the law is simply at a point where it was before, only where the state cannot keep people from getting married with nothing written into the laws just due to gender, as they did in the past.
 
It's only "legislating from the bench" when you're partisan and your side gets struck down. If your desired side is upheld, it's "enforcing the rule of law".
 
It's only "legislating from the bench" when you're partisan and your side gets struck down. If your desired side is upheld, it's "enforcing the rule of law".

Changing the law is not upholding the law it is legislating a new law
 
Changing the law is not upholding the law it is legislating a new law

Wrong. Striking down a law is not legislating a new law, but rather reverting back to a previous law that was not unconstitutional. Without any laws, anything is legal (technically), which is why we have laws. But if some law goes too far, then that law needs to be struck down to revert back to less restrictions.
 
Changing the law is not upholding the law it is legislating a new law

Whether it's intentional or simply being blinded by partisan hackery heard on Fox News, one thing is clear. You totally miss the boat on this concept. Judges do not "change" the law. They rule on whether or not it is constitutional. No more no less.

Judges change nothing. They either uphold the law's constitutionality or strike it down.
 
Whether it's intentional or simply being blinded by partisan hackery heard on Fox News, one thing is clear. You totally miss the boat on this concept. Judges do not "change" the law. They rule on whether or not it is constitutional. No more no less.

Judges change nothing. They either uphold the law's constitutionality or strike it down.

Not so - altering part of law (thus amending the law) is not nearly the same as a veto. It appears that the court has given itself a sort of line item veto capability. Laws are often passed only through compromise (adding limits or amendments) thus changing part of a law changes whether it would pass by getting the required votes in the legislature and a veto requires that a law passes by a super-majority to override that veto. Allowing the court to remove/alter only part of a law (after the legislature passed it and the executive signed it as a whole package) gives the legislature no automatic second chance to evaluate the new version of the law.
 
Not so - altering part of law (thus amending the law) is not nearly the same as a veto. It appears that the court has given itself a sort of line item veto capability. Laws are often passed only through compromise (adding limits or amendments) thus changing part of a law changes whether it would pass by getting the required votes in the legislature and a veto requires that a law passes by a super-majority to override that veto. Allowing the court to remove/alter only part of a law (after the legislature passed it and the executive signed it as a whole package) gives the legislature no automatic second chance to evaluate the new version of the law.

That's silly. If packaged into otherwise "good law" is a piece of legislation that is clearly unconstitutional, then only the unconstitutional part is scrubbed.

It's also not done as you say. Laws are challenged line by line, not in whole. ACA is a great example--the court never rules on the entire law, only the part being challenged. In this case it was the Medicaid expansion requirement and the Individula Mandate, each coming up before the court as separate issues, even though both issues were part of the same law.
 
Not so - altering part of law (thus amending the law) is not nearly the same as a veto. It appears that the court has given itself a sort of line item veto capability. Laws are often passed only through compromise (adding limits or amendments) thus changing part of a law changes whether it would pass by getting the required votes in the legislature and a veto requires that a law passes by a super-majority to override that veto. Allowing the court to remove/alter only part of a law (after the legislature passed it and the executive signed it as a whole package) gives the legislature no automatic second chance to evaluate the new version of the law.

Then the legislature would do well to stop passing unconstitutional laws. Their oath is to uphold the constitution
 
Then the legislature would do well to stop passing unconstitutional laws. Their oath is to uphold the constitution

I agree yet what is the court to do about them? My point was that laws (bills) are passed/not passed by the legislature as a package deal, often including totally unrelated matters in goofy compromise deals. To allow the executive or the court to strip only part of that package alters the intent of the legislature completely. The courts, just as the executive, should reject the entire package (bill/law) or accept it as a package - but never be able to simply amend it after the fact.
 
If the legislatures never passed an unconstitutional law, the SCOTUS and lower courts would be unnecessary.

Which is why the complaints of the courts doing their *job* is pretty ridiculous

Concentrate the animosity towards the legislature for failing to do their own jobs. Oh, they aren't legal experts? Maybe we should start electing people with an ounce of legal comprehension then!

I wonder how many senators even grasp "strict scrutiny" or "compelling state interest"
 
Back
Top Bottom