• 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 Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

And some folks get absolutely apoplectic when everyone else won't agree with the "rights" they've invented for themselves out of thin air.
 
clownboy said:
Words have established meaning. At least they did when the document was authored. In fact the framers even wrote down their thoughts, explaining what they meant when they wrote those words. Of course that's apparently no longer the case and it's a "living constitution", which means words mean whatever the ayatollahs of the current generation say they mean.
Click to expand...

And what makes your interpretation pure and just, while mine is not?

Why is my more expansive interpretation of equal protection tyranny while your narrow interpretation isn't?
 
clownboy said:
And some folks get absolutely apoplectic when everyone else won't agree with the "rights" they've invented for themselves out of thin air.
Click to expand...

The people are considered to have rights up to the point where one person's rights conflict with another's or til the state can show that restrictions are necessary to further some legitimate state interest.
 
roguenuke said:
And the founders left plenty of leeway in what rights were being protected by the Constitution. The main purpose of the Constitution was to limit the government, not the people, when it comes to the rights of the people. This extended to states via the 14th Amendment. Still limiting the government, not the people, when it comes to rights. So the more rights the people have and the less unjustifiable restrictions in government, the closer we are in reaching what the founders set forth to do, make a country as free as possible.
Click to expand...

Not quite. They left no leeway and strove to be clear as was possible in human discourse. Read the Federalist Papers, leeway was the opposite of what they were going for. The major debate over including rights was to enummerate or not enummerate (and leave this leeway you hang your hat upon). They chose to enummerate.
 
clownboy said:
Not quite. They left no leeway and strove to be clear as was possible in human discourse. Read the Federalist Papers, leeway was the opposite of what they were going for. The major debate over including rights was to enummerate or not enummerate (and leave this leeway you hang your hat upon). They chose to enummerate.
Click to expand...

No, they choose to enumerate those rights which were most important to them at the time to be upheld. That is why we have the 9th and 10th Amendments, to specifically indicate that those first 8 were not the only rights people have.
 
Deuce said:
And what makes your interpretation pure and just, while mine is not?

Why is my more expansive interpretation of equal protection tyranny while your narrow interpretation isn't?
Click to expand...

Because, again, words have meanings that do not change once written. Those words may mean something else when written today, but the Constitution wasn't written today. "More expansive" is another way of saying that you don't like what the words mean and wish them to mean something different to suit your take on things.
 
roguenuke said:
No, they choose to enumerate those rights which were most important to them at the time to be upheld. That is why we have the 9th and 10th Amendments, to specifically indicate that those first 8 were not the only rights people have.
Click to expand...

And to whom do all those other rights fall to? Who determines all those other rights? The states and the people. NOT the feds, the courts, the states and the people once in a while.
 
clownboy said:
Because, again, words have meanings that do not change once written. Those words may mean something else when written today, but the Constitution wasn't written today. "More expansive" is another way of saying that you don't like what the words mean and wish them to mean something different to suit your take on things.
Click to expand...

And equal protection means equal protection, something homosexuals are being denied by not being allowed access to a private contract. The word "equal" doesn't change meaning, clownboy.
 
roguenuke said:
In many cases, the people don't. You know how you can tell? If the people felt the Court was ruling something against their wishes, they could push for an Amendment to counteract that ruling. That is how the people are allowed to overcome Court rulings. If enough people really want it, they are free to make that Amendment.
Click to expand...

In many cases people don't know the court even ruled on a subject, but they show disapproval towards the action of the state all the same. There are many laws on the books right now that have been ruled constitutional that have no basis at all to be ruled as such, but that didn't stop the court doing just that. The people are ignored regularly in law and in the court, and it's actually pretty rare that the court ever decides against government power. In this case, they can rule for government power, and because removing government is not on the table, still look like they are ruling for freedom. All they are really doing however is ruling against a ban of an activity in exchange for the government just controlling the behavior instead.
 
Deuce said:
And equal protection means equal protection, something homosexuals are being denied by not being allowed access to a private contract. The word "equal" doesn't change meaning, clownboy.
Click to expand...

What private contract? The contract in question is managed by the government and given by the government. There is no private contract involved in this discussion.
 
Deuce said:
And equal protection means equal protection, something homosexuals are being denied by not being allowed access to a private contract. The word "equal" doesn't change meaning, clownboy.
Click to expand...

No, but the words "equal protection" don't mean to you what they did the framers. You're "expanded" them to allow you to have your way.
 
clownboy said:
Because, again, words have meanings that do not change once written. Those words may mean something else when written today, but the Constitution wasn't written today. "More expansive" is another way of saying that you don't like what the words mean and wish them to mean something different to suit your take on things.
Click to expand...

Just because you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express doesn't make you a constitutional scholar. I love how some anonymous characters on an internet chat board think their constitutional scholars.

Tell you what since you think you're an expert and others aren't put your ****ing money where your mouth is and go try a lawsuit if you think your soooo correct.
 
clownboy said:
And to whom do all those other rights fall to? Who determines all those other rights? The states and the people. NOT the feds, the courts, the states and the people once in a while.
Click to expand...

The states and the people (via vote or whatever) are still restricted by the Constitution. Rights are for individuals. Groups have power to limit rights (to a point), while individuals still have those rights. And those rights are protected by the Constitution, via (in large part) by the Courts.
 
Henrin said:
What private contract? The contract in question is managed by the government and given by the government. There is no private contract involved in this discussion.
Click to expand...

It's a contract between two private individuals. The government recognizes it and passes legislation dealing with it. The same can be said of an employment contract. Which is all a diversion from the real point:

A state does not have the authority to violate equal protection. The people do not have the authority to enact legislation that violates equal protection.
 
roguenuke said:
The people are considered to have rights up to the point where one person's rights conflict with another's or til the state can show that restrictions are necessary to further some legitimate state interest.
Click to expand...

100% correct

and also people dont have to AGREE with what rights are nor do people meaningless emotional feelings matter. The law and rights dont care about them.
This really upsets some people but too bad.

Same type of people that were upset over womens rights, minority rights and interracial marriage are the same type upset about gay rights. But nobody cares they can cry all they want, equality is winning.
 
clownboy said:
No, but the words "equal protection" don't mean to you what they did the framers. You're "expanded" them to allow you to have your way.
Click to expand...

We've "expanded" it to give more people rights. If the vast majority disagrees, they are free to change the Constitution via Amendment.
 
clownboy said:
No, but the words "equal protection" don't mean to you what they did the framers. You're "expanded" them to allow you to have your way.
Click to expand...

No, they meant it to apply to all laws and all people, barring sufficient state interest to override that protection. Not just the laws that clownboy thinks it should apply to, and not just to the people clownboy thinks it applies to.

The idea that the framers of the constitution had already settled every legal argument and judicial question before they wrote the constitution is ludicrous.
 
Henrin said:
In many cases people don't know the court even ruled on a subject, but they show disapproval towards the action of the state all the same. There are many laws on the books right now that have been ruled constitutional that have no basis at all to be ruled as such, but that didn't stop the court doing just that. The people are ignored regularly in law and in the court, and it's actually pretty rare that the court ever decides against government power. In this case, they can rule for government power, and because removing government is not on the table, still look like they are ruling for freedom. All they are really doing however is ruling against a ban of an activity in exchange for the government just controlling the behavior instead.
Click to expand...

If they don't know that something has been ruled on, then they must be apathetic to that particular issue in the first place.

And yes, sometimes the Court gets it wrong. We've seen it many times in history. And it takes time to change. But there are always at least two sides in any case brought to the Court.
 
TheNextEra said:
Just because you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express doesn't make you a constitutional scholar. I love how some anonymous characters on an internet chat board think their constitutional scholars.

Tell you what since you think you're an expert and others aren't put your ****ing money where your mouth is and go try a lawsuit if you think your soooo correct.
Click to expand...

what good would that do, a lawsuit wouldnt work because it will just lose because all of the corrupt, tyrannical and biased judges. I mean look how many have ruled on this since the fall of DOMA, it must be that they are ALL uneducated and biased and not smart enough to take the opinions of a handful of people here. It can possibly mean the rights were actually protected and are being protected <end sarcasm>


I love conspiracy theories they are some of my favorites
 
roguenuke said:
The states and the people (via vote or whatever) are still restricted by the Constitution. Rights are for individuals. Groups have power to limit rights (to a point), while individuals still have those rights. And those rights are protected by the Constitution, via (in large part) by the Courts.
Click to expand...

DING DING DING

right again
 
roguenuke said:
If they don't know that something has been ruled on, then they must be apathetic to that particular issue in the first place.
Click to expand...

That is just assumption to your part.

And yes, sometimes the Court gets it wrong. We've seen it many times in history. And it takes time to change. But there are always at least two sides in any case brought to the Court.
Click to expand...

Many things only get worse over time. Just look at how they interpret the welfare or commerce clause for proof that. Or how about how there is essentially fourth amendment free zones that have been sanctioned by the court.
 
clownboy said:
No, but the words "equal protection" don't mean to you what they did the framers. You're "expanded" them to allow you to have your way.
Click to expand...

The framers of the constitution didn't create the 14th amendment. I respect them as great men, but I draw the line at them being able to literally see the future.

Also, "speech" doesn't mean today what it did to the Framers, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find any conservative that thinks the government can infringe upon what you type on the internet anymore than they can infringe upon what you can physically say audibly.
 
Deuce said:
It's a contract between two private individuals. The government recognizes it and passes legislation dealing with it. The same can be said of an employment contract. Which is all a diversion from the real point:
Click to expand...

It's a government contract that was crafted by the state that permits those that have it to have access to government benefits. A private contract is crafted by those parties involved and the state doesn't grant those involved anything except the enforcement of the contract.
 
TheNextEra said:
Tell you what since you think you're an expert and others aren't put your ****ing money where your mouth is and go try a lawsuit if you think your soooo correct.
Click to expand...

I was unaware being right and filing a lawsuit meant you were going to win in court.
 
Henrin said:
That is just assumption to your part.
Click to expand...

ALL federal court rulings, particularly those made on Constitutional matters are a matter of public record. There is no excuse with the internet to not know about a ruling made on an issue you care about. Especially if it is made by the SCOTUS, since you can simply check their website for rulings they have made over the years. Sure it takes time, but if it is an important issue to you, you will check it out.

Henrin said:
Many things only get worse over time. Just look at how they interpret the welfare or commerce clause for proof that. Or how about how there is essentially fourth amendment free zones that have been sanctioned by the court.
Click to expand...

And if the people have a major issue with these things, they can get together and work to pass an Amendment that ensures that these are protected. All rights are subject to some restrictions based on being able to show a legitimate state interest is protected by doing so or someone else's rights are being protected, even freedoms of religion, speech, press, gun ownership, etc.

And sure the Court gets things wrong in the direction of states/government as well. Don't like a ruling? Push to change it or fix the law or change the Constitution itself. Do you think that anyone pushing for same sex couples to get married legally throughout the US is just going to sit back and accept a ruling from the SCOTUS that did say that states could restrict marriage based on sex/gender?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom