• 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:
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."
Click to expand...

Are you still confused?
Click to expand...



View attachment 67180506
Click to expand...

Hey Redress, Ya know what's the best part of trying to talk with someone we all recognize as deliberately irritating and full of themselves as you?
It's knowing that while chuckling at post after post of growing bizarre obnoxious behavior, sooner or later you'll screw up so bad even you can't deny it.
You quoted the 14th Amendment, my friend, not the 13th.
How sweet it is.
 
LaylaWindu said:
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.
Click to expand...
Rouguenuke said "...the Amendment was basically voided by another Amendment enacted later."

Listen, I've been polite to you, why are you adopting the worst attitude of the worst on this site so soon?
If you want to do that, practice on someone else.
 
bubbabgone said:
Rouguenuke said "...the Amendment was basically voided by another Amendment enacted later."

Listen, I've been polite to you, why are you adopting the worst attitude of the worst on this site so soon?
If you want to do that, practice on someone else.
Click to expand...

And I've explained that to you. It in no way was to imply that the 14th voided the 10th, only that later Amendments can change the scope, up to voiding completely, earlier Amendments. I did not say that the 14th voided the 10th, you made that implication.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

You did say basically voided ... but let's let that go.
I think we're in basic agreement.
Really, the question is, will the 14th Amendment be successfully used to overturn SSM prohibitions nationally or will enough of the Justices be swayed by a States Rights argument since marriage isn't specifically addressed as a matter for Congress in the Constitution.
I'd imagine the 14th might have greater weight with the USSC.
 
bubbabgone said:
You did say basically voided ... but let's let that go.
I think we're in basic agreement.
Really, the question is, will the 14th Amendment be successfully used to overturn SSM prohibitions nationally or will enough of the Justices be swayed by a States Rights argument since marriage isn't specifically addressed as a matter for Congress in the Constitution.
I'd imagine the 14th might have greater weight with the USSC.
Click to expand...

I said that the Prohibition Amendment was voided, not the 10th.

It almost certainly will be used the same as it was with Loving, Zablocki, and Turner to overturn other prohibitions on certain types of marriages outlawed by state law or some policy of the state.
 
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...

Not really. The 14th amendment exists to ensure that states apply their own laws equally. It could be any law. The state is required by the US Constitution to provide equal protection of its laws. Some people twist words to say the feds are infringing in marriage, which is not discussed in the Constitution, and thus not their domain,but the reality is they are looking at equal protection, which is a Constitutional obligation that all states have with their own laws, of which marriage is just one.

In many ways the 14th amendment did limit the powers of the 10th amendment.
 
bubbabgone said:
Hey Redress, Ya know what's the best part of trying to talk with someone we all recognize as deliberately irritating and full of themselves as you?
It's knowing that while chuckling at post after post of growing bizarre obnoxious behavior, sooner or later you'll screw up so bad even you can't deny it.
You quoted the 14th Amendment, my friend, not the 13th.
How sweet it is.
Click to expand...

Way to run away when your point is demolished. I made a type, and you think pointing that out is somehow important... Can you actually manage to refute my point, or defend the things you said? Have you ever read the constitution?
 
CriticalThought said:
Not really. The 14th amendment exists to ensure that states apply their own laws equally. It could be any law. The state is required by the US Constitution to provide equal protection of its laws. Some people twist words to say the feds are infringing in marriage, which is not discusses in the Constitution, and thus not their domain,but the reality is they are looking at equal protection, which is
a Constitutional obligation that all states have with their own laws, of which marriage is just one
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...
Yup. Basically what I said in #254. The only question is whether SSM will be a good enough fit for 5 of them.
 
bubbabgone said:
Yup. Basically what I said in #254. The only question is whether SSM will be a good enough fit for 5 of them.
Click to expand...

4 of the Justices are solid, and a fifth is almost certain due to his previous stances on such issues. The SCOTUS would be screwing itself, subjecting it and many other US courts to a ton of legal cases in the future on this issue if they don't strike down these laws. This isn't going away until the SCOTUS rules that same sex couples must be allowed to legally marry in every state.
 
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
Click to expand...

And the conservatives are so much FOR the constitution. Except of course when it crowds their agenda.
 
bubbabgone said:
Yup. Basically what I said in #254. The only question is whether SSM will be a good enough fit for 5 of them.
Click to expand...

Basically is still not correct. Your contention is that the Federal government is determining and redefining "marriage". That is incorrect.

The Supreme court in Windsor v US stated that the states...not the federal government had the historical authority to define and regulate marriage. The ruling also established that the states could not violate the rights of their resident in doing so.

So lets recap. Federal government ruled not to have a historical right to regulate marriage in Windsor and DOMA.

States do have the right to regulate marriage based on historical precedent...and states although have the right to regulate, do not have the right to violate the rights of their residents in the applications of their rules...[14th].

That will be the judicial reasoning used in the court to affirm that states can not ban SS couples from marring and by violating their equal protections under the law..
 
bubbabgone said:
Yup. Basically what I said in #254. The only question is whether SSM will be a good enough fit for 5 of them.
Click to expand...

I really do not think you understand. You should probably start by reading Loving. V. Virginia.
 
bubbabgone said:
Hey Redress, Ya know what's the best part of trying to talk with someone we all recognize as deliberately irritating and full of themselves as you?
It's knowing that while chuckling at post after post of growing bizarre obnoxious behavior, sooner or later you'll screw up so bad even you can't deny it.
You quoted the 14th Amendment, my friend, not the 13th.
How sweet it is.
Click to expand...

The really sweet part is how badly you failed to identify a simple typo.
 
bubbabgone said:
Rouguenuke said "...the Amendment was basically voided by another Amendment enacted later."

Listen, I've been polite to you, why are you adopting the worst attitude of the worst on this site so soon?
If you want to do that, practice on someone else.
Click to expand...

If you think pointing out strawmen is "the worst attitude" and "not polite" you are going to have a lot of issues until you stop. Looks to me a few posters have pointed this out to you. If you are that sensitive you'll have to change the way you post. But in all fairness/politeness what is the alternative? What do you recommend for me to do, just let you make stuff up that I never said and not call you on it?

Do you think its polite to just make stuff up? Because I don't consider that polite.

You'll need to post in a more honest way if you want your posts to be viewed as such. How about this simply back up what you said. Can you quote that person saying the 14th voids the 10th? If you can do that or admit you simply misunderstood then maybe there can be a polite conversation.
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
And the conservatives are so much FOR the constitution. Except of course when it crowds their agenda.
Click to expand...

Don't group us all together, I certainly lean right and many on the right are for the constitution. Don't let that idiot set a bad example for the group.
 
roguenuke said:
4 of the Justices are solid, and a fifth is almost certain due to his previous stances on such issues.
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS would be screwing itself, subjecting it and many other US courts to a ton of legal cases in the future on this issue if they don't strike down these laws. This isn't going away until the SCOTUS rules that same sex couples must be allowed to legally marry in every state.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
CriticalThought said:
I really do not think you understand. You should probably start by reading Loving. V. Virginia.
Click to expand...
Loving dealt with interracial marriages.
As I said earlier, it's being used as precedent in the case of SSM by some, and others are saying it's not relevant.
 
1750Texan said:
Basically is still not correct. Your contention is that the Federal government is determining and redefining "marriage". That is incorrect.

The Supreme court in Windsor v US stated that the states...not the federal government had the historical authority to define and regulate marriage. The ruling also established that the states could not violate the rights of their resident in doing so.

So lets recap. Federal government ruled not to have a historical right to regulate marriage in Windsor and DOMA.

States do have the right to regulate marriage based on historical precedent...and states although have the right to regulate, do not have the right to violate the rights of their residents in the applications of their rules...[14th].

That will be the judicial reasoning used in the court to affirm that states can not ban SS couples from marring and by violating their equal protections under the law..
Click to expand...


I'm not denying any of that now and haven't before.
How is what you said different than what I said in #254?
 
bubbabgone said:
You did say basically voided ... but let's let that go.
Click to expand...

The 14th does not void the 10th. The 10th refers to powers either not granted the federal government, or not denied state governments by the constitution. The14th is part of the constitution. This is not rocket surgery.

I think we're in basic agreement.
Really, the question is, will the 14th Amendment be successfully used to overturn SSM prohibitions nationally or will enough of the Justices be swayed by a States Rights argument since marriage isn't specifically addressed as a matter for Congress in the Constitution.
I'd imagine the 14th might have greater weight with the USSC.
Click to expand...

The part you do not seem to understand: no one is denying that states have a right to decide who can and cannot get married in their state. No one is denying that they have to do that within the framework of the constitution, which includes the 14th amendment. How the court rules(and they are specifically ruling on two aspects, something else you seem confused by) on SSM bans will not supersede or enforce the 10th, as it is pretty irrelevant to the issue. EPC is a limit to states powers within the constitution, therefore the 10th does not apply in EPC cases.
 
bubbabgone said:
Loving dealt with interracial marriages.
As I said earlier, it's being used as precedent in the case of SSM by some, and others are saying it's not relevant.
Click to expand...

You do not seem to understand how Loving is a precedent. Loving was one of the early cases where marriage as a right was identified. That is important to SSM cases, as denying rights is harder to do than denying things that are not considered rights. Loving also established that the EPC as relevant to marriage.
 
bubbabgone said:
I'm not denying any of that now and haven't before.
How is what you said different than what I said in #254?
Click to expand...

I didn't say you were denying it...I said you were incorrect in your assessments. #254 and all the rest.
 
bubbabgone said:
Loving dealt with interracial marriages.
As I said earlier, it's being used as precedent in the case of SSM by some, and others are saying it's not relevant.
Click to expand...

This is proof positive you have little understanding or judicial reasoning.
 
1750Texan said:
This is proof positive you have little understanding or judicial reasoning.
Click to expand...

The Loving decision is being used as a precedent in the argument in favor of striking laws banning SSM.
You're mistaken if you say it isn't.
 
LaylaWindu said:
Don't group us all together, I certainly lean right and many on the right are for the constitution. Don't let that idiot set a bad example for the group.
Click to expand...

I lean right on some issues myself. My comments are aimed more at Cruz's version of conservative; the right-wing. for those like yourself however, some pressure on the right-wing through your demands that Republicans separate themselves would be ore helpful than putting up with right-wing nonsense such as Cruz's bill and this notion that conservatives are constitutionalists, when we can clearly see from this example that that is not the case.

In my view, and I'm sure your's as well, all right-wing extremists in this country are idiots. But, as I said, the "conservatives" are claiming them as their own, so your point just gets buried when a bonfire needs to be set to flush the idiots out.
 
bubbabgone said:
The Loving decision is being used as a precedent in the argument in favor of striking laws banning SSM.
You're mistaken if you say it isn't.
Click to expand...

I doubt that is the part he is taking issue with. You said that some are saying Loving is not relevant. It is, in two clear ways, and no one who has any understanding of the issues claims otherwise. Loving stated marriage as a right. Loving stated that 14th Amendment protections apply to that right. Those are simple facts. Also a simple fact is that Loving was a precedent for the Windsor case, which will certainly be referenced in the upcoming case. To quote Windsor ruling:

State law defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g. Loving v. Virginia
Click to expand...

SO any one who is saying Loving is not relevant is ignorant of the issues being discussed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom