• 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!

President Obama now says the Constitution protects same-sex marriage

APACHERAT said:
It was predicted when liberal Presidents stack the SCOTUS with activist judges, **** like this will happen.
Click to expand...

:lamo

To describe the current SCOTUS as stacked by liberals... oh man. That's great. I needed a good laugh.

"Activist judge" is just a whine by people who dislike a court decision but don't have any actual rebuttal to it. (usually because they didn't read it)
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
Just the opposite--it's your suggestion that is silly. State laws that exclude same-sex partners exclude them just the same, whether the partners are both men or both women.
Click to expand...

And my proposed state laws would exclude arms all the same, whether a pistol or a rifle. And they'd apply to everyone equally, regardless of race or gender. Equal protection satisfied. 2nd amendment satisfied. It's just states defining "arms." Why are you against states' rights?
 
Deuce said:
:lamo

To describe the current SCOTUS as stacked by liberals... oh man. That's great. I needed a good laugh.

"Activist judge" is just a whine by people who dislike a court decision but don't have any actual rebuttal to it.
Click to expand...

It was FDR who was first advised to stack the SCOTUS with judges who would rule in his favor of unconstitutional legislation that he signed into law.

Many future POTUS not all but many would follow suit.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are liberal activist judges who legislate from the bench.
 
jmotivator said:
You have to understand that they see Obama in the much the same way the Ancient Greeks saw Zeus. Obama gave birth to the goddess of law and justice from his head.
Click to expand...

Don't you guys ever get sick of barfing this stupid line onto the forum?
 
APACHERAT said:
It was FDR who was first advised to stack the SCOTUS with judges who would rule in his favor of unconstitutional legislation that he signed into law.

Many future POTUS not all but many would follow suit.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are liberal activist judges who legislate from the bench.
Click to expand...

Like I said, just a blind statement made when you have no specific rebuttal to any particular decision.

And strangely, no criticism of Scalia, who said
We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation.
Click to expand...
The day after he voted to strike down democratically adopted legislation. Talk about activist judge. One day they can strike down a law, and the next day they don't have the power?
 
Cardinal said:
As the number of Federal laws are literally countless (and yes, I used the word "literally" correctly, research it yourself),
Click to expand...

Good for you! I didn't say that you didn't use it correctly, so why are you putting that in there??? (and I won't be researching it, thanks)

it only makes sense that the President would direct the Justice department to prioritize the enforcement of certain laws over others. There's no such thing as enforcing all of them equally because the nation doesn't have anything close to the money or manpower to do so. When you have an estimated figure as high as 300,000 laws (though again keep in mind that's just a mad estimate -- nobody knows the real number), at that point it actually makes sense to say something like "You know what? This law here is ****ing stupid. I'm telling the Justice Department to pursue these other laws instead."
Click to expand...


So let me emphasize: if the Justice Department had sufficient manpower and enforced every Federal law on the books, everyone reading this would be guilty and in Federal prison.
Click to expand...

You really can't be so naive as to equate DOMA with hundreds of thousand of unknown laws, or are you? So that's your reasoning? It was just a matter of not having the money and manpower? I'm going to make the argument that DOMA and immigration laws are a little more prominent than most of the others. Oh, and the President still can't pick and choose laws to enforce. Especially laws of that much importance.
 
Anthony60 said:
Good for you! I didn't say that you didn't use it correctly, so why are you putting that in there??? (and I won't be researching it, thanks)



You really can't be so naive as to equate DOMA with hundreds of thousand of unknown laws, or are you? So that's your reasoning? It was just a matter of not having the money and manpower? I'm going to make the argument that DOMA and immigration laws are a little more prominent than most of the others. Oh, and the President still can't pick and choose laws to enforce. Especially laws of that much importance.
Click to expand...

"Especially laws of that much importance" = there are laws that are not of such importance = the president can prioritize the enforcement of certain laws over others = the President can pick and choose the laws to enforce.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is a very poor argument. A handgun is defined as an arm and all (in Texas) may keep them yet a permit is required to bear them concealed and it is illegal to open carry a handgun (in Texas) even with a CCW permit.

BTW, if i strike you with my "bare arm" and then take your wallet that is not "armed robbery" ;)
Click to expand...

A poor argument, indeed! But, a good example of what the left needs to do to push their agenda. Most of it is not compatible with the Constitution, so they have to play dumb, as if it is unclear what is meant by arms. A bit of an extreme example, and I sure hope it was of the tongue-in-cheek variety. But it represents what they need to do.

They don't want anything in the Constitution to have a clear meaning, that way it has no meaning and they can make up whatever they want.
 
Cardinal said:
"Especially laws of that much importance" = there are laws that are not of such importance = the president can prioritize the enforcement of certain laws over others = the President can pick and choose the laws to enforce.
Click to expand...
Oh, so now your reasoning is that the President does have that power? Mine is that he does not. So, go ahead and show us all the part of the Constitution that gives him such power.
 
Anthony60 said:
Oh, so now your reasoning is that the President does have that power?
Click to expand...

It never wasn't.

Mine is that he does not.
Click to expand...

You haven't shown reasoning, just an opinion. Do you believe that the President should enforce all laws equally?
 
Cardinal said:
It never wasn't.
Click to expand...
Oh, good.
And that is where in the Constitution? You know, you do need some legal support for it, right? The Constitution defines the role of the President. Yes, it does (you can research that) LOL. What role does he have in making laws? And how much discretion does he get in enforcing laws (this might be a tricky question).
 
Anthony60 said:
Oh, good.
And that is where in the Constitution? You know, you do need some legal support for it, right? The Constitution defines the role of the President. Yes, it does (you can research that) LOL. What role does he have in making laws? And how much discretion does he get in enforcing laws (this might be a tricky question).
Click to expand...

You're avoiding my question: do you believe that the President should direct the Justice Department to enforce all [roughly] 300,000 Federal laws equally?
 
jimbo said:
Where does the Constitution mention gay marriage? Or marriage for that matter?
Click to expand...

Where does it mention House music?
 
jimbo said:
No clue . What is your point?
Click to expand...

Well, if you're going to put focus on marriage as to its mention in the Constitution it only makes sense to ask if any of a number of other things that are legal are also mentioned there. Don't forget to look for microwave ovens, Sunday football and those massage chairs you find in every mall.
 
Cardinal said:
You're avoiding my question: do you believe that the President should direct the Justice Department to enforce all [roughly] 300,000 Federal laws equally?
Click to expand...

Oh, I can play that game too. Where in the Constitution does it give the President power to pick and choose laws to enforce?

See what I did there? I'm doing what you did. I responded to your question with another question. But then you claim I am avoiding the question, while you don't answer the legitimate question I asked you.
And actually, I've already answered that question by saying that the President can't pick and choose which laws to enforce. So you are really just kind of scrambling and trying to take the conversation off into some tangent so you don't have to back up your statement.

See what I did there? No, you don't. I've exposed you. Now, put your cloths back on, you've been undressed.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, if you're going to put focus on marriage as to its mention in the Constitution it only makes sense to ask if any of a number of other things that are legal are also mentioned there. Don't forget to look for microwave ovens, Sunday football and those massage chairs you find in every mall.
Click to expand...

I didn't put focus on gay marriage in the Constitution, the OP did, quoting Obama.

I just would like to know what part of the Constitution covers the OP.
 
Anthony60 said:
Oh, I can play that game too. Where in the Constitution does it give the President power to pick and choose laws to enforce?

See what I did there? I'm doing what you did. I responded to your question with another question. But then you claim I am avoiding the question, while you don't answer the legitimate question I asked you.
And actually, I've already answered that question by saying that the President can't pick and choose which laws to enforce. So you are really just kind of scrambling and trying to take the conversation off into some tangent so you don't have to back up your statement.

See what I did there? No, you don't. I've exposed you. Now, put your cloths back on, you've been undressed.
Click to expand...

You undressed yourself when you claimed that laws such as DOMA and immigration were "especially" important, thereby admitting that the President should prioritize certain laws over others. Don't blame others for your poor attempts to disguise what you yourself already know, which is that the Justice Department can't enforce all laws equally.
 
jimbo said:
I didn't put focus on gay marriage in the Constitution, the OP did, quoting Obama.

I just would like to know what part of the Constitution covers the OP.
Click to expand...

The question "Where does the Constitution mention gay marriage? Or marriage for that matter?" implies that you believe that in order for something to be legal it must be mentioned by name in the Constitution. Do you believe that or not?
 
Cardinal said:
The question "Where does the Constitution mention gay marriage? Or marriage for that matter?" implies that you believe that in order for something to be legal it must be mentioned by name in the Constitution. Do you believe that or not?
Click to expand...

I'm implying nothing.

Read the OP, including the title. Try to stay on topic.

Do you know where in the Constitution gay marriage is mentioned?
 
jimbo said:
I'm implying nothing.

Read the OP, including the title. Try to stay on topic.

Do you know where in the Constitution gay marriage is mentioned?
Click to expand...

If you feel that enumerating every legal thing and activity in the Constitution is "off topic" then you shouldn't have asked the question.
 
American said:
So we're rewriting the Constitution using polls?
Click to expand...

It's nothing new for Constitutional rulings and amendments (those are different, by the way) to evolve alongside changing mores, which is of course for the best when you consider many of the amendments that have been created since the Constitution's creation.
 
Cardinal said:
It's nothing new for Constitutional rulings and amendments (those are different, by the way) to evolve alongside changing mores, which is of course for the best when you consider many of the amendments that have been created since the Constitution's creation.
Click to expand...

Did you purposely ignore what I wrote or what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom