• 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!

Federal judge rules against Kansas's gay marriage ban

ernst barkmann said:
what you cannot figure that one out yourself?
Click to expand...

When it comes to you I would rather not make any assumptions.

Just answer the question, or you know what? Nevermind, It's a waste of my time and class starts again in 10 minutes.
 
ernst barkmann said:
what is that?
Click to expand...

Something the federal government was specifically granted when it comes to taxing within the Constitution. While it applies to taxing and spending of tax money, it still can pertain to a type of force, that of taxing people in order to take care of things that are of the general welfare.
 
roguenuke said:
Something the federal government was specifically granted when it comes to taxing within the Constitution. While it applies to taxing and spending of tax money, it still can pertain to a type of force, that of taxing people in order to take care of things that are of the general welfare.
Click to expand...

wrong, you state general welfare of the people, that is incorrect, ..it is the general welfare..... for the union.

under constitutional law, the federal government duties are external for the union, state powers concern the internal union, deals with the life liberty and property of the people.

none of the powers of congress article 1 section 8 have anything to do with the personal life's of the people.... article 1 section 8 clause 1 is taxes on states,.....not people
 
ernst barkmann said:
wrong, you state general welfare of the people, that is incorrect, ..it is the general welfare..... for the union.

under constitutional law, the federal government duties are external for the union, state powers concern the internal union, deals with the life liberty and property of the people.

none of the powers of congress article 1 section 8 have anything to do with the personal life's of the people.... article 1 section 8 clause 1 is taxes on states,.....not people
Click to expand...

The union is "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Hence, I am correct. The union is the people. We are the union. We are our government.
 
roguenuke said:
The union is "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Hence, I am correct. The union is the people. We are the union. We are our government.
Click to expand...

wrong, federal powers are for the external part of the union, state powers are internal, to the union.

as Madison and Hamilton both state that the Constitution of 1788, is a Constitution itself, because it does not grant powers to the federal government to be involved in the lifes liberty and property of the people, and since the federal government does not have that power, it is impossible to violate thew rights of the people.



james madsion-The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
 
ernst barkmann said:
wrong, federal powers are for the external part of the union, state powers are internal, to the union.

as Madison and Hamilton both state that the Constitution of 1788, is a Constitution itself, because it does not grant powers to the federal government to be involved in the lifes liberty and property of the people, and since the federal government does not have that power, it is impossible to violate thew rights of the people.



james madsion-The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
Click to expand...

Things have changed since then. Deal with it.
 
ernst barkmann said:
LOL.

well next time do not quote Constitution when you do not know it..
Click to expand...

I know it. I know that you want it to remain as it was 200 years ago when it was written, not recognizing that our founding fathers even recognized that it would change with time. This is why they went vague with the rights guarantees and limited the government, not the people in what rights existed. Some wanted a stronger federal government and some a weaker federal government, with stronger state governments. Since that time, it was shown that states have no compunction about denying rights to people if given less than half a chance.

People decide what rights we have in reality because our rights are based on what we are willing to fight for and what we aren't. That is the simple fact of the matter. If we don't fight for our rights, then the Constitution is honestly just a piece of parchment with pretty words, nothing more. It has no power on its own.
 
roguenuke said:
I know it. I know that you want it to remain as it was 200 years ago when it was written, not recognizing that our founding fathers even recognized that it would change with time. This is why they went vague with the rights guarantees and limited the government, not the people in what rights existed. Some wanted a stronger federal government and some a weaker federal government, with stronger state governments. Since that time, it was shown that states have no compunction about denying rights to people if given less than half a chance.

People decide what rights we have in reality because our rights are based on what we are willing to fight for and what we aren't. That is the simple fact of the matter. If we don't fight for our rights, then the Constitution is honestly just a piece of parchment with pretty words, nothing more. It has no power on its own.
Click to expand...

you know very little of constitutional law......
 
ernst barkmann said:
you know very little of constitutional law......
Click to expand...

I know quite a bit. While in general, it is those within the court systems right now who battle out the laws and what our rights are, we can change what they decide on. There is a reason that the courts are going slow on the right to marry someone of the same sex despite the fact that the bans/restrictions obviously violate the equal protection clause as it has been applied for the last 40 or 50 years. They know that they need the people to agree to a point.

If the SCOTUS would have said in the 90s that there was a right for same sex couples to enter into marriage, we would have seen an Amendment that specifically banned it instead of DOMA. This is why I call DOMA a lesser of two evils for that time. That is what it was because the support was there for a Constitutional Amendment then, and doing that changes what is a right or isn't. Doing so would have meant almost certainly several more decades of fighting over this issue, in order to get that Amendment repealed (which would eventually have happened, but it would have been much harder).
 
roguenuke said:
I know quite a bit. While in general, it is those within the court systems right now who battle out the laws and what our rights are, we can change what they decide on. There is a reason that the courts are going slow on the right to marry someone of the same sex despite the fact that the bans/restrictions obviously violate the equal protection clause as it has been applied for the last 40 or 50 years. They know that they need the people to agree to a point.

If the SCOTUS would have said in the 90s that there was a right for same sex couples to enter into marriage, we would have seen an Amendment that specifically banned it instead of DOMA. This is why I call DOMA a lesser of two evils for that time. That is what it was because the support was there for a Constitutional Amendment then, and doing that changes what is a right or isn't. Doing so would have meant almost certainly several more decades of fighting over this issue, in order to get that Amendment repealed (which would eventually have happened, but it would have been much harder).
Click to expand...


you know little.

you state rights come from government---- please show be the statute granting "the right to free speech".......
 
ernst barkmann said:
you know little.

you state rights come from government---- please show be the statute granting "the right to free speech".......
Click to expand...

Rights come from what we are willing to fight for. That is what I have said. In reality, that generally is going to mean what the government wants, but given enough incentive, it can also mean what the people want. The people pushed the government in the past for Amendments, one in particular that ended up getting repealed due to its stupidity.
 
ernst barkmann said:
please show me were rights are granted to the people?
Click to expand...

Please show me where I've said that. No, what I have said is that it comes from what we are willing to fight for. Freedom of speech doesn't mean crap doodly without someone willing to unhold that right. How would it be a right if you were thrown in jail for speaking against someone (saying something like so and so is an evil person) and no one cared? You get convicted for it but the government doesn't care, doesn't correct or even try to correct such a thing, even with "freedom of speech" written into the Constitution?
 
roguenuke said:
Please show me where I've said that. No, what I have said is that it comes from what we are willing to fight for. Freedom of speech doesn't mean crap doodly without someone willing to unhold that right. How would it be a right if you were thrown in jail for speaking against someone (saying something like so and so is an evil person) and no one cared? You get convicted for it but the government doesn't care, doesn't correct or even try to correct such a thing, even with "freedom of speech" written into the Constitution?
Click to expand...

[rights and privileges]

rights are negative law, privileges are positive law.

rights are unwritten law, privileges are written law

rights are secured by law........... that thing you call "uphold"

people do not chose there rights, our rights are vast, things you don't even think about are rights.

we do not fight for rights, we institute a government with the power of law to secure them.

we don't tell government i want this particular right ,.....secure it for me.

if people had the power to chose them own rights, they would create rights with violate the rights of others, because man by nature is collective and works to serve his own interest, which is where you get "mob rule"
 
ernst barkmann said:
[rights and privileges]

rights are negative law, privileges are positive law.

rights are unwritten law, privileges are written law

rights are secured by law........... that thing you call "uphold"

people do not chose there rights, our rights are vast, things you don't even think about are rights.

we do not fight for rights, we institute a government with the power of law to secure them.

we don't tell government i want this particular right ,.....secure it for me.

if people had the power to chose them own rights, they would create rights with violate the rights of others, because man by nature is collective and works to serve his own interest, which is where you get "mob rule"
Click to expand...

What nonsense. Those in power choose what are rights and what aren't rights in reality. Here in the US, the people are supposed to hold that power, and the government tries not to do too many major things to piss off the people so that we won't revolt. We also have checks and balances in place to help hold onto rights too.

We can say we have a right to life all we want or a right to marry or a right to freedom of religion, but what do those things really mean? Does it mean that I can believe whatever I want, openly claim any religious beliefs without persecution or even if persecuted/prosecuted for it, I still maintain those beliefs? Is about free will or application of force against me for doing something that should be my right to do?
 
roguenuke said:
What nonsense. Those in power choose what are rights and what aren't rights in reality. Here in the US, the people are supposed to hold that power, and the government tries not to do too many major things to piss off the people so that we won't revolt. We also have checks and balances in place to help hold onto rights too.

We can say we have a right to life all we want or a right to marry or a right to freedom of religion, but what do those things really mean? Does it mean that I can believe whatever I want, openly claim any religious beliefs without persecution or even if persecuted/prosecuted for it, I still maintain those beliefs? Is about free will or application of force against me for doing something that should be my right to do?
Click to expand...

wrong, if those in power chose our rights, then...where are they written.....in order grant give bestow on you something.... it has to be written.

rights are unwritten law.

no where in statute or constitutional law are you granted any rights.

a right , is something you do, which every person or institution is to stand back while you do it.

a privilege requires an action from government to exercise it.........marriage is a privilege, because it requires another person/entity for the marriage to be legal in the eyes of the law.

Unwritten Law

Unwritten rules, principles, and norms that have the effect and force of law though they have not been formally enacted by the government.

Most laws in America are written. The U.S. Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are three examples of written laws that are frequently cited in federal court. Each state has a similar body of written laws. By contrast, unwritten law consists of those customs, traditions, practices, usages, and other maxims <-------self evident truths......of human conduct that the government has recognized<--------rights recognized by the Constitution........... and enforced.<----------rights enforced by positive law.

Unwritten law is most commonly found in primitive societies where illiteracy is prevalent. Because many residents in such societies cannot read or write, there is little point in publishing written laws to govern their conduct. Instead, societal disputes in primitive societies are resolved informally, through appeal to unwritten maxims of fairness or popularly accepted modes of behavior. Litigants present their claims orally in most primitive societies, and judges announce their decisions in the same fashion. The governing body in primitive societies typically enforces the useful traditions that are widely practiced in the community, while those practices that are novel or harmful fall into disuse or are discouraged.

Much of International Law is a form of primitive unwritten law. For centuries the Rules of War governing hostilities between belligerents consisted of a body of unwritten law. While some of these rules have been codified by international bodies such as the United Nations, many have not. For example, retaliatory reprisals against acts of Terrorism by a foreign government are still governed by unwritten customs in the international community. Each nation also retains discretion in formulating a response to the aggressive acts of a neighboring state.

In the United States, unwritten law takes on a variety of forms. In Constitutional Law the Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to privacy even though the word privacy is not mentioned in the written text of the Constitution. In Commercial Law the Uniform Commercial Code permits merchants to resolve legal disputes by introducing evidence of unwritten customs, practices, and usages that others in the same trade generally follow. The entire body of Common Law, comprising cases decided by judges on matters relating to torts and contracts, among other things, is said to reflect unwritten standards that have evolved over time. In each case, however, once a court, legislature, or other government body formally adopts a standard, principle, or Maxim in writing, it ceases to be an unwritten law

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unwritten+law
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom