• 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!

Chief Justice Roberts: "But do not celebrate the Constitution..."

NotreDame said:
This is a hard argument to make when the 9th Amendment was designed specifically to refute the argument you just made. The "silence" in the Constitution does not render the subject matter left untouched by the U.S. Constitution to the democratic process of the states when the 9th Amendment states unequivocally said silence cannot be relied upon to disparage or deny those "silenced" rights. (9th amendment uses the language of unenumerated rights).

This of course assumes the 9th Amendment is applicable to the states, as safe assumption I think based on the historical record.
Click to expand...

I think you are stretching. The 9th Amendment was to limit the federal govt from encroaching on rights.
 
As for my opinion on this? I need to read more, I cannot honestly give you what I truly feel.

What is my personal opinion on gay marriage in general? Why not? I'll get back to the thread, I have a PDF to read.
 
American said:
I think you are stretching. The 9th Amendment was to limit the federal govt from encroaching on rights.
Click to expand...

I think you're forgetting, Lincoln ensured the passing of the fourteenth. You can't pick and choose what you want in the constitution. It was declared a right, and as a right, states cannot infringe upon it without due process.
 
Luftwaffe said:
The 9th applies because the 14th says it applies. If marriage is a right then states cannot infringe upon it without due process because the fourteenth forbids them from doing so.
Click to expand...

Circular and stupid.

You could use that line of "reasoning" to pretend literally anything is a "constitutional right."

And they have. Multiple times now.
 
Lutherf said:
Robert's interpretation was downright ludicrous in light of his reasoning in King v Burwell. That being said, his reasoning here is still correct.

There is no Constitutional provision to regulate marriage or, rather, wasn't one before this decision. If the people wish to consider marriage to be a right then let them do so without the involvement of government.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if we ignore the text and history of the 9th Amendment, which Roberts' most certainly does for whatever reason, then he has a very strong argument. However, the 9th Amendment is, unfortunately, a rather stinging rebuke to the dissent and some conservatives in regards to this issue decided by the Court.
 
Luftwaffe said:
I think you're forgetting, Lincoln ensured the passing of the fourteenth. You can't pick and choose what you want in the constitution. It was declared a right, and as a right, states cannot infringe upon it without due process.
Click to expand...

Declared a right? Since when are rights declared?
 
JayDubya said:
Circular and stupid.

You could use that line of "reasoning" to pretend literally anything is a "constitutional right."

And they have. Multiple times now.
Click to expand...

the lines are blurred today.......privileges as stated in the constitution have been renamed civil rights in the past, and now civil rights are be called just plain "rights" today.

this leads to government creation of rights for the future, and america's downfall.
 
American said:
I think you are stretching. The 9th Amendment was to limit the federal govt from encroaching on rights.
Click to expand...

This misses the point. What rights was the 9th Amendment to protect from infringement? Those rights not mentioned in the Constitution, or as you say "silent."

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people​

I do think the historical record makes the 9th Amendment applicable to the states, i.e. the original understanding of the 14th Amendment was to make the 9th Amendment applicable to the states.
 
JayDubya said:
Circular and stupid.

You could use that line of "reasoning" to pretend literally anything is a "constitutional right."

And they have. Multiple times now.
Click to expand...

Can I?

If I went to the court and made an argument that murder is a right would they accept it?

Do you realize that this is not the first court decision on marriage in general? Marriage has long been protected as a right, so what exactly excludes same sex marriage? This didn't just poof out of the air.
 
ernst barkmann said:
does that license have a state/bureaucrat approval on it ,because you had to go the the state [courthouse] to get it.

or is it just a declaratory statement by you and the other person only.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a marriage license all of which that I'm familiar has a government seal. Not really relevant to what you said which was: "since a marriage requires a third party to preform the marriage of a couple".
 
Luftwaffe said:
Recognized, if you want to play semantics then fine, cry harder at the decision without debating.
Click to expand...

I think I responded to you, you're the one getting personal now.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Can I?

If I went to the court and made an argument that murder is a right would they accept it?
Click to expand...

If today is any indication, it's a crapshoot.

There's already even precedent for it by way of Roe.
 
The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [federal] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
 
ernst barkmann said:
here is the point i am making, for someone to have a "legal" marriage, meaning government recognizes it via tax laws and issues of property, they must approve of it.

rights under the constitution do not require government to take any action/ approval, only that government not hinder the exercising of the right...

privileges/civil rights/ legal rights, are creations of government and government must perform and action/approval for the right to be exercised.
Click to expand...

Since when does the law and the Constitution mean anything? If you can change your sex just by saying it, why couldn't you change your marital status by saying it?

See? You have to think these things through.
 
JayDubya said:
If today is any indication, it's a crapshoot.

There's already even precedent for it by way of Roe.
Click to expand...

:lamo

That's exactly why I picked murder and not something like rape. You have an agenda, you could care less about rights.
 
ernst barkmann said:
The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [federal] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Click to expand...

They desired it, did they get it?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Yes, it is a marriage license all of which that I'm familiar has a government seal. Not really relevant to what you said which was: "since a marriage requires a third party to preform the marriage of a couple".
Click to expand...

yes.... because an "action" was performed by the state, your marriage would not be legal if the state had not recognized it.

while i did say perform marriage i have stated often, an action.

rights under the constitution require no government action.
 
Luftwaffe said:
As for my opinion on this? I need to read more, I cannot honestly give you what I truly feel.

What is my personal opinion on gay marriage in general? Why not? I'll get back to the thread, I have a PDF to read.
Click to expand...

As does everybody weighing in, and it won't be a one-day or one-read affair either. I've read parts of what Kennedy has said--the value of marriage itself and individual autonomy and what "compels" the majority conclusion. But I surely haven't read all of it. I'm thinking still about what I've read so far knowing that I need to take this in and then return later to a more thoughtful rereading.
 
Luftwaffe said:
:lamo

That's exactly why I picked murder and not something like rape. You have an agenda, you could care less about rights.
Click to expand...

My "agenda" is that I care about human rights and the rule of law.

In Roe they just made **** up, too.

What you fail to understand is that regardless of the topic at hand, I don't approve of SCotUS hallucinating text into existence!

Furthermore, by your standards, maybe the Constitution really does say you have a "constitutional right to rape" and our robed sages just haven't "discovered" it yet.
 
it's just me said:
Since when does the law and the Constitution mean anything? If you can change your sex just by saying it, why couldn't you change your marital status by saying it?

See? You have to think these things through.
Click to expand...

my point is marriage is not a right.....its a privilege since government must perform an action for you to make it legal.

rights under the constitution do not require government actions.

since marriage is a privilege, that privilege must be granted to every Citizen under the constitution, ..unless a state can show it in their interest not to give the privilege, which is a hard thing to do.
 
it's just me said:
Since when does the law and the Constitution mean anything? If you can change your sex just by saying it, why couldn't you change your marital status by saying it?

See? You have to think these things through.
Click to expand...

It is certainly a queer turn of events and a disturbing relativity of language, rights and the law. Protection of minorities is becoming rapidly a myth.
 
JayDubya said:
You lie.
Click to expand...

No, I just know how our laws and constitution work. Answer me this, did Gideon v Wainright create the right to an attorney, or did it recognize that an attorney is necessary to exercise the right to a fair trial? Did Miranda create the right to be informed, or did it recognize that police can't use a person's ignorance of their rights against them? If the answer to either of those is no, then the court did not create a right to homosexual marriage, but instead recognize that the already established right to marriage can't be denied to gays.

If the answer to those is yes, then you clearly have no idea how our court system works.
 
Paschendale said:
No, I just know how our laws and constitution work. Answer me this, did Gideon v Wainright create the right to an attorney, or did it recognize that an attorney is necessary to exercise the right to a fair trial? Did Miranda create the right to be informed, or did it recognize that police can't use a person's ignorance of their rights against them? If the answer to either of those is no, then the court did not create a right to homosexual marriage, but instead recognize that the already established right to marriage can't be denied to gays.

If the answer to those is yes, then you clearly have no idea how our court system works.
Click to expand...

This, many opponents seem to forget that marriage itself was a recognized right before.

If marriage was recognized as a right, then why wouldn't the equal protections clause of the 14th also protect the right to marriage for gays from state or federal infringement? That's how I see it. Of course, I'm still finishing the PDF (and I'm not even a quarter done with it, a lot of it is still confusing for me as a youngling :()
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom