United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Back PRIORS AND PRECEDENT Same-Sex Marriage Gets Its Big Day At The Supreme Court
Source:
FiveThirtyEight
URL Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ ... -big-day-at-the-supreme-court/
Published: Apr 28, 2015
Author: Oliver Roeder
Post Date: 2015-04-29 12:33:58 by Jameson
Keywords: SCOTUS, Marraige, 538
Views: 22981
Comments: 119
The question of whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage will finally have its day in court this week. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear two and a half hours of oral argument in a quartet of cases on this subject. If the court reverses lower court rulings that upheld bans on same-sex marriage, it could mean that every state would have to honor such marriages performed in other states, and could require every state to permit them. A decision is expected this summer, most likely in late June. In this edition of Priors and Precedent, we’ll dig into some data and two sources of predictions for this landmark case. First, some background.
The Case
The petitioners are 12 couples and two widowers from states that bar same-sex marriage. A recent profile by NPR dubbed them “‘accidental activists,’ meaning they filed lawsuits not to further a cause but because of the way the bans affected their lives.”
The challenge to the bans, known as Obergefell v. Hodges, is actually four cases rolled into one.1 The court consolidated them and limited its consideration to these two questions:
Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
The first is called the “marriage” question, the second the “recognition” question. The court will hear 90 minutes of argument on the former and an hour of argument on the latter. Civics refresher: The 14th Amendment guarantees certain rights under its “due process” and “equal protection” clauses.
If the answer to the first question is “yes,” then the answer to the second is irrelevant, of course.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
If all the justices vote the way they are most likely to, the algorithm foresees a 7-2 reversal on both questions. The crowd foresees 5-4 and 6-3 reversals on the marriage and recognition questions, respectively. Either set of outcomes would be a triumph for same-sex marriage proponents. "we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Why two people? Why not three?
That is not the question being decided, is it?
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Should be. It's just a matter of time before it comes up. If marriage is not just one man - one woman, then why limit the number to two?
Should be? Why? I'm fairly sure that the SCOTUS addressed polygamy in the late 1800's. Perhaps, in the future you might hire an attorney and challenge that decision yourself!
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Oh look. It came up already! Justice Samuel Alito: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license? Mary Bonauto: I believe so, Your Honor.
It's a banner day for everyone!!!
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Why not four? Why would an ultra-liberal interpretation not apply to protect the love expressed by those of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)? Are those not persons? Why would a certain judge in New York not apply her interpretation of person to protect the love of a chimpanzee and any other(?) person. Obergefell v Hodges, Dir. Ohio Depart of Health, U.S. Supreme Court No 14-556, Official Transcript of Oral Arguent, April 28, 2015. In citation, Obergefell is the first named case. Other named cases are Tanco v Haslam No. 14-565 (Tennessee), DeBoer v Snyder No.14-571 (Michigan), and Bourke v Beshear No. 14-575 (Kentucky). Transcript of Oral Argument, Part 1 of 2, at 10:02 a.m. Transcript of Oral Argument, Part 2 of 2, at 11:39 a.m. In part 1 at 18,
Obergefell v Hodges, Dir. Ohio Department of Health, U.S. Supreme Court No 14-556, Official Transcript of Oral Arguent, April 28, 2015. Transcript of Oral Argument, Part 1 of 2, at 10:02 a.m. Page 23, Justice Scalia speaking:
Instead of getting married. They should get aids.
Does anyone really care about gay/lesbian marriages? I don't care at all. What I don't understand is why the USSC is involved with a "state's right" matter of marriage as though the US Constitution has some quality to express. The USSC is a liberal court is all. They have expanded powers independent of their explicit branch of government in the US Constitution.
The USSC is involved to resolve a dispute over the 14th Amendment, "No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The state permits marriage between two people of the opposite sex (with some other qualifications). Does a state law which denies marriage to two people of the same sex violate the equal protection clause? That is the question before the court. Two questions were certified for oral agruments. In the first session, Bonauto for the Petitioners stated question 1: ORAL ARGUMENT OF MARY L. BONAUTO ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS ON QUESTION 1 MS. BONAUTO: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: The intimate and committed relationships of same-sex couples, just like those of heterosexual couples, provide mutual support and are the foundation of family life in our society. If a legal commitment, responsibility and protection that is marriage is off limits to gay people as a class, the stain of unworthiness that follows on individuals and families contravenes the basic constitutional commitment to equal dignity. Could the argument of Petitioner hold if it were cast as, "The intimate and committed relationships of polygamous groups, just like those of heterosexual couples, provide mutual support and are the foundation of family life in our society?" At the second oral argument session, the another question was: A State should not be allowed to effectively dissolve that marriage without a sufficiently important justification to do so. As state issues, these questions still present a problem of what happens when two same-sex people married in one state travel to another state that does not permit same-sex marriage. Article 4, section 1 provides "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
Excellent post.
"REAL"? Wait a minute! These judges are so enamored with their profession and high position that they have persuaded themselves that the civil/legal marriage is the real one, and that the church/sacramental marriage is a mere byproduct or quaint custom without a real substance. Soon, they will try to change the laws of universe and movements of celestial bodies. By a decree.
That is because you are amoral. Noted that you aren't a real American.
Yeah, I think a lot of people do, and a majority of people believe that marriage equality is OK. In reality, other people's marital status has no impact on the lives of anyone. IMO
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Why would a certain judge in New York not apply her interpretation of person to protect the love of a chimpanzee and any other(?) person. Yes....the slippery slope argument.... Always popular in these discussions. I'm not sure any of this applies to the North American Marlin Brando Look-Alikes (NAMBLA) ....but good point anyway!
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
In reality, other people's marital status has no impact on the lives of anyone. IMO Are you a faggot?
People who post pro faggot stuff. Should be prosecuted for being a pedophile.
No, sorry - I'm straight.....but I'm sure you'll meet someone special soon.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Thanks as always to Nolu Chan our LF litigator:) Really thanks. Scalia is hitting the finer points of this. Suggesting that if they rule this as a Constitutional right priests, rabbis, pastors etc. may be excluded or forbidden to even get a 'license' to conduct marriage if they refuse to exercise the federal law...Strong argument to keep this in the states.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
A couple of points to your comments: First is you are right this is a state matter. The only argument before the court should be if a state which prohibits gay 'marriage' has to accept a gay 'marriage' certificate from a state which does. But that begs the question... Second, on 'who cares'?...Well you may not care but the souless minions of liberal marxism do care. They are taking advantage of those who don't care or disinterested to change our laws and constitution. That is why on every issue one must take a stand or someone else will take one for you.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
I've noticed from Scriptures Satan always starts and ends with lies. Mixed in the bag are some terms which seem true but based on the original lie. Big fat lie above. Note, I know you were quoting and not your words.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
History proves that 'yes' polygamous marriages with one man and more than one woman worked for certain societies. Just not for the Christian dominated philosophical view of the Western countries. Plus any modern man has enough issues being able to handle one woman in a committed relationship.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Soon, they will try to change the laws of universe and movements of celestial bodies. By a decree. Amen!
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
IMO Tell that to people who have already been sued for not catering a gay wedding; did not rent out their reception hall to a gay couple for a wedding. Tell that to a future pastor who will refuse to marry a gay couple. Scalia hit a valid point. Right now pastors, priests and rabbis can refuse. Once this becomes constitutionally mandated the question arises if those who refuse can be issued a license to marry as a state/federal agent of marriage. So in effect Brian O'Malley and Theresa Rizzo have their nuptuals in a Catholic church by a priest. The priest no longer can sign their marriage certificate given he refused to comply with federal and state laws marrying same sex couples. Now the Catholic couple will have to see a justice of the peace to 'officially' be married. What was down, will be up and what was up will be down. Isaiah 5:20 baby.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Why would an ultra-liberal interpretation not apply to protect the love expressed by those of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)? Are those not persons? Why would a certain judge in New York not apply her interpretation of person to protect the love of a chimpanzee and any other(?) person. Yes....the slippery slope argument.... Always popular in these discussions. I'm not sure any of this applies to the North American Marlin Brando Look-Alikes (NAMBLA) ....but good point anyway! And a very valid slippery slope. The usual argument is there are state laws protecting minors from NAMBLA predators. This SCOTUS case is case in point that state laws can and are changed with a proper lobbying apparatus, advertisement and MONEY. If one state...(maybe Colorado?) allows pederast marriage, you bet that would be going to the SCOTUS once the pederast decides to move to CA and wants that pederast marriage 'legal.' There is over 10,000 years of historical evidence of a one man-one woman marriage being the best for society and raising children. Polygamy comes in second in historical evidence but only for the elite who could afford them. And we have ample evidence in the Bible where those who did have polygamous marriages ending up having strife, infighting and sons from different mothers vying for the inheritance. The US and the rest of the West have bought in to the 'theology' of the souless minions of liberal marxism.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
What part of the 14th amendment requires this? "Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?" The 14th amendment?? Why isn't this covered under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution -- "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
Yeah.....there's always someone who is being inconvenienced. My point was more general..... There are millions of people going about their business everyday who live near, or work near a gay couple who have now been "permitted" to be legally married. Their lives haven't been affected - that is why a majority of the population is OK with marriage equality.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
The 14th amendment?? Why isn't this covered under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution -- "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." Yeah, I have no idea. You'll have to take up these questions with an attorney. (even then, I'll bet that there will be multiple opinions)
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Lives have not been affected....yet? They have been. People are being sued right now and have judgments against them NOW, for exercising their First Amendment rights. Do you think a ruling in favor of gay 'marriage' is the end of the matter? No way. This is just the beginning. The gay lobby is looking three or four steps ahead. So are the polygamy lobby and the pederast and pedophile lobby. They now know all they have to do is change one state and then they can go to SCOTUS and use the 14th Amendment as did the homosexuals. The only reason gay 'marriage' is on the SCOTUS docket is because Christians don't burn and loot entire cities when the political masters and kings and queens in court try to change our society to the philosophy and practice of the souless minions of liberal marxism. And some of us who see the hell hole our nation is in and continues to dig deeper in, won't be silent. Isaiah 5:20 baby.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
The Leather District of Frisco or Greenwich Village don't count. The majority of the population are NO "ok," but are DISGUSTED with polls, not-stop coercion, shaming young-people with non-stop propaganda, and lies that supposedly normalize fake "marriage." "Marriage" of Two men or two women is definitively impossible and unprecedented. Its "equality" can only be a matter of "rights" as a "partner."
Why would a certain judge in New York not apply her interpretation of person to protect the love of a chimpanzee and any other(?) person. Yes....the slippery slope argument.... It is a constitutional argument. Justice Alito raisded the question "Well, what if there no -- these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it not - it's not the sort of polygamous relationship ... [a]nd lets say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers." Why would the legal logic offered for same-sex marriage not extend to polygamous marriage? Or Man-boy marriage? The 14th amendment provides that "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." If the 14th amendment is the basis, what persons does it not apply to? How is it limited? What are the possible unintended consequences? For real resistance, picture an orthodox rabbi being ordered to perform a marriage between a gay Jew and a gay non-Jew. Quite obviously, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," applies to anchor babies, even babies born of two illegal aliens in a detention center awaiting deportation.
Don't know, maybe it would... I have always believed that the whole multi-spouse deal was settled in the 1800's.... Or Man-boy marriage? Maybe because one is a minor? For real resistance, picture an orthodox rabbi being ordered to perform a marriage between a gay Jew and a gay non-Jew. I don't think this decision if it is rendered "forces" any member of the clergy to do anything - it would, I think compel states to issue licenses to same-sex couples and recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Great rebuttal to Jameson's, "Lives haven't been affected - that is why a majority of the population is OK with marriage equality." Your money quote: "The only reason gay 'marriage' is on the SCOTUS docket is because Christians don't burn and loot entire cities when the political masters and kings and queens in court try to change our society to the philosophy and practice of the souless minions of liberal marxism." NAILED. (ONLY a righteous anger tempered by the Lord withholds an unleashed wrath from Believers.)
What if one sued you for "speaking to my "husband disrespectfully"?
That sounds rational but the law gets in the way. The age to get legally married goes as low as 13. If opposite-sex marriage is permitted at 13, age does not seem a legal barrier to man-boy marriage if same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. MR. HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER: It probably is age. JUSTICE ALITO: And what is the -- what -- what's the range? MR. HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER: The -- the -- I think it goes from 13 to 18. And -- but -- but as I said before, the tradition of the States the issue does not come up that much, but the tradition of the States is to recognize a marriage that was entered into by someone of an age that could not have been entered within the State, because of the nature of the marriage once it's established, recognizing that the fundamental nature of that relationship is not one that the State should put asunder. JUSTICE ALITO: Well, I thought you answered me earlier that a State could refuse to recognize a marriage in -- contracted in another State where the minimum age was puberty. MR. HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER: Well, they they could, and I do believe that if, in the individual case, it was shown that it was because of lack of consent, the the State could decide not to recognize the marriage. But with respect to the categorical nature JUSTICE GINSBURG: It would have to be shown, I think, the presumption would be in such a State that someone age 13 can't consent. MR. HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER: The age 13, I think probably you're right, but if it is a matter of 15 instead of 16, that the courts probably would recognize it, especially if, in reliance on their marriage, the the couple had already conceived of a child, it would do no one any good -- to destroy that marriage and the stable environment that it might provide for the children, just as it does no one any good it certainly doesn't advance the interests of the children of oppositesex couples to destroy the marriages that provide stability to the children of samesex couples who are already married under the laws of other States. - - - - - The issue of polygamy was addressed in a federal case against the LDS/Mormans, but that did not involve a state but a territory. Here is what the Federal government did to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) in 1890 over the issue of polygamy. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/136/1/case.html Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U.S. 1 (1890) The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States Nos. 1031, 1054 136 U.S. 1 Syllabus The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was incorporated February, 1851, by an act of assembly of the so-called State of Deseret, which was afterwards confirmed by act of the Territorial Legislature of Utah, the corporation being a religious one, and its property and fund, held for the religious and charitable objects of the society, a prominent object being the promotion and practice of polygamy, which was prohibited by the laws of the United States. Congress, in 1887, passed an act repealing the act of incorporation and abrogating the charter and directing legal proceedings for seizing its property and winding up its affairs. Held that (1) The power of Congress over the territories is general and plenary, arising from the right to acquire them, which right arises from the power of the government to declare war and make treaties of peace and also, in part, arising from the power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States. (2) This plenary power extends to the acts of the legislatures of the territories, and is usually expressed in the organic act of each by an express reservation of the right to disapprove and annul the acts of the legislature thereof. Page 136 U. S. 2 (3) Congress had the power to repeal the act of incorporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints not only by virtue of its general power over the territories, but by virtue of an express reservation in the organic act of the Territory of Utah of the power to disapprove and annul the acts of its legislature. (4) The act of incorporation being repealed and the corporation dissolved, its property, in the absence of any other lawful owner, devolved to the United States, subject to be disposed of according to the principles applicable to property devoted to religious and charitable uses, the real estate, however, being also subject to a certain condition of forfeiture and escheat contained in the act of 1862. (5) The general system of common law and equity, except as modified by legislation, prevails in the Territory of Utah, including therein the law of charitable uses. (6) By the law of charitable uses, when the particular use designated is unlawful and contrary to public policy, the charity property is subject to be applied and directed to lawful objects most nearly corresponding to its original destination, and will not be returned to the donors or their heirs or representatives, especially where it is impossible to identify them. (7) The court of chancery, in the exercise of its ordinary powers over trusts and charities, may appoint new trustees on the failure or discharge of former trustees, and may compel the application of charity funds to their appointed uses, if lawful, and, by authority of the sovereign power of the state, if not by its own inherent power, may reform the uses when illegal or against public policy by directing the property to be applied to legal uses, conformable as near as practicable to those originally declared. (8) In this country, the legislature has the power of parens patriae in reference to infants, idiots, lunatics, charities, etc., which in England is exercised by the Crown, and may invest the court of chancery with all the powers necessary to the proper superintendence and direction of any gift to charitable uses. (9) Congress, as the supreme legislature of Utah, had full power and authority to direct the winding up of the affairs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a defunct corporation, with a view to the due appropriation of its property to legitimate religious and charitable uses conformable, as near as practicable, to those to which it was originally dedicated. This power is distinct from that which may arise from the forfeiture and escheat of the property under the act of 1862. (10) The pretense of religious belief cannot deprive Congress of the power to prohibit polygamy and all other open offenses against the enlightened sentiment of mankind. On behalf of the Court, MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY stated the case as follows: [...] On the 1st of July, 1862, the following act of Congress was approved, to-wit: "An act to punish and prevent the Practice of Polygamy in the Territories of the United States, and other Places, and disapproving and annulling Certain Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah." [...] That therefore the real estate referred to, owned by the corporation, is subject to escheat to the United States; That on the 19th day of February, 1887, by the said act of that date, the charter and act of incorporation of the corporation aforesaid was disapproved, repealed, and annulled by Congress, and the corporation was dissolved, and all the real estate owned and occupied by it in excess of $50,000, not held or occupied for the worship of God, etc., was subject to escheat to the United States; One might ask, if polygamy is an offense against the enlightened sentiment of mankind, is same-sex marriage an affirmative statement of the enlightened sentiment of mankind? In biblical terms, polygamy was accepted, but homosexuality was abomination, and remans repugnant to many religions. If SCOTUS holds that same-sex marriage is a protected constitutional right, Congress is powerless to reverse that decision. It would take a SCOTUS reversal, or a constitutional amendment. Whatever the results would be merits careful attention before acting.
Why not one man and one cow or one woman (a car creeper) and one shetland pony?? That is where this is all heading no matter how much the homos and APA protest or deny it, all they know is how to lie. Oh BTW why is it that less than 1% of homos are getting married to start with? (So that means all this hubub over fag marriage is for 100,000 people or so who want to feel good about themselves even though they shouldn't). There are already 36 states who are being forced to accept this bullschitt so why aren't they running en masse to those states to get hitched? (HINT, HINT Homosexuality isn't about love)...
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.â€
And the reason why martial law hasn't been instituted yet, once they say enough is enough the Leftards will be tripping all over themselves to proclaim it.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.â€
The 14th amendment?? Why isn't this covered under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution -- "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is argued on behalf of the right to enter into same-sex marriage. Article 4 is said to apply to require all states to recognize an existing same-sex marriage, even where it would not be legal to enter into according to the laws of said state. ORAL ARGUMENT OF MARY L. BONAUTO ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS ON QUESTION 1 MS. BONAUTO: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: The intimate and committed relationships of samesex couples, just like those of heterosexual couples, provide mutual support and are the foundation of family life in our society. If a legal commitment, responsibility and protection that is marriage is off limits to gay people as a class, the stain of unworthiness that follows on individuals and families contravenes the basic constitutional commitment to equal dignity. Indeed, the abiding purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment is to preclude relegating classes of persons to secondtier status. - - - - - At 1-31 GENERAL VERRILLI: It is different, I agree. And I and it leads to the second thing I think that the that the Lawrence catalyzed for our society, was it put gay and lesbian couples, gay and lesbian people, in a position for the first time in our history to be able to lay claim to the abiding promise of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that was just impossible when they were marginalized and ostracized. - - - - - At 1-40 GENERAL VERRILLI: But what these gay and lesbian couples are doing is laying claim to the promise of the Fourteenth Amendment now. And it is emphatically the duty of this Court, in this case, as it was in Lawrence, to decide what the Fourteenth Amendment requires. And what I would suggest is that in a world in which gay and lesbian couples live openly as our neighbors, they raise their children side by side with the rest of us, they contribute fully as members of the community, that it is simply untenable untenable to suggest that they can be denied the right of equal participation in an institution of marriage, or that they can be required to wait until the majority decides that it is ready to treat gay and lesbian people as equals. Gay and lesbian people are equal.They deserve the equal protection of the laws, and they deserve it now. Thank you. - - - - - At 2-26 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JOSEPH F. WHALEN ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS ON QUESTION 2 MR. WHALEN: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: The Fourteenth Amendment does not require States with traditional marriage laws to recognize marriages from other States between two persons of the same sex. JUSTICE SCALIA: What about Article IV? I'm so glad to be able to quote a portion of the Constitution that actually seems to be relevant. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State." Now, why doesn't that apply? MR. WHALEN: Your Honor, this Court's cases have made clear that the Court draws a distinction between judgments between States and the laws of each State. And the reason in part that the Court's decisions have said that is that otherwise, each State would be able to essentially legislate for every other State. JUSTICE SCALIA: Public acts? It would include the act of marrying people, I assume. MR. WHALEN: My understanding of this Court's decisions as the reference in the Constitution to public acts is that each State's laws. JUSTICE SCALIA: So there there's nothing in the Constitution that requires a State to acknowledge even those marriages in other States that that are the same. MR. WHALEN: That's essentially correct, Your Honor. JUSTICE SCALIA: Really? - - - - -
Because cows and shetland ponies are not recognized as people.
The "1% of gays" figure is the total number of homosexual "marriages" since it became legal in 2004. It does not include homosexual "divorces" (assuming they go to the trouble to get one, rather than simply go their separate ways). The best I can tell, the homosexual "divorce" rate is about 2% per year, so that "1% of gays" figure is more like .8%.
Care to reason why societal norms have drifted in this respect?
I could care less. Anyone can draw legal suit against anyone in America, at any time. Figuratively speaking, you better show just reason or the matter is thrown out and I don't have to lift a finger.
Liberals/Socialists/Democrats?
Why not sneakypete and that chimpanzee that I read about the other day. It is recognized as a human I believe. I mean Pete thinks we came from monkeys anyway. Maybe they can have kids.
John Gotti can marry his hit man.
And the 14th truthfully wasn't ratified legally.
nope. Way back in the good ol' days of yesteryear, the family unit was held supreme for the purpose of survival; restraints were placed on sexual conduct were imposed to ensure the survival of societies, no matter the size. Homosexuality was abhorred as the act of homosexuality did not contribute to the family or society for and about survival skills as in farm work based on the need to have increasing family members or progeny. On the other hand, having all the wives you wanted (polygamy) was another way to ensure progeny for the farm and required work to perpetuate the family unit. The reasons of "yesteryear families" doesn't cut it within modern Uber-suburbia families. Perpetuating the family unit today or the farm unit is simply a minor vestige of mankind's history.
Again, I don't care. Now, don't think it is an apathetic remarck. I am saying the norms of society are changing and I have no need to cling to some historical social norm. Also, I have no need to jump on a bandwagon making changes. I am resilient to change, is all.
I tend to agree ... but honestly I really don't give a flying consideration other than this forum is preoccupied with queers. Yukon must have got around a lot, 'eh?
What's this "we" stuff,monkey? You pregnant?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Just ask Gatlin.
Wouldn't surprise me. But maybe Satan himself ratified it; That's good enough for all the narcissists, anarchists and Democrats. The 14A killed America, and it's not done burying us.
Oh boy looks like nolu has stumbled onto something here. Ping.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
I would agree with you. But its ratification was certified by the Executive Branch and that action is not subject to any judicial review. If you had a truckload of proof, there would be no place to deliver it. See my post on another thread here for two books on the ratification of the 14th. It's a disgrace, but they got away with it.
Be careful. Seeing some of the responses here you might get an answer like "it depends on what the Shetland pony looks like."
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
The family unit? You mean baby mama and the kids?
Remember, there was a crazy New York Supreme Court judge who found that two chimps have personhood and granted a writ of habeas corpus. I'm fairly certain she will be overturned, and for clarity note that in New York, the "Supreme" court is the lower Trial court, and the ultimate court is the New York Court of Appeals. If that were actually law, it would seem chimps would arguably have a right to marry another person.
I actually find one state, with parental consent, permits marriage at age 12.
Also, I have no need to jump on a bandwagon making changes. I am resilient to change, is all. I wonder if the Roman emperor Valens thought the same before the Goths sacked him.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
That all came from a porno I seen when I was a teen at a bachelor party called "Pony Express". LOL...
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.â€
You would think bucky can see that the idiots seem to be taking over in many places of authority and that the homos are in that crowd in large numbers. (Homos make up %10 of the total population in DC and how many of them run in the political circle)? Wonder how he'll feel in the future if he's to be "sacked" (bent over the kitchen table) at some wacked out homo marriage ceremony/ritual?? (Where's Meguro when you need him he could comment on that)... :)
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.â€
That does seem to be the ultimate goal and has been for quite sometime, the pervs have to make themselves look respectable. Rules for Leftards: 47). It doesn’t make any difference that I lack morality, integrity and honesty; I’ve convinced myself that I’m still a good person... (And you had better believe it too or you'll end up in a FEMA camp, can't have the religious disbelievers running loose spreading the truth ya know).
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.â€
Shhhh, PETA will try to string you up if they hear that.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.â€
Tearing apart the fabric of society to please people who should be in a looney bin to start with.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.â€
Excellent point.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
States don't have to honor the gun laws of other states (eg., concealed carry). And that's a right that IS protected by it's own amendment. They don't have to honor the medical marijuana laws of other states. So why should they honor other states' marriage laws which have been a state-decided issue for hundreds of years? Finding a hidden constitutional right for gay marriage and forcing it on every state will result in perpetual civil unrest similar to the 40-year-old abortion decision. Nationwide gay marriage will require a constitutional amendment and there are nowhere near enough votes to pass one. Which should tell you something right there.
Homosexuality should be treated like any other sexual disorder -- and there are many (see: List of paraphilias). There is no rationale for elevating one over the others and calling it "an acceptable, alternative choice".
I would like to know what law school that clown went to. Probably the school of fun arts: Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Clown College Knew this weird Signal officer in the Army who did weekend gigs as a clown. He would drive his 'clown' car to work with his advertisement panel and all. Thought ok, he wants to make a few more bucks. Well he took command of a training battery a few months later, I was invited. I looked at his bio in the program and he had listed a BA in Fun Arts from the college listed above. Amazing.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Knew this weird Signal officer in the Army who did weekend gigs as a clown. He would drive his 'clown' car to work with his advertisement panel and all. Thought ok, he wants to make a few more bucks. Well he took command of a training battery a few months later, I was invited. I looked at his bio in the program and he had listed a BA in Fun Arts from the college listed above. Amazing. ROFL... (A BA in "Fun Arts" no less...from Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Clown College Now THAT is sad. :-)
Oh boy looks like nolu has stumbled onto something here. Ping. Wooooah, Nellie! Leave it to Chan to un-turn EVERY stone. This one should be Headline News.
Hmmm...I had no idea, nor had given any thought to the genesis of the 14th and grounds and background for ratification. "Disgraceful," Chan?? Sounds like someone or some people had a motive....and KNEW the 14th would wind up THE monkey wrench in the Constitutional cog. Thanks to Stone for bringing it up the (il)legitimacy, and thanks to Chan for his weighing in and link.
That is where this is all heading no matter how much the homos and APA protest or deny it, all they know is how to lie. Target: HIT. Dead center. Oh BTW why is it that less than 1% of homos are getting married to start with? (So that means all this hubub over fag marriage is for 100,000 people or so who want to feel good about themselves even though they shouldn't). There are already 36 states who are being forced to accept this bullschitt so why aren't they running en masse to those states to get hitched? (HINT, HINT Homosexuality isn't about love)... Excellent analysis. This is NOT about "love" OR "freedom" OR "tolerance"...It is about destroying the foundation of our nation, our culture, our society. Our God. It's purely Alinsky (whose book was dedicated "TO Satan."
What's sad is that some of his drill sergeant NCOs cut some corners in a basic trainee live fire exercise and two Soldiers died. He was not on site when it happened and was relieved of command and discharged from the Army. It wasn't difficult training and the NCOs just got complacent because they do it 'all the time.' They cut corners on a check list and the CPT is responsible for checking their live fire prep did not catch the screw up.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Strangely, neither are fetuses or 8-month old preborn according to SCOTUS But I digress -- aren't sexual relations and "marriage" becoming loosely based more "consent" rather than age, gender, or...species? Since all it takes is one single insane, subversive judge (as in the farcical Chimpanzee case) to re-interpret either "person-hood" OR "consent" as legit mitigating issues, the language, society's "norms" (and laws) are completely at the whim of an insane judiciary. This same insane judiciary often defers to the insane American Psychiatric Association as *its* moral/legal arbiter. And we wonder how we've gotten to this point?? In the immoral words of Coach Vince Lombardi (prowling the sidelines, witnessing absolute chaos), "WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE??!?) The judiciary should now be considered subversive Trojan Horse activists with axes to grind with their own clinical psychological problems. They are a dangerous liability America can no longer afford.
I would agree with you. But its ratification was certified by the Executive Branch and that action is not subject to any judicial review. If you had a truckload of proof, there would be no place to deliver it. See my post on another thread here for two books on the ratification of the 14th. It's a disgrace, but they got away with it. --- nolu chan Hmmm...I had no idea, nor had given any thought to the genesis of the 14th and grounds and background for ratification. "Disgraceful," Chan?? Sounds like someone or some people had a motive.... liberator The 'motive' for passing the 14th is well documented in the congressional record by those who wrote and passed it. --- The southern states that had just lost the war, were infringing upon the rights of their citizens, and ignoring the constitution of the USA to do so.
The Clown (a Capt??) was relieved of duty? Or his DIs? Unreal. A few less drills on learning how to be a professional clown, and more concerted effort in learning how to be a professional who *saves* lives (wait -- damage done %$#@!) Professional clowns are scary for good reason. This jackwagon desperately needs a psych eval in any case. His sloppiness and blase attitude was adopted by osmosis by his DIs. It wasn't difficult training and the NCOs just got complacent because they do it 'all the time.' They cut corners on a check list and the CPT is responsible for checking their live fire prep did not catch the screw up. Inexcusable sloppiness with devastating results.
So we've all weighed in with our respective opinions on the two questions before the court............ If the analysis by FiveThirtyEight is correct, and the SCOTUS overturns the lower courts.......... What will you do?
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
You may be right about a Southern governance that was indeed infringing upon the civil/constitutional right of their respective citizenry. Slavery was wrong. But by the same token, slavery could also be found in Northern States. How many Irishmen were deprived of due process abd shot during NY riots for rejecting being sacrificed as cannon fodder? How many slaves existed in the North? Who was the north to invade Southern sovereign borders? "Honest" Lincoln ignored the USCON by infringing on State and personal sovereignty and creating a grand cluster#@&! The promise and agreement that first lured southern states into the Union were violated, as were the spirit and letter of their respective state agreements. Ironically, suddenly these southern States found themselves to be the "slaves" of the the whims a stronger, oppressive federal gubmint. The 14th Amendment was apparently authored by libertarian anarchists and secular humanists (subject to minimal legal scrutiny and editing) who cared not a whit about opening the door to Pandora's Box. Q: Would Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Livingstone and the the signers of the BoR and original USCON have endorsed the 14th as written?
What will you do? We'll note how the majority consent and authority of the citizenry is again being usurped by a few subversive judges, emboldened and coerced by social media -- then the rest of us will watch the predictable insanity unfold: In certain parts of the country the rule WILL be social chaos, judicial fascism, public school fast-tracked coercion of the homofascist agenda, and the harassment of churches and clergy. Unimpeded "Hate Crime" and "Hate Speech" crusaders -- shielded by taxpayer funded armed LE "bodyguards" -- will be out in force on social media, in front of Christian businesses, and squatting during Sunday churches services. BLOWBACK will ensue. Bottom Line: The terms “due process” and “equal protection” as per the 14th Amendment are not only LIES but DAMNED LIES. The 14A is a bad joke. "Hate Speech" and "Hate Crimes," "Affirmative Action," and "Quotas" ALL clearly confer UN-EQUAL Il-legal "protection and opportunity" under supposed constitutional law.* (*Based on creed, color, gender, religion, sexual preference, etc.)
I think it has something to do with that Constitution supreme law of the land thingee. Art 4, Sec 1: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=245 Chap. XI.—An Act to prescribe the mode in which the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings in each Stae, shall be authenticated so as to take effect in every other State. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States, as they have by law or usage in the courts of the state from whence the said records are or shall be taken.(a) Approved, May 26, 1790. _____ (a) Art. 4, sec. 1, Constitution of the United States.—The decisions of the courts of the United States upon this statute, and on the introduction in evidence of the "acts, records, and judicial proceedings," have been: Under the fourth article and 1st section of the constitution of the United States, and the act of 26th May, 1790, if a judgment has the effect of record evidence in the courts of the State from which it is taken, it has the same effect in the courts of every other State; and the plea of all debet is not a good plea to an action brought upon such judgment in a court of another State. Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 483; 2 Cond. Rep. 578. See Leland v. Wilkinson, 6 Peters, 317. United States v. Johns, 4 Dall. 412. Ferguson v. Harwood, 7 Cranch, 408; 2 Cond. Rep. 548. Drummond's adm'rs v. Magruder's trustees, 9 Cranch, 122; 3 Cond. Rep. 303. Under the act of May 26, 1790, prescribing the mode in which the public records each State shall be authenticated, so as to take effect in every other State, copies of the legislative acts of the several States, authenticated by having the seal of the State affixed thereto, are conclusive evidence of such acts in every other State. No other formality is required, than the annexation of the seal, and in the absence of all contrary proof, it must be presumed to have been done by an officer having the custody thereof, and competent authority to do the act. United States v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 393; 6 Cond. Rep. 363. The record of a judgment in one State is conclusive in another, although it appears that the suit in which it was rendered was commenced by an attachment of property, the defendant having afterwards appeared and taken defence. Mayhew v. Thatcher, 6 Wheat. 129; 5 Cond. Rep. 34. In an action upon a judgment, in another State, the defendant cannot plead any fact in bar which contradicts the record on which the suit is brought. Field v. Gibbs, Peters' C.C.R. 155. See Green v. Sarmiento, Peters' C.C.R. 74. Blount v. Darrah, 4 Wash. C.C.R. 657. Turner v. Waddington, 3 Wash. C.C.R. 126. - - - - - 28 U.S.C. 1738C says they need not do so when it concerns same-sex marriage. Of course, this is under legal challenge as it appears to be a Statute that unconstitutionally purports to carve out an exception to a the constitutional full faith and credit provision. Congress has authority to pass laws only pursuant to the Constitution. http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-28/part-v/chapter-115/section-1738c/ §1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. (Added Pub. L. 104–199, §2(a), Sept. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2419.) - - - - - http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-28/part-v/chapter-115/section-1738/ § 1738. State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form. Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 947.) http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-28/part-v/chapter-115/section-1738a/ § 1738A. Full faith and credit given to child custody determinations (a) The appropriate authorities of every State shall enforce according to its terms, and shall not modify except as provided in subsections (f), (g), and (h) of this section, any custody determination or visitation determination made consistently with the provisions of this section by a court of another State. [snip] http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-28/part-v/chapter-115/section-1738b/ § 1738B. Full faith and credit for child support orders (a) General Rule.—The appropriate authorities of each State— (1) shall enforce according to its terms a child support order made consistently with this section by a court of another State; and (2) shall not seek or make a modification of such an order except in accordance with subsections (e), (f), and (i). [snip] - - - - - - - - - - Fauntleroy Doctrine. In Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641, 52 L.Ed. 1039, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state must give full faith and credit to a judgment of a sister state if such state had jurisdiction to render it even though the judgment is based on an original cause of action which is illegal in the state in which enforcement is sought. - - - - - Comity. Courtest; complaisance; respect; a willingness to grant a privilege, not as a matter of right, but out of deference and good will. Recognition that one sov ereignty allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial act of aother sovereignty, having due regard to rights of its own citizens. Nowell v. Nowell, Tex.Civ.App., 408 S.W.2d 550, 553. In general, principle of "comity" is that courts of one state or jurisdiction will give effect to laws and judicial decisions of another state or jurisdiction, not as a matter of obligation but out of deference and mutual respect. Brown v. Babbitt Ford, Inc., 117 Ariz. 192, 571 P.2d 689, 695. See also Full faith and credit clause. - - - - - Public acts are those which have a public authority, and which have been made before public officers, are authorized by a public seal, have been made public by the authority of a magistrate, or which have been extracted and been properly authenticated from public records. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
You should read your own posts sometime (but hey, who has that kind of time?). In your post #40 lies the answer: "And the reason in part that the Court's decisions have said that is that otherwise, each State would be able to essentially legislate for every other State." In other words, if Article IV, Section 1 applied to state laws, then those laws would have to apply in every state.
The 14th fundamentally changed the form of government. The below tongue in cheek review of the passage of the 14th Amendment is over ten years old and I have no idea who wrote it so I cannot give credit. My original source is a dead link. I can see that on FR, I posted it to tpaine in 2003. Anyway, the passage went something like this: The fourteenth amendment to the constitution has arguably the most sweeping and important. It is the due process of law amendment that has caused so many to our legal system. But, few know the story of the fourteenth and how the egg of "due process" was hatched. At the Civil War's end Lincoln granted amnesty to nearly all and "with malice towards none", all the southern states were soon functioning again in a legal and proper manner. Because the war was over his emancipation proclamation was effectively ended and so the need of the thirteenth amendment to abolish slavery. There were 36 states in the union and the necessary 3/4 to pass the constitutional amendment was accomplished easily when 10 of the southern states voted for ratification. Then came the 39th congress in December of 1865. Article 1 of the constitution states that a majority of the either house can deny the seat to any member of its respective house of congress. The Senators and Representatives of the 25 northern states voted to deny seats to the newly elected congressmen from 11 southern states. This meant that the seated congress had 182 of a possible 240 representatives, and only 50 of the rightful 72 senators. There were 36 recognized states in the union. (Keep in mind that in the 38th congress the southern representatives were allowed to vote and have their state votes count in passage of the 13th amendment). In the beginning of the 39th congress came resolution #48 which sponsored the fourteenth amendment. The amendment was especially important to northern liberals as it's privileges and immunities clause would sweep power from states and hand it to the federal government. The sponsors of the amendment needed a two-thirds majority of each house to submit the amendment to the states for ratification, and remember, the house is short 58 representatives from the southern states and senate 22 senators as well! The constitution states amendments need the vote of "two-thirds of both houses". Does this mean of the seated members or the available seats? Well, it depends on who is counting the votes. At the time there were 33 senators in favor of the resolution #48 which was, 23 short of 2/3rds of the full compliment and 1 short of being 2/3rds of the 50 seated members. Either way you count it, passage is doomed. NO PROBLEM. Senator John Stockton of New Jersey was elected by a plurality and not a majority vote and was seated to the senate, he was against the fourteenth. A plurality was all that was needed by New Jersey law, and other states as well, however, Stockton's seat was taken from him (after being seated) by the senate majority because he had not received a majority vote and the 33 affirmative voting senators comprised a two-thirds majority of the remaining 49 seated senators. In the house there were 120 of the 182-seated members in favor of the amendment, 2 short of the necessary two-thirds. NO PROBLEM. Because 30 members abstained, their numbers were not recognized at all, meaning only 152 votes were recognized and 120 is well over two-thirds of the number that voted yes or no. I remind you that the full house compliment was 240 members and that 120 is 1/2 of 240 not 2/3. Hang on, we are only half way there but it gets better. Now the amendment must be passed by three-fourths of the states and Nebraska has been admitted meaning 28 states must ratify the 14th amendment. By March, 1867 10 states said no and 17 said yes. California then took no action on the amendment, which was the same as a no vote, meaning there could be at most 26 yes votes when all the states were counted. Then, Oregon which had voted yes with the help of two legislative members later held not to be duly elected changed its vote to no when those two state representatives were replaced by two legitimate representatives, sure doom? NO PROBLEM. The US Congress recognized the first Oregon vote and discarded the second even though two members of the Oregon state government were not legally able to vote and replaced by the state of Oregon, remember Senator Stockton of New Jersey? The US Congress unseated him (a no vote) because it questioned his validity as a Senator, but recognized the yes votes of State representative held to be illegitimate. Now the 39th congress passes the Reconstruction Act that placed military occupation on 10 of the 11 southern states and denied the congressional seats to those states until they passed the 14th amendment. Many northern states began to have second thoughts about the manner and validity of these federal moves, after all, what can be done to one state can later be done to yours. California now took a stand and voted no on the 14th. Maryland, Ohio and New Jersey who first voted yes, changed to no. 16 of the 37 states now said no and 3/4ths or 28 were needed to win approval and there was at most only a possible 21 yes votes when all the remaining states voted. NO PROBLEM. 6 of the southern states that originally voted against the amendment had their legislative bodies forcibly removed by the military occupation resulting from the Reconstruction Act and changed into yes votes. Recall that the 13th amendment was passed by the 38th congress with the original and proper representatives from the southern states. Those congressmen were recognized when voting yes to 13 but thrown out when voting no on 14. Now, what to do about those states that voted yes and then changed to no? NO PROBLEM. The congressional leaders simply recognized the original yes votes and ignored the no votes, claiming the yeses were already resolved. In other words, the states that voted no and then forced to vote yes had their new votes recognized, those who voted yes then no did not. When all states had voted, congress and Secretary of State William H Seward recognized 28 affirmative votes for ratification. This is how the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and made a part of our constitution on July 9, 1868. The Fourteenth is known as our "due process" and "equal protection of the law" amendment.
There is no rationale for elevating one over the others and calling it "an acceptable, alternative choice". Yup. Isn't that the point of social anarchists and narcissistic mental cases?: Presenting homosexuality's perverted disorder and anti-social behavior, and gift-wrapping the ugliness of it into a noble, acceptable normal acts is an attempt at mind-rape. As you also note, they are attempting to "elevate" sick perversity as just another "lifestyle choice" -- and honorable at that. This is...RECRUITMENT, plain and simple of those who are NOT by nature "homosexual." This is an predatory agenda and MO upon the weak and confused.
It's just the tip of the iceberg the start of making "ALL" sexual disorders out to be normal. This process started back in 75 when the APA proclaimed Homosexuality to be something normal, under duress of course. If they get their way the stigma of being a sexual predator/offender will be wiped away and swept under the rug, no more having to register themselves wherever they go. They don't want to be held responsible in any way for their actions so this is how it all starts, the camels nose under the tent. And if you disagree with all of this garbage then you should be punished somehow, maybe like how Hitler treated the Jews!!
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.â€
"And the reason in part that the Court's decisions have said that is that otherwise, each State would be able to essentially legislate for every other State." In other words, if Article IV, Section 1 applied to state laws, then those laws would have to apply in every state. You should really stop to think, if you can find the time, before you post rubbish. A state-issued certificate of marriage is not a law. The official state record of the act of marriage having occurred falls squarely into the Fourteenth Amendment. Perhaps it is a matter of which speaker is more important, the attorney for the respondents or the supreme court justice sitting on the bench. Putting the quote back in context, it is an argument to which Justice Scalia expresses skepticism. The reading public may judge from the exchange just how well attorney Whalen sold his argument. MR. WHALEN: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: The Fourteenth Amendment does not require States with traditional marriage laws to recognize marriages from other States between two persons of the same sex. JUSTICE SCALIA: What about Article IV? I'm so glad to be able to quote a portion of the Constitution that actually seems to be relevant. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State." Now, why doesn't that apply? MR. WHALEN: Your Honor, this Court's cases have made clear that the Court draws a distinction between judgments between States and the laws of each State. And the reason in part that the Court's decisions have said that is that otherwise, each State would be able to essentially legislate for every other State. JUSTICE SCALIA: Public acts? It would include the act of marrying people, I assume. MR. WHALEN: My understanding of this Court's decisions as the reference in the Constitution to public acts is that each State's laws. JUSTICE SCALIA: So there there's nothing in the Constitution that requires a State to acknowledge even those marriages in other States that that are the same. MR. WHALEN: That's essentially correct, Your Honor. JUSTICE SCALIA: Really?
Many northern states began to have second thoughts about the manner and validity of these federal moves, after all, what can be done to one state can later be done to yours. California now took a stand and voted no on the 14th. Maryland, Ohio and New Jersey who first voted yes, changed to no. 16 of the 37 states now said no and 3/4ths or 28 were needed to win approval and there was at most only a possible 21 yes votes when all the remaining states voted. NO PROBLEM. 6 of the southern states that originally voted against the amendment had their legislative bodies forcibly removed by the military occupation resulting from the Reconstruction Act and changed into yes votes....In other words, the states that voted no and then forced to vote yes had their new votes recognized, those who voted yes then no did not. This is how the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and made a part of our constitution on July 9, 1868. The Fourteenth is known as our "due process" and "equal protection of the law" amendment. Wow. Stunning. And disgraceful. The 14th Amendment was based on political contortionism and dishonesty...as well as bribery, coercion, extortion, and blackmail. THE FIX WAS IN. Just to ensure "due process"? Via these shenanigans? my azz. Thanks for digging that out, Chan. You were right, Stone. And no wonder the 14th Amendment wound up as the "Go-To" amendment from which ALL subversiveness and confusion is rooted. We can find the inexplicable, in-equality and roots of other Constitutional "rights" deprived within this purposely subverted 14A (ironically, in the amendment depended on to uphold "equality".) HA! It's an illegal Amendment -- who knew?
Now now liberator, perhaps the NY SC justice was persuaded by an expert witness: "The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
What they did, and what they said off the floor of congress is more persuasive. Notably, the Southern states were not represented in the Congress and the Congress entirely of Union states refused to pass this dog. The radicals denied representation to the South until those states ratified under the Federally appointed governors. Horace Edgar Flack, The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, A DISSERTATION, Submitted to the Board of University Studies of The Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 1906. Published 1908. Note: Where Flack refers to Secretary Oliver H. Browning, I believe he meant Secretary Orville H. Browning, Secretary of the Interior (September 1, 1866 – March 4, 1869). At pages 146-47 Probably the strongest and most illuminating letter giving an exposition of the Amendment was that written by Secretary Oliver H. Browning to Colonel W. H. Benneson and Major H. V. Sullivan. It was written October 13, 1866, and was given a wide publication, with much comment on it by the leading papers. In this letter Mr. Browning, who was a member of the President's Cabinet, declared that new and enormous powers would be conferred upon Congress by the proposed Amendment; that it would be possible to destroy the judiciaries of the States under it; and that the object and purpose of the clause “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, and property without due process of law” was to subordinate the state judiciaries to federal supervision and control, thereby totally annihilating the independence and sovereignty of state courts in the administration of state laws, as well as destroying the authority and control of the States over purely local affairs. He also asserted that, since the federal judiciary already had jurisdiction of all questions arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, this new provision would make possible the drawing of every matter of judicial investigation, civil and criminal, however insignificant, into the vortex of the federal judiciary. For it was certainly possible, he continued, for either party to a controversy to claim that he was being deprived of life, liberty, or property, as the case might be, by the States without due process of law, and that this question would be cognizable in a Federal Court, resulting in delay if nothing else. There will be a tendency, he says, on the part of the Federal Government to take away the control of local affairs from the people, the States, and the local municipal bodies, and to concentrate it in its own hands."27 27 Cincinnati Commercial, October 26, 1866. The letter was given in full. [147] The editorial comment in the paper from which the letter was taken never controverted the statements of Mr. Browning as to the effect of the first section, but rather admitted them by saying that the danger to our country was disintegration, not consolidation. The editorial comment of the New York Times, October 25, in regard to this same letter did not deny any of the statements made in it, but said that it was impolitic to publish it since it was supposed to express the views of the President. The same paper, three days later, seemed to admit Browning's contentions by saying that the dangers set forth in his letter could be avoided if the States would act justly— would deprive no one of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It evidently agreed, however, with the declaration made in that letter that any one who alleged that he was deprived of either of those things, could bring his case before the Federal Courts. If that much be granled. then the whole case falls, and Mr. Browning's position becomes unanswerable. To show further the view taken by the Times in regard to the Amendment, citation was made in the same editorial of the case of James Lewis, colored, which had been decided by Justice Hardy, of Alabama. In that case the Civil Rights Bill was declared unconstitutional, the decision of the lower court fining the negro for carrying arms being sustained. The Times added that this could not have been done had the Amendment been a part of the Constitution, and that its object was to prevent such legislation and such decisions.
Please note the important Section 5, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." That is as broad and general as it can get. For example, were same-sex marriage declared a right protected by the 14th Amendment, Congress would be imbued with the power to enforce the right by "appropriate" legislation -- pretty much any which way they please.
Yes the CPT relieved and discharged. NCOs too. When you wear a green tab (meaning in a command position) you are responsible for the good, the bad and the ugly. The usual investigation goes like this: Investigating officer: Drill Sergeant did you use the checklist approved by the Commander for live fire exercises? Drill Sergeant: Yes I did. Investigator: what about step 23 checking for an exact 3.5 ft clearance of trainees from the line of fire? Drill Sergeant: It was the usual measurement for every live fire exercise I conducted since coming here 3 years ago. Investigator: I didn't ask you that...did you for this specific live fire measure out the distance IAW the live fire SOP? Drill Sergeant: I didn't need to, nothing changed from last time, it was all the same. Investigator: So your answer is 'no' you did not measure it on this specific occasion Drill Sergeant (red faced by now): No...not this time, but nothing changed. Investigator: The SOP states the purpose of measuring the distance every live fire occurence. Do you know the purpose of this? Drill Sergeant: The platform can shift due to environmental conditions like a large rain fall or high winds. Investigator: Did either occur prior to this specific live fire event? Drill Sergeant: I would like to end this interview and speak with a lawyer. Then the CPT comes in: Investigator: CPT did you conduct pre combat inspections (PCIs) before this specific live fire event? CPT: I review all the range plans and certify my NCOs to conduct the live fire range. Investigator: I'll ask again...on this SPECIFIC occasion did you review the range and conduct PCIs IAW the SOP? CPT: No, not on this specific occasion but I did certify the range plan for this specific event. Investigator: What did that entail? CPT: I went over the check list already filled out by my drill sergeants and signed it. It was a standard range. Investigator: thank you for your time. Hours later the CPT gets a call from his Battalion commander to report to his office. BN cdr: Sorry CPT but you are relieved of command and will report to the Brigade XO tomorrow for a temporary duty assignment pending the results of this investigation. Enter in about another 30-60 minutes of 'why' he was relieved, 'what's next' and some professional and fatherly advice. Because in the end, two of the CPTs Soldiers were killed.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Consider that the 13th sailed right through with the unreconstructed states in 1865, and the 14th took until 1868. A whole lot of shenanigans went on.
In certain parts of the country the rule WILL be social chaos, judicial fascism, public school fast-tracked coercion of the homofascist agenda, and the harassment of churches and clergy. Unimpeded "Hate Crime" and "Hate Speech" crusaders -- shielded by taxpayer funded armed LE "bodyguards" -- will be out in force on social media, in front of Christian businesses, and squatting during Sunday churches services. BLOWBACK will ensue. Good analysis. However what you posted will only be the tip of the iceberg. Clergy of any faith refusing to 'marry' homosexuals will lose their 'license' to marry people. Meaning now normal one man-one woman marriages will have to not only do their religious ceremony but also see the JoP to make it 'legal.' Churches which deny open homosexuals membership in their church or church activities will lose tax exempt status and be labeled 'homophobes' and probably face civil law suits. Soulless minions of marxism MSM will use the issue in presidential debate formats saying "Mr. X, do you support Church Y for dismissing a pastor who just recently announced he is gay?"
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Here is a link I found similiar information: http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm "The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Had the content of the 14th been in the original constitution, I doubt it would have been ratified. The part about dictating to the states who is a citizen of a state would not have been tolerated. It destroys state sovereignty. A fair number of the ratifying documents expressed reservations as it was. Links go to the Avalon Project at Yale University. The ratification of New York starts: That all Power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the People, and that Government is instituted by them for their common Interest Protection and Security. That the enjoyment of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are essential rights which every Government ought to respect and preserve. That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution. [snip] The ratification of Rhode Island starts, 2d That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from the People; that magistrates therefore are their trustees and agents, and at all times amenable to them. 3d That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:- That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply, that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said constitution, but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution. [snip] We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by any authority of the United States. With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions and under the conviction that whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein than to bring the Union into danger by a delay with a hope of obtaining Amendments previous to the Ratification, We the said Delegates in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People according to an authentic Copy hereto annexed in the Words following; Done in Convention this twenty Sixth day of June one thousand seven hundred and eighty eight By Order of the Convention
nolu chan posted (on FR, 2003): --- LINK Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment -Nchan- I posted back then: --- -- So? - Your link is, -- in effect, pounding on the table. It's a given [imo] that the ratification of the 14th was in part a cynical political act. -- Its immediate effects back then may have enriched nefarious scalawags & carpetbaggers. Big deal. In todays political reality, the 14th is one of our most important protections against out of control state & local governments. The fact that the federal government is more out of control than various state & local ones cannot be rationally blamed on the 14th. Political failures in our check & balance systems are to blame for our current state/fed power disparities. States still have the constitutional power to just say no.. They lack the will.
There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"! The title of that is defective. Upon certification of the ratifications, the 14th Amendment became part of the Constitution. Certification is a political matter delegated to the Executive. As a political matter, it lies beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to review. It's the law and the only way to change it is through another amendment.
In the last century and a half, the 14th is one of the greatest reasons we face an out of control federal government. It's purpose was to revolutionize the government by destroying the power of the states and expanding the power of the Federal government. One look about and anyone can see they accomplished their goal.
In todays political reality, the 14th is one of our most important protections against out of control state & local governments. The fact that the federal government is more out of control than various state & local ones cannot be rationally blamed on the 14th. Political failures in our check & balance systems are to blame for our current state/fed power disparities. States still have the constitutional power to just say no.. They lack the political will. Why is that your opinion? Exactly what wording in the amendment gives the feds more power over the States than was in the original constitution? --- I see none.. No, it's purpose was to force state and local govts to stop infringing on the rights of their citizens. Heller is a recent example of where it's finally working.
Another issue arises with Christian universities (or the like of other religions) who provide on campus housing for married couples. Will they be forced to provide on campus housing for same-sex couples or lose tax-exempt status? See Bob Jones University v United States, No 81-3, 461 US 574 (1983). The basic legal issue was the violation of public policy. [...] The sponsors of the University genuinely believe that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage. To effectuate these views, Negroes were completely excluded until 1971. From 1971 to May, 1975, the University accepted no applications from unmarried Negroes, but did accept applications from Negroes married within their race. Following the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in McCrary v. Runyon, 515 F.2d 1082 (1975), aff'd,427 U. S. 160 (1976), prohibiting racial exclusion from private schools, the University revised its policy. Since May 29, 1975, the University has permitted unmarried Negroes to enroll; but a disciplinary rule prohibits interracial dating and marriage. [...] IV The remaining issue is whether the IRS properly applied its policy to these petitioners. Petitioner Goldsboro Christian Schools admits that it "maintain[s] racially discriminatory policies," Brief for Petitioner in No. 81-1, p. 10, but seeks to justify those policies on grounds we have fully discussed. The IRS properly denied tax-exempt status to Goldsboro Christian Schools.
No, it was to basically change the power structure and expand the power of the Federal government, which is what it did.
Why is that your opinion? Exactly what wording in the amendment gives the feds more power over the States than was in the original constitution? --- I see none.. No, it's purpose was to force state and local govts to stop infringing on the rights of their citizens. Heller is a recent example of where it's finally working. Why is that your opinion? Exactly what wording in the amendment gives the feds more power over the States than was in the original constitution? --- I see none..
Then why did you bring up Article IV, Section 1 in your post #82 and dedicate 5,000 words to it?
Yes, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz will need to immigrate to Cuba, to become el presidente.
Definitely not. Where is the part about local governments coming from? The Amendment took dead aim at the States. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/106/629/case.html [...] It is however strenuously insisted that the legislation under consideration finds its warrant in the first and fifth sections of the Fourteenth Amendment. The first section declares The fifth section declares "The Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this amendment." Page 106 U. S. 638 It is perfectly clear from the language of the first section that its purpose also was to place a restraint upon the action of the states. In the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, it was held by the majority of the Court, speaking through MR. JUSTICE MILLER, that the object of the second clause of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment was to protect from the hostile legislation of the states the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and this was conceded by MR. JUSTICE FIELD, who expressed the views of the dissenting Justices in that case. In the same case the Court, referring to the Fourteenth Amendment, said that The purpose and effect of the two sections of the Fourteenth Amendment above quoted were clearly defined by MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY in the case of United States v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods 316, as follows: When the case of United States v. Cruikshank came to this Court, the same view was taken here. The Chief Justice, delivering the opinion of the Court in that case, said: Page 106 U. S. 639 92 U.S. 92 U. S. 542. So, in Virginia v. Rives,100 U. S. 313, it was declared by this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Strong, that "these provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment have reference to state action exclusively, and not to any action of private individuals." These authorities show conclusively that the legislation under consideration finds no warrant for its enactment in the Fourteenth Amendment. The language of the amendment does not leave this subject in doubt. When the state has been guilty of no violation of its provisions; when it has not made or enforced any law abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; when no one of its departments has deprived any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; when, on the contrary, the laws of the state, as enacted by its legislative and construed by its judicial and administered by its executive departments recognize and protect the rights of all persons, the amendment imposes no duty and confers no power upon Congress.
Then why did you bring up Article IV, Section 1 in your post #82 and dedicate 5,000 words to it? I was checking to see if you could read or count. Now I know.
If you are unable to see the language, see the right to same-sex marriage attributed to the 14th. See the right to abortion attributed to the 14th. See the broad right to privacy in the 14th. Photographers being required to work at same-sex weddings despite religious objections. A baker with religious objections being required to decorate a cake with a gay theme. If the 14th were benign, and for the glorious purpose you suppose, and a war was fought for that glorious purpose, why was the amendment refused ratification when only the union states voted upon it? The Radicals did try to ratify it without Southern participation but could not get ¾ths of the Union states to ratify it. The 13th amendment met no such resistance, not even from the unreconstructed Southern states of 1865. The Federal government dictates to the states who its citizens are. It told the states who may be elected to State offices. The States created a union of States, and a Federal government to be an agent to serve them for certain purposes. They did not create a master to rule over them. And yet, we have Lincoln consider them as big counties, “States rights died at Appomattox,” is a statement attributed to Salmon P. Chase. More appropriate, they were extinguished by the 14th Amendment. Big counties cannot mount serious resistance to Federal power. As noted by Horace Edgar Flack in his dissertation at 146, As the Republicans of that era proved in 1876, they had used Blacks to gain and consolidate power. The Radicals had been ejected when no longer useful. When it came to wheeling and dealing to get four more years, Blacks were as disposable as a used diaper. The party got four more years, and reconstruction was terminated without a moral problem. It almost makes one wonder why Blacks do not write those glowing biographies about Lincoln, or vote Republican. Section 5 reads, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Congress sometimes has strange ideas about what is "appropriate." It seems SCOTUS had to constantly remind them. The 14th was unscrupulously certified by what is widely regarded as the most corrupt administration in American history (Grant). http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/102-enforcement.html SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. ENFORCEMENT Generally In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress, in addition to proposing to the States the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, enacted seven statutes designed in a variety of ways to implement the provisions of these Amendments. Several of these laws were general civil rights statutes which broadly attacked racial and other discrimination on the part of private individuals and groups as well as by the States, but the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional or rendered ineffective practically all of these laws over the course of several years. In the end, Reconstruction was abandoned and with rare exceptions no cases were brought under the remaining statutes until fairly recently. Beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1957, however, Congress generally acted pursuant to its powers under the commerce clause until Supreme Court decisions indicated an expansive concept of congressional power under the Civil War Amendments, which culminated in broad provisions against private interference with civil rights in the 1968 legislation. The story of these years is largely an account of the "state action" doctrine in terms of its limitation on congressional powers; lately, it is the still-unfolding history of the lessening of the doctrine combined with a judicial vesting of discretion in Congress to reinterpret the scope and content of the rights guaranteed in these three constitutional amendments. [...]
A little incest never hurt the perpetuation of the species, did it?
Justice Roberts (a Bush appointee of Obamacare fame) is going to find a way to force gay marriage on the country without even mentioning gays. A gay man can legally marry a lesbian woman today, so there isn't any discrimination against gays in law with regards to marriage. So, Roberts will argue that the issue is REALLY about sexual discrimination, which is ALREADY illegal. It's a brilliant approach to the issue. And it will likely set off a backlash like we haven't seen in a long time.
LINK Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment -Nchan- Nice editing. My post at FR #84 was to middie and quoted middie. Your FR #85 quoted middie and identified it as middie. You bring it back here, delete the identification of the poster as middie and attribute the quote to me. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/985726/replies?c=84 [middie] What is offered as authority for the absurdity of the assertion of the Fourteenth Amendment's fraudulent place in our jurisprudnce is a patent illustration of 'pounding on the table. Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment The fourteenth amendment to the constitution has arguably the most sweeping and important. It is the due process of law amendment that has caused so many to our legal system. But, few know the story of the fourteenth and how the egg of "due process" was hatched. At the Civil War's end Lincoln granted amnesty to nearly all and "with malice towards none", all the southern states were soon functioning again in a legal and proper manner. Because the war was over his emancipation proclamation was effectively ended and so the need of the thirteenth amendment to abolish slavery. There were 36 states in the union and the necessary 3/4 to pass the constitutional amendment was accomplished easily when 10 of the southern states voted for ratification. Then came the 39th congress in December of 1865. Article 1 of the constitution states that a majority of the either house can deny the seat to any member of its respective house of congress. The Senators and Representatives of the 25 northern states voted to deny seats to the newly elected congressmen from 11 southern states. This meant that the seated congress had 182 of a possible 240 representatives, and only 50 of the rightful 72 senators. There were 36 recognized states in the union. (Keep in mind that in the 38th congress the southern representatives were allowed to vote and have their state votes count in passage of the 13th amendment). In the beginning of the 39th congress came resolution #48 which sponsored the fourteenth amendment. The amendment was especially important to northern liberals as it's privileges and immunities clause would sweep power from states and hand it to the federal government. The sponsors of the amendment needed a two-thirds majority of each house to submit the amendment to the states for ratification, and remember, the house is short 58 representatives from the southern states and senate 22 senators as well! The constitution states amendments need the vote of "two-thirds of both houses". Does this mean of the seated members or the available seats? Well, it depends on who is counting the votes. At the time there were 33 senators in favor of the resolution #48 which was, 23 short of 2/3rds of the full compliment and 1 short of being 2/3rds of the 50 seated members. Either way you count it, passage is doomed. NO PROBLEM. Senator John Stockton of New Jersey was elected by a plurality and not a majority vote and was seated to the senate, he was against the fourteenth . A plurality was all that was needed by New Jersey law, and other states as well, however, Stockton's seat was taken from him (after being seated) by the senate majority because he had not received a majority vote and the 33 affirmative voting senators comprised a two-thirds majority of the remaining 49 seated senators. In the house there were 120 of the 182-seated members in favor of the amendment, 2 short of the necessary two-thirds. NO PROBLEM. Because 30 members abstained, their numbers were not recognized at all, meaning only 152 votes were recognized and 120 is well over two-thirds of the number that voted yes or no. I remind you that the full house compliment was 240 members and that 120 is 1/2 of 240 not 2/3. Hang on, we are only half way there but it gets better. Now the amendment must be passed by three-fourths of the states and Nebraska has been admitted meaning 28 states must ratify the 14th amendment. By March, 1867 10 states said no and 17 said yes. California then took no action on the amendment, which was the same as a no vote, meaning there could be at most 26 yes votes when all the states were counted. Then, Oregon which had voted yes with the help of two legislative members later held not to be duly elected changed its vote to no when those two state representatives were replaced by two legitimate representatives, sure doom? NO PROBLEM. The US Congress recognized the first Oregon vote and discarded the second even though two members of the Oregon state government were not legally able to vote and replaced by the state of Oregon, remember Senator Stockton of New Jersey? The US Congress unseated him (a no vote) because it questioned his validity as a Senator, but recognized the yes votes of State representative held to be illegitimate. Now the 39th congress passes the Reconstruction Act that placed military occupation on 10 of the 11 southern states and denied the congressional seats to those states until they passed the 14th amendment. Many northern states began to have second thoughts about the manner and validity of these federal moves, after all, what can be done to one state can later be done to yours. California now took a stand and voted no on the 14th. Maryland, Ohio and New Jersey who first voted yes, changed to no. 16 of the 37 states now said no and 3/4ths or 28 were needed to win approval and there was at most only a possible 21 yes votes when all the remaining states voted. NO PROBLEM. 6 of the southern states that originally voted against the amendment had their legislative bodies forcibly removed by the military occupation resulting from the Reconstruction Act and changed into yes votes. Recall that the 13th amendment was passed by the 38th congress with the original and proper representatives from the southern states. Those congressmen were recognized when voting yes to 13 but thrown out when voting no on 14. Now, what to do about those states that voted yes and then changed to no? NO PROBLEM. The congressional leaders simply recognized the original yes votes and ignored the no votes, claiming the yeses were already resolved. In other words, the states that voted no and then forced to vote yes had their new votes recognized, those who voted yes then no did not. When all states had voted, congress and Secretary of State William H Seward recognized 28 affirmative votes for ratification. This is how the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and made a part of our constitution on July 9, 1868. The Fourteenth is known as our "due process" and "equal protection of the law" amendment.
Now Buck, I was just referring to the families with only one spousal unit.
Grab, grab, grab!
Thanks for posting this; -- You've made my case! This is exactly my position.
I have a huge problem with Christian schools who segregate based on race. There is no Biblical precedence to have such a policy. Homosexuals, yes there is a Biblical precedence not to condone such.
"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)
Backlash......like what? What will you do?
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
What you refer to as, "brilliant" is a poorly constructed argument of discernment about an argument. You fail.
What will you do? "...We'll note..." "...then the rest of us will watch..." Soooooo.... I guess ......nothing?
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
The usual swing vote in marquee ideological cases, Justice Anthony Kennedy, is viewed as having a roughly 75 percent chance of voting to reverse the lower courts, which would be very good news for same-sex marriage proponents. The liberal bloc — Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor — are seen as even more likely to vote to reverse. And some of the predictions even see Chief Justice Roberts as a realistic reversal vote, especially on the recognition question.
#2. To: Jameson (#0)
"Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?"
#3. To: misterwhite (#2)
Why two people? Why not three?
#4. To: Jameson (#3)
"That is not the question being decided, is it?"
#5. To: misterwhite (#4)
Should be. It's just a matter of time before it comes up.
#6. To: Jameson (#5)
"Should be? Why?"
#7. To: misterwhite (#6)
Oh look. It came up already!
#8. To: misterwhite, Jameson (#2)
Why two people? Why not three?
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
17 JUSTICE ALITO: Well, what if there's no --
18 these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it's not -- it's
19 not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous
20 marriages that existed in other societies and still
21 exist in some societies today. And let's say they're
22 all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all
23 lawyers.
24 (Laughter.)
#9. To: Jameson, all (#0)
12 But once it's -- it's made a matter of
13 constitutional law, those exceptions -- for example, is
14 it -- is it conceivable that a minister who is
15 authorized by the State to conduct marriage can decline
16 to marry two men if indeed this Court holds that they
17 have a constitutional right to marry? Is it conceivable
18 that that would be allowed?
19 MS. BONAUTO: Your Honor, of course the
20 Constitution will continue to apply, and right to this
21 day, no clergy is forced to marry any couple that they
22 don't want to marry. We have those protections.
23 JUSTICE SCALIA: But -- but right to this
24 day, we have never held that there is a constitutional
25 right for these two people to marry, and the minister is
Page 24
1 -- to the extent he's conducting a civil marriage, he's
2 an instrument of the State. I don't see how you could
3 possibly allow that minister to say, I will only marry a
4 man and a woman. I will not marry two men. Which means
5 you -- you would -- you could you could have
6 ministers who who conduct real marriages that -- that
7 are civilly enforceable at the National Cathedral, but
8 not at St. Matthews downtown, because that minister
9 refuses to marry two men, and therefore, cannot be given
10 the State power to make a real State marriage. I don't
11 see any -- any answer to that. I really don't.
12 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Counselor, there have
13 been antidiscrimination laws in various States; correct?
14 MS. BONAUTO: Yes, Your Honor.
15 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Antidiscrimination laws
16 regarding gay people.
17 MS. BONAUTO: Correct.
18 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: And in any of those
19 States, have ministers been forced to do gay marriages?
20 MS. BONAUTO: Of course not, Your Honor.
21 And --
22 JUSTICE SCALIA: They are laws. They are
23 not constitutional requirements. That was the whole
24 point of my question. If you let the States do it, you
25 can make an exception. The State can say, yes, two men
Page 25
1 can marry, but -- but ministers who do not believe in --
2 in same-sex marriage will still be authorized to conduct
3 marriages on behalf of the State. You can't do that
4 once it is a constitutional proscription.
5 MS. BONAUTO: If one thing is firm, and I
6 believe it is firm, that under the First Amendment, that
7 a clergyperson cannot be forced to officiate at a
8 marriage that he or she does not want to officiate at.
9 And since there were several other questions, if I may.
10 JUSTICE SCALIA: He's not being required to
11 officiate. He's just not given the State's power,
12 unless he agrees to use that power in -- in accordance
13 with the Constitution. I don't -- seems to me you
14 have to -- you have to make that exception. You can't
15 appoint people who will then go ahead and violate the
16 Constitution.
17 MS. BONAUTO: I think if we're talking about
18 a government individual, a clerk, a judge, who's
19 empowered to authorize marriage, that is a different
20 matter that they are going to have to follow through,
21 unless, again, a State decides to make some exceptions.
22 In Connecticut, after the court permitted marriage, it
23 did actually pass a law to do deal with implementation
24 issues, including these kinds of liberty issues.
25 JUSTICE SCALIA: Because it was a State law.
#10. To: Jameson (#0)
#11. To: Jameson (#0)
#12. To: buckeroo (#11)
What I don't understand is why the USSC is involved with a "state's right" matter of marriage as though the US Constitution has some quality to express.
Ms. Bonauto.
The Question 2 Petitioners are already married. They have established those enduring relationships, and they have a liberty interest that is of fundamental importance to these couples and their children.
#13. To: nolu chan (#12)
#14. To: nolu chan (#9)
you could have ministers who who conduct real marriages that -- that are civilly enforceable
#15. To: buckeroo (#11)
Does anyone really care about gay/lesbian marriages? I don't care at all.
#16. To: buckeroo (#11)
Does anyone really care about gay/lesbian marriages?
#17. To: nolu chan (#8)
Why would an ultra-liberal interpretation not apply to protect the love expressed by those of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)? Are those not persons?
#18. To: Jameson (#16)
Yeah, I think a lot of people do, and a majority of people believe that marriage equality is OK.
#19. To: All (#18)
#20. To: A K A Stone (#18)
Are you a faggot?
#21. To: nolu chan (#9)
#22. To: buckeroo, nolu chan, liberator, GarySpFc, A K A Stone, CZ82 (#11)
Does anyone really care about gay/lesbian marriages? I don't care at all. What I don't understand is why the USSC is involved with a "state's right" matter of marriage as though the US Constitution has some quality to express.
#23. To: nolu chan, BobCeleste, GarySpFc, liberator, CZ82 (#12)
"The intimate and committed relationships of same-sex couples, just like those of heterosexual couples, provide mutual support and are the foundation of family life in our society."
#24. To: nolu chan (#12)
Could the argument of Petitioner hold if it were cast as, "The intimate and committed relationships of polygamous groups, just like those of heterosexual couples, provide mutual support and are the foundation of family life in our society?"
#25. To: A Pole (#14)
"REAL"? Wait a minute! These judges are so enamored with their profession and high position that they have persuaded themselves that the civil/legal marriage is the real one, and that the church/sacramental marriage is a mere byproduct or quaint custom without a real substance.
#26. To: Jameson, liberator, BobCeleste, GarySpFc, A K A Stone, CZ82, nolu chan (#16)
In reality, other people's marital status has no impact on the lives of anyone.
#27. To: Jameson, nolu chan, liberator, BobCeleste, GarySpFc (#17)
#28. To: Jameson (#0)
(Edited)
"Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?"
#29. To: redleghunter (#26)
Tell that to people who have.....
#30. To: misterwhite (#28)
What part of the 14th amendment requires this?
#31. To: Jameson, liberator (#29)
Their lives haven't been affected - that is why a majority of the population is OK with marriage equality.
#32. To: Jameson, redleghunter (#29)
Their [normal, heterosexual] lives haven't been affected - that is why a majority of the population is OK with marriage equality.
#33. To: Jameson (#17)
Why would an ultra-liberal interpretation not apply to protect the love expressed by those of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)? Are those not persons?
#34. To: nolu chan (#33)
Why would the legal logic offered for same-sex marriage not extend to polygamous marriage?
#35. To: redleghunter (#31)
#36. To: buckeroo (#11)
Does anyone really care about gay/lesbian marriages? I don't care at all.
#37. To: Jameson (#34)
Maybe because one is a minor?
JUSTICE ALITO: Well -- well, I had asked a simple question. At the present time, what is the next most dramatic variation in the marriage laws of the States?
I have always believed that the whole multi-spouse deal was settled in the 1800's....
U.S. Supreme Court
Argued January 16-18, 1889
Decided May 19, 1890
#38. To: misterwhite, Jameson, redleghunter, Liberator (#4)
(Edited)
#39. To: redleghunter (#31)
Christians don't burn and loot entire cities when the political masters and kings and queens in court try to change our society to the philosophy and practice of the souless minions of liberal marxism.
#40. To: Jameson, misterwhite (#30)
[misterwhite] What part of the 14th amendment requires this?
At 1-4:
#41. To: CZ82, misterwhite, Jameson, redleghunter, Liberator (#38)
Why not one man and one cow or one woman (a car creeper) and one shetland pony
#42. To: CZ82 (#38)
"Oh BTW why is it that less than 1% of homos are getting married to start with?"
#43. To: nolu chan (#37)
In biblical terms, polygamy was accepted, but homosexuality was abomination, and remans [sic] repugnant to many religions.
#44. To: Liberator (#36)
What if one sued you for "speaking to my "husband disrespectfully"?
#45. To: buckeroo (#43)
Care to reason why societal norms have drifted in this respect?
#46. To: nolu chan, sneakypete (#41)
Because cows and shetland ponies are not recognized as people.
#47. To: CZ82 (#38)
#48. To: nolu chan (#40)
The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment
#49. To: nolu chan (#45)
Liberals/Socialists/Democrats?
#50. To: redleghunter, nolu chan, liberator, GarySpFc, A K A Stone, CZ82 (#22)
Well you may not care but the souless minions of liberal marxism do care.
#51. To: Jameson (#16)
In reality, other people's marital status has no impact on the lives of anyone.
#52. To: A K A Stone (#46)
I mean Pete thinks we came from monkeys anyway.
#53. To: buckeroo, Gatlin (#51)
Yukon must have got around a lot, 'eh?
#54. To: A K A Stone (#48)
The 14th truthfully wasn't ratified legally.
#55. To: nolu chan, Liberator, CZ82 (#37)
That sounds rational but the law gets in the way. The age to get legally married goes as low as 13. If opposite-sex marriage is permitted at 13, age does not seem a legal barrier to man-boy marriage if same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.
#56. To: A K A Stone (#48)
And the 14th truthfully wasn't ratified legally.
#57. To: CZ82 (#38)
Why not one man and one cow or one woman (a car creeper) and one shetland pony??
#58. To: buckeroo (#49)
Perpetuating the family unit today or the farm unit is simply a minor vestige of mankind's history.
#59. To: redleghunter, CZ82 (#57)
Be careful. Seeing some of the responses here you might get an answer like "it depends on what the Shetland pony looks like."
#60. To: redleghunter (#55)
#61. To: buckeroo, liberator, CZ82 (#50)
Again, I don't care. Now, don't think it is an apathetic remarck. I am saying the norms of society are changing and I have no need to cling to some historical social norm.
#62. To: redleghunter (#57)
one woman (a car creeper) and one shetland pony??
#63. To: redleghunter, Liberator, buckeroo (#61)
(Edited)
I wonder if the Roman emperor Valens thought the same before the Goths sacked him.
#64. To: redleghunter, Liberator (#55)
(Edited)
If opposite-sex marriage is permitted at 13, age does not seem a legal barrier to man-boy marriage if same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.
#65. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, Liberator (#41)
#66. To: misterwhite (#42)
#67. To: redleghunter (#22)
Second, on 'who cares'?...Well you may not care but the souless minions of liberal marxism do care. They are taking advantage of those who don't care or disinterested to change our laws and constitution. That is why on every issue one must take a stand or someone else will take one for you.
#68. To: nolu chan (#40)
#69. To: CZ82 (#66)
"Tearing apart the fabric of society to please people who should be in a looney bin to start with."
#70. To: nolu chan, CZ82, liberator (#59)
Remember, there was a crazy New York Supreme Court judge who found that two chimps have personhood and granted a writ of habeas corpus. I'm fairly certain she will be overturned, and for clarity note that in New York, the "Supreme" court is the lower Trial court, and the ultimate court is the New York Court of Appeals.
#71. To: redleghunter (#70)
Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Clown College
#72. To: redleghunter, nolu chan, CZ82 (#55)
That sounds rational but the law gets in the way. The age to get legally married goes as low as 13. If opposite-sex marriage is permitted at 13, age does not seem a legal barrier to man-boy marriage if same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.
#73. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone, tpaine (#56)
See my post on another thread here for two books on the ratification of the 14th. It's a disgrace, but they got away with it.
#74. To: CZ82, misterwhite, Jameson, redleghunter (#38)
Why not one man and one cow or one woman (a car creeper) and one shetland pony??
#75. To: Liberator (#71)
Now THAT is sad.
#76. To: nolu chan, CZ82, misterwhite, Jameson, redleghunter, rlk, A K A Stone (#41)
Cows and shetland ponies are not recognized as people.
#77. To: nolu chan, aka stone, liberators, y'all are (#56)
: A K A Stone (#48) --- And the 14th truthfully wasn't ratified legally.
#78. To: redleghunter (#75)
What's sad is that some of his drill sergeant NCOs cut some corners in a basic trainee live fire exercise and two Soldiers died. He was not on site when it happened and was relieved of command and discharged from the Army.
#79. To: All (#0)
If all the justices vote the way they are most likely to, the algorithm foresees a 7-2 reversal on both questions. The crowd foresees 5-4 and 6-3 reversals on the marriage and recognition questions, respectively. Either set of outcomes would be a triumph for same-sex marriage proponents.
#80. To: tpaine, nolu chan, A K A Stone (#77)
The 'motive' for passing the 14th is well documented in the congressional record by those who wrote and passed it. --- The southern states that had just lost the war, were infringing upon the rights of their citizens, and ignoring the constitution of the USA to do so.
#81. To: Jameson, tpaine, nolu chan, redleghunter, A K A Stone, ALL (#79)
(Edited)
If the analysis by FiveThirtyEight is correct, and the SCOTUS overturns the lower courts..........
#82. To: misterwhite (#68)
So why should they [states] honor other states' marriage laws which have been a state-decided issue for hundreds of years?
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
1 Stat. 122, First Congress, Sess. II, Ch, 11, 12, 1790
EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTARY - 28 U.S.C. § 1738C (2012)
EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTARY - 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (2012)
EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTARY - 28 U.S.C. § 1738A (2012)
EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTARY - 28 U.S.C. § 1738B (2012)
Full faith and credit clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) which provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. There are exceptions to this, a major one being that a state need not recognize a divorce decree of a state where neither spouse was a legal resident. Doctrine means that a state must accord the judgment of a court of another state the same credit that is is entitled to in the courts of that state. Morphet v. Morphet, 263 Or. 311, 502 P.2d 255, 260. A judgment or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken. Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Min. & Mill Co., 243 U.S. 93, 37 S.Ct. 344, 61 L.Ed. 610. See also Comity, Fauntleroy doctrine.
#83. To: nolu chan (#82)
"Art 4, Sec 1:"
#84. To: Liberator, A K A Stone, tpaine (#73)
Hmmm...I had no idea, nor had given any thought to the genesis of the 14th and grounds and background for ratification. "Disgraceful," Chan?? Sounds like someone or some people had a motive....and KNEW the 14th would wind up THE monkey wrench in the Constitutional cog.
Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment
#85. To: misterwhite (#69)
Homosexuality should be treated like any other sexual disorder -- and there are many (see: List of paraphilias).
#86. To: misterwhite, Liberator, redleghunter (#69)
(Edited)
#87. To: misterwhite (#83)
You should read your own posts sometime (but hey, who has that kind of time?). In your post #40 lies the answer:
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS ON QUESTION 2
#88. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone, tpaine, redleghunter, Zesta (#84)
(Edited)
Now the 39th congress passes the Reconstruction Act that placed military occupation on 10 of the 11 southern states and denied the congressional seats to those states until they passed the 14th amendment.
#89. To: Liberator, nolu chan, CZ82, misterwhite, Jameson, rlk, A K A Stone (#76)
Since all it takes is one single insane, subversive judge (as in the farcical Chimpanzee case) to re-interpret either "person-hood" OR "consent" as legit mitigating issues, the language, society's "norms" (and laws) are completely at the whim of an insane judiciary. This same insane judiciary often defers to the insane American Psychiatric Association as *its* moral/legal arbiter.
#90. To: tpaine, A K A Stone, Liberator (#77)
The 'motive' for passing the 14th is well documented in the congressional record by those who wrote and passed it. --- The southern states that had just lost the war, were infringing upon the rights of their citizens, and ignoring the constitution of the USA to do so.
[146 ]
#91. To: Liberator, A K A Stone, tpaine, redleghunter, Zesta (#88)
And no wonder the 14th Amendment wound up as the "Go-To" amendment from which ALL subversiveness and confusion is rooted.
#92. To: Liberator (#78)
The Clown (a Capt??) was relieved of duty? Or his DIs? Unreal.
#93. To: Liberator, tpaine, redleghunter, Zesta (#88)
Just to ensure "due process"? Via these shenanigans? my azz.
#94. To: Liberator (#81)
We'll note how the majority consent and authority of the citizenry is again being usurped by a few subversive judges, emboldened and coerced by social media -- then the rest of us will watch the predictable insanity unfold:
#95. To: nolu chan, Liberator, A K A Stone, tpaine, CZ82 (#84)
#96. To: Liberator, tpaine, A K A Stone (#80)
Q: Would Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Livingstone and the the signers of the BoR and original USCON have endorsed the 14th as written?
WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known.
We the Delegates of the People of the State of Rhode-Island, and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of this State, do declare and make known In That there are certain natural rights, of which men when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting Property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Virginia to wit
#97. To: nolu chan (#90)
"What is offered as authority for the absurdity of the assertion of the Fourteenth Amendment's fraudulent place in our jurisprudnce is a patent illustration of 'pounding on the table."
#98. To: redleghunter, Liberator, A K A Stone, tpaine, CZ82 (#95)
http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
#99. To: tpaine (#97)
In todays political reality, the 14th is one of our most important protections against out of control state & local governments.
#100. To: nolu chan, y'all (#99)
In the last century and a half, the 14th is one of the greatest reasons we face an out of control federal government.
It's purpose was to revolutionize the government by destroying the power of the states and expanding the power of the Federal government. One look about and anyone can see they accomplished their goal.
#101. To: redleghunter, Liberator (#94)
Churches which deny open homosexuals membership in their church or church activities will lose tax exempt status and be labeled 'homophobes' and probably face civil law suits.
Both the courts and the Internal Revenue Service have long recognized that the statutory requirement of being "organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, . . . or educational purposes" was intended to express the basic common law concept [of "charity"]. . . . All charitable trusts, educational or otherwise, are subject to the requirement that the purpose of the trust may not be illegal or contrary to public policy.
#102. To: tpaine (#100)
No, it's purpose was to force state and local govts to stop infringing on the rights of their citizens.
#103. To: nolu chan (#102)
In the last century and a half, the 14th is one of the greatest reasons we face an out of control federal government.
It's purpose was to revolutionize the government by destroying the power of the states and expanding the power of the Federal government. One look about and anyone can see they accomplished their goal.
No, it was to basically change the power structure and expand the power of the Federal government, which is what it did.
#104. To: nolu chan (#87)
"The official state record of the act of marriage having occurred falls squarely into the Fourteenth Amendment."
#105. To: redleghunter, nolu chan, Liberator, A K A Stone, tpaine, CZ82 (#95)
There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#106. To: tpaine (#100)
No, it's purpose was to force state and local govts to stop infringing on the rights of their citizens.
United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883)
"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."
"if the states do not conform their laws to its requirements, then by the fifth section of the article of amendment Congress was authorized to enforce it by suitable legislation."
"It is a guarantee of protection against the acts of the state government itself. It is a guarantee against the exertion of arbitrary and tyrannical power on the part of the government and legislature of the state, not a guarantee against the commission of individual offenses, and the power of Congress, whether express or implied, to legislate for the enforcement of such a guarantee does not extend to the passage of laws for the suppression of crime within the states. The enforcement of the guarantee does not require or authorize Congress to perform 'the duty that the guarantee itself supposes it to be the duty of the state to perform, and which it requires the state to perform.'"
"The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or from denying to any person the equal protection of the laws, but this provision does not add anything to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guarantee against any encroachment by the states upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a
member of society. The duty of protecting all its citizens in the enjoyment of an equality of rights was originally assumed by the states, and it remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the states do not deny the right. This the amendment guarantees, and no more. The power of the national government is limited to this guarantee."
#107. To: misterwhite (#104)
"The official state record of the act of marriage having occurred falls squarely into the Fourteenth Amendment."
#108. To: tpaine (#103)
Why is that your opinion? Exactly what wording in the amendment gives the feds more power over the States than was in the original constitution? --- I see none..
If a State, in one instance, and a county in another, should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in the number of people, wherein is that State any better than the county?
Probably the strongest and most illuminating letter giving an exposition of the Amendment was that written by Secretary Oliver H. Browning to Colonel W. H. Benneson and Major H. V. Sullivan. It was written October 13, 1866, and was given a wide publication, with much comment on it by the leading papers. In this letter Mr. Browning, who was a member of the President's Cabinet, declared that new and enormous powers would be conferred upon Congress by the proposed Amendment; that it would be possible to destroy the judiciaries of the States under it; and that the object and purpose of the clause “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, and property without due process of law” was to subordinate the state judiciaries to federal supervision and control, thereby totally annihilating the independence and sovereignty of state courts in the administration of state laws, as well as destroying the authority and control of the States over purely local affairs. He also asserted that, since the federal judiciary already had jurisdiction of all questions arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, this new provision would make possible the drawing of every matter of judicial investigation, civil and criminal, however insignificant, into the vortex of the federal judiciary.
Congressional Definition of Fourteenth Amendment Rights
#109. To: nolu chan (#58)
The family unit? You mean baby mama and the kids?
#110. To: Jameson (#0)
(Edited)
#111. To: Jameson (#0)
#112. To: tpaine (#97)
nolu chan posted (on FR, 2003): ---
"What is offered as authority for the absurdity of the assertion of the Fourteenth Amendment's fraudulent place in our jurisprudnce is a patent illustration of 'pounding on the table."
To: middie; tpaine
"What is offered as authority for the absurdity of the assertion of the Fourteenth Amendment's fraudulent place in our jurisprudnce is a patent illustration of 'pounding on the table."
-middie-
LINK
Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment
-Nchan-
-- So? - Your link is, -- in effect, pounding on the table.
It's a given [imo] that the ratification of the 14th was in part a cynical political act.
-- Its immediate effects back then may have enriched nefarious scalawags & carpetbaggers. Big deal.
In todays political reality, the 14th is one of our most important protections against out of control state & local governments.
The fact that the federal government is more out of control than various state & local ones cannot be rationally blamed on the 14th.
Political failures in our check & balance systems are to blame for our current state/fed power disparities. States still have the constitutional power to just say no.. They lack the will.
The only real constitutional failure we have is the 16th. Our political failures seem beyond any constitutional remedy.
#113. To: buckeroo (#109)
A little incest never hurt the perpetuation of the species, did it?
#114. To: Liberator (#76)
And we wonder how we've gotten to this point?? In the immoral words of Coach Vince Lombardi (prowling the sidelines, witnessing absolute chaos), "WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE??!?)
#115. To: nolu chan (#106)
"When the case of United States v. Cruikshank came to this Court, the same view was taken here. The Chief Justice, delivering the opinion of the Court in that case, said:
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or from denying to any person the equal protection of the laws, but this provision does not add anything to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guarantee against any encroachment by the states upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society.
The duty of protecting all its citizens in the enjoyment of an equality of rights was originally assumed by the states, and it remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the states do not deny the right. This the amendment guarantees, and no more. The power of the national government is limited to this guarantee."
#116. To: nolu chan (#101)
#117. To: cranko (#111)
And it will likely set off a backlash like we haven't seen in a long time.
#118. To: cranko (#111)
A gay man can legally marry a lesbian woman today, so there isn't any discrimination against gays in law with regards to marriage. So, Roberts will argue that the issue is REALLY about sexual discrimination, which is ALREADY illegal. It's a brilliant approach to the issue.
#119. To: Liberator (#81)
If the analysis by FiveThirtyEight is correct, and the SCOTUS overturns the lower courts..........
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]