G.O.P. Hopefuls Denounce Marriage Equality Ruling

even wikipedia understand this issue far better than you. you always seem to argue the pre law argument... and miss the whole reason for law school.... learning how to reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers.
----

now combine what you have just learned with what I told you a few posts ago about the limited Federal Power per the Constitution and state nullification maybe you are ready to enter my or any second year classroom where we look at things more deeply.


2. The constitution did not provide us with protection from laws based on religious grounds... where the hell did you get that baloney. The supreme court has taken some religious based things out of the public sphere the last 60 years or so... true... but the constitution and the states supported religious belief at the time it was made. Public schools use to teach the bible. Politicians had to swear oaths to God and profess to believe in God in many states to hold office.

Next time you have a choice to swear to God in court or when taking a govt job... let me know.
next time you examine how almost all the states had ties to religion at the time of the constitutional convention let me know.

the 2nd amendment was designed to limit the Federal Govt ability to pick a national religion and protect us from govt interference with our right to worship.


3. Here is link to a professor I knew who was an acknowledged expert in these areas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Siegan

here are books of his you might read were you to have a good historical legal education in these areas.

http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court...qid=1435784036&sr=8-5&keywords=bernard+siegan



http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Libe...qid=1435783990&sr=8-1&keywords=bernard+siegan





piezoe said:
" the Constitution does not top states rights" Well, that's true, because States Rights only exist so far as they are not in conflict with the Constitution!

Where on Earth did you go to Law School? Every Law School in the Country that I am aware of teaches that where State laws are in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution trumps State law. The U.S. Constitution, signed by representatives of the various States, states clearly that the Constitution is "the Supreme law of the Land."

If you want to debate the Court and its Obama care decision, then there is room for spirited discussion. There isn't in the Gay Marriage issue. It is as straight forward an issue as will ever come before the Court. As you learned in Law School, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids the Federal Government from favoring one religion over another. And the Fourteenth Amendment expands the Bill of Rights to the States and local governments.

The only objections to gay marriage that can be raised, are raised on on religious grounds, and the Constitution protects us from laws based on religious grounds. (Although in practice it does a very poor job of providing that protection.) Furthermore, the objections raised on religious grounds are non-substantive, because no one can show harm from someone else's gay marriage. Thus any objection on religious grounds can not stand. Objections based on tradition are also non-substantive for the very same reasons. They too, can not stand against the substantive constitutional issues.

A mind is a terrible thing to lose, Jem. Try to find yours, will'ya?
More...
 
Last edited:
BSAM said:
So, when do I get to have my seven wives?
More...

All right now...All right now...Heeere we go, baby...
Just google these two words: Nathan Collier

LOL
Whew...I knew it was coming.

Give me my EQUAL FREAKIN' RIGHTS, OBAMA.
 
(Clearing throat, and speaking in most pleasant, friendly, and inviting voice...)

Hello...I'm BSAM.
Just thought I'd say hi to all you single, attractive, and intelligent ladies out there in ET land.
Aw...I know you all are lurking about.
But, you've been afraid to say much over the years because this is such a male dominated industry.

But, go ahead and let's talk just a little.
I been here a good while, so I'll just drive you around a little and show you around inside ET here, as we get to know each other a bit.

I would have room in my ET "car" for only the first lucky SEVEN wonderful ladies who are chosen, who'd like to be shown around.

(Coughing slightly again...)...

Uh...Perhaps one of you is good at cooking?
Another might be good at cleaning,huh?
Maybe there's an accountant type out there who is looking at taking care of the finances for a very loving "compound" type of place.
Would also be interested in animal lovers, who would enjoy taking care of the various puppies that would be around.
Etc., etc., etc....

Of course, these arrangements can't begin until it's all allowed and legal, you understand.

But, with those freaks we got in the White House and on the Supreme Court, we've come to understand that ANYTHING goes in the USA, such that our dreams could soon come true.

With all fondness,
BSAM

P.S.---No PMs, please. Feel free to respond here openly, as we all lead the way to a stronger and equal America.

Hmmm...smell those delightful candles, boxes of chocolates, and bouquets of roses?
 
fhl said:
Queer marriage is guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment and canning vegetables in your basement is regulated by the interstate commerce clause.

Wow, who knew?
More...
you seem to be experiencing difficulties with some very basic principles. Perhaps I can help. If the vegetables you can are not involved in interstate commerce, then they won't be regulated by any regulations having to do with interstate commerce. So luckily you can sleep well knowing you don't have to fill out any government paper work regarding your home made dill pickles.

Actually, queer marriage is not guaranteed, not directly anyway, under the 14th amendment. So you can rest easy about that as well. However the fourteenth amendment does require that individuals in similar circumstances be treated equally under the law, and that includes everyday statutory law.

It can be argued that two men, or two woman, wanting to marry, are not people in similar circumstances to a man and a woman wanting to marry -- though it would have to be a contrived argument, and probably therefore a weak one. Also, you can base arguments on sentiment and historical precedent, as those who argued the minority opinion did. There are ample examples of such kinds of arguments having been successfully made under the principle of stare decisis -- a principle to fall back onto when nothing better is at hand to support ones position.

However, once you get into substantive harm suffered by two men or two women not being allowed to marry you have a very strong argument under the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause. You may not deny them the right to marry without denying them, at the same time, equal protection, i.e., equal treatment, under the law, and thereby causing them to suffer a great harm. (There are subtle problems with allowing them civil union, but not marriage, as some have argued for. Allowing these homosexual unions to be called "marriages" gets around these potential problems.)

The fourteenth amendment was too high a hurdle for the defendants to jump over. It, along with the First Amendment, are two of the most -- perhaps the most-- important amendments to our U.S. Constitution, and two very much open to interpretation. So it is not surprising that these two amendments are the ones often litigated.
 
Last edited:
jem said:
even wikipedia understand this issue far better than you. you always seem to argue the pre law argument... and miss the whole reason for law school.... learning how to reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers.
----

now combine what you have just learned with what I told you a few posts ago about the limited Federal Power per the Constitution and state nullification maybe you are ready to enter my or any second year classroom where we look at things more deeply.


2. The constitution did not provide us with protection from laws based on religious grounds... where the hell did you get that baloney. The supreme court has taken some religious based things out of the public sphere the last 60 years or so... true... but the constitution and the states supported religious belief at the time it was made. Public schools use to teach the bible. Politicians had to swear oaths to God and profess to believe in God in many states to hold office.

Next time you have a choice to swear to God in court or when taking a govt job... let me know.
next time you examine how almost all the states had ties to religion at the time of the constitutional convention let me know.

the 2nd amendment was designed to limit the Federal Govt ability to pick a national religion and protect us from govt interference with our right to worship.


3. Here is link to a professor I knew who was an acknowledged expert in these areas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Siegan

here are books of his you might read were you to have a good historical legal education in these areas.

http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court...qid=1435784036&sr=8-5&keywords=bernard+siegan



http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Libe...qid=1435783990&sr=8-1&keywords=bernard+siegan
More...
That quote that you quoted when quoting my response to your earlier post is not from me. It is from you! :eek: [see your post #46 above, paragraph 'c.']

Specifically you said: "when someone extends the reach of the constitution beyond the very limited areas the [sic] left for the federal govt... the Constitution does not top states rights." I picked up on that, because you couldn't argue successfully, in my mind, that anyone in Ober.. had 'extended the reach...' The 14th amendment arguments made were very much within the proper purview of the Constitution. Anyone would have a hard time arguing that they weren't. Even Scalia, who had to hide his head in a bag :D, couldn't convince the majority that their arguments were an improper extension of the 'reach of the Constitution.'
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top