|
On June 27 2013 06:24 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 06:20 Reason wrote:
Pat Robertson
Allowing gay couples to access the same rights and benefits as straight couples is an attack on “the foundation of our society” led by “a few people [who] want to have their way of doing of sex affirmed by everybody else,” Robertson warned on the “700 Club” on Wednesday.
“They say it’s homophobia to believe that a marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned by God. God is not a homophobe, God is almighty. He’s in charge of the world and this is the way he made it. Why? Because there isn’t any other way to have children. Two men do not have children, two women do not have children. That is the way God made it.”
With arguments as solid as Pat's I have no idea why people are even considering gay marriage in the first place. So Mr. Pat Robertson, since you believe in god so much, answer me this: where did Mrs. Kane come from? Did Kane commit incest with his own mother? Did Adam and Eve have an unmentioned daughter that gave birth to Kane's children? For all the weight you're giving to the word of the Bible, it sure has some logical flaws in it.
Uhhhhh... I'm going to go ahead and face desk at your logic. Not only is this a red herring on your part(referring to incest in a question of gay marriage it also ignores the fact that in some way incest is basically always committed. Would you prefer Adam and Eve and their children not reproduced with each other at all and the human race does out? Probably not.
|
On June 27 2013 05:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote:
The dissents on the DOMA case were all based upon the SCOTUS not having jurisdiction to rule. This line especially, from Scalia sums it up well:
"That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every- where “primary” in its role."
To me this screams of hypocrisy and cherry picking times to apply such an attitude. He essentially took the opposite view in Bush v Gore. And isn't it exactly the job of the Supreme Court to decide constitutional questions when they arise? Like that's literally the only thing it does. That is the endless debate that people have about the Supreme Court: Is it an agent for change? People debate it until the end of time and use phrased like "activist judges" and so on. There are good sides and bad sides to the argument. In general, from working the the legal field, activist judges are bad and generally cause more harm than good. But Scalia is correct that they do not have supremacy over what is constitutional and what isn't. It is a terrible tool for change, since they are limited by their rulings and can only address issues that are brought before them. He would argue that it is the Representatives in Congress and the Executive branch's job to address these issues across the board, rather than bring each one up before the court for them to decide on its own merits. You are going to see a lot more like these, where the Court tell says to Congress "Yo, you guys should be handling this shit, not us."
Actually, the Court's decision addressed this and the majority agreed that it is not the Court's place to routinely consider every law. However, they did find that the Court had the responsibility to rule on the merits in *this* case because of the unusual scope and intent of DOMA to undermine the States' right to legislate matters of marriage and domestic relations and that a lack of a ruling would cause immense cost and harm for years to come.
As it it is inscribed on the SC building itself "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison 1803
But you can read for yourself: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf
|
|
|
On June 27 2013 06:45 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 06:39 docvoc wrote:
After re-reading this. This also means that the federal government cannot make same-sex marriage legal. If the government cannot make something illegal, then it must leave it up to the states to ensure its legality. That is going to make same-sex marriage a really tough, long fight. If states rights are upheld for this, then states rights must be upheld later as well. This is going to get complicated, fast. I've always kinda felt that the point of states' rights was to allow states to tailor laws to the unique circumstances that befit a particular region and/or demographic within that state that may not be efficient for the entire country as a whole. If that's the point, then why should Texas be able to forbid SSM while New York permits it? Is not marriage a simple matter of freedom for consenting adults willing to enter into a mutually beneficial contractual agreement? It baffles me that this sort of universal question is delegated to individual states. Either all SS people should be allowed to marry or they shouldn't. I don't understand why crossing state lines changes the veracity of the legal argument, nor why SCOTUS can't rule that banning SSM is indefensible. But I'm not an American, so my understanding of American politics is probably lacking.
Basically the Constitution states that things not expressly given to the federal government or implied to be under federal government control are given to the states. Marriage is included in this section of powers given to the states. If the Feds make a law next week that says SS marriage is legal everywhere, that would be a direct opposition to states rights and should be struck down just as the DOMA act was.
|
On June 27 2013 06:54 Wingblade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 06:45 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 06:39 docvoc wrote:
After re-reading this. This also means that the federal government cannot make same-sex marriage legal. If the government cannot make something illegal, then it must leave it up to the states to ensure its legality. That is going to make same-sex marriage a really tough, long fight. If states rights are upheld for this, then states rights must be upheld later as well. This is going to get complicated, fast. I've always kinda felt that the point of states' rights was to allow states to tailor laws to the unique circumstances that befit a particular region and/or demographic within that state that may not be efficient for the entire country as a whole. If that's the point, then why should Texas be able to forbid SSM while New York permits it? Is not marriage a simple matter of freedom for consenting adults willing to enter into a mutually beneficial contractual agreement? It baffles me that this sort of universal question is delegated to individual states. Either all SS people should be allowed to marry or they shouldn't. I don't understand why crossing state lines changes the veracity of the legal argument, nor why SCOTUS can't rule that banning SSM is indefensible. But I'm not an American, so my understanding of American politics is probably lacking. Basically the Constitution states that things not expressly given to the federal government or implied to be under federal government control are given to the states. Marriage is included in this section of powers given to the states. If the Feds make a law next week that says SS marriage is legal everywhere, that would be a direct opposition to states rights and should be struck down just as the DOMA act was.
Not true. Federal law trumps states. The Civil Rights Act stomped all over states rights. But if history has taught us anything, it's that our states are even worse at making laws than our federal government.
|
On June 27 2013 06:55 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 06:54 Wingblade wrote:On June 27 2013 06:45 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 06:39 docvoc wrote:
After re-reading this. This also means that the federal government cannot make same-sex marriage legal. If the government cannot make something illegal, then it must leave it up to the states to ensure its legality. That is going to make same-sex marriage a really tough, long fight. If states rights are upheld for this, then states rights must be upheld later as well. This is going to get complicated, fast. I've always kinda felt that the point of states' rights was to allow states to tailor laws to the unique circumstances that befit a particular region and/or demographic within that state that may not be efficient for the entire country as a whole. If that's the point, then why should Texas be able to forbid SSM while New York permits it? Is not marriage a simple matter of freedom for consenting adults willing to enter into a mutually beneficial contractual agreement? It baffles me that this sort of universal question is delegated to individual states. Either all SS people should be allowed to marry or they shouldn't. I don't understand why crossing state lines changes the veracity of the legal argument, nor why SCOTUS can't rule that banning SSM is indefensible. But I'm not an American, so my understanding of American politics is probably lacking. Basically the Constitution states that things not expressly given to the federal government or implied to be under federal government control are given to the states. Marriage is included in this section of powers given to the states. If the Feds make a law next week that says SS marriage is legal everywhere, that would be a direct opposition to states rights and should be struck down just as the DOMA act was. Not true. Federal law trumps states. The Civil Rights Act stomped all over states rights. But if history has taught us anything, it's that our states are even worse at making laws than our federal government.
I don't think so man... I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that the distribution of powers between the federal level and the States is pretty rigid in the US. Sometimes there is trespassing but the federal doesn't trump states, not easily anyway.
|
On June 27 2013 06:56 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 06:55 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 06:54 Wingblade wrote:On June 27 2013 06:45 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 06:39 docvoc wrote:
After re-reading this. This also means that the federal government cannot make same-sex marriage legal. If the government cannot make something illegal, then it must leave it up to the states to ensure its legality. That is going to make same-sex marriage a really tough, long fight. If states rights are upheld for this, then states rights must be upheld later as well. This is going to get complicated, fast. I've always kinda felt that the point of states' rights was to allow states to tailor laws to the unique circumstances that befit a particular region and/or demographic within that state that may not be efficient for the entire country as a whole. If that's the point, then why should Texas be able to forbid SSM while New York permits it? Is not marriage a simple matter of freedom for consenting adults willing to enter into a mutually beneficial contractual agreement? It baffles me that this sort of universal question is delegated to individual states. Either all SS people should be allowed to marry or they shouldn't. I don't understand why crossing state lines changes the veracity of the legal argument, nor why SCOTUS can't rule that banning SSM is indefensible. But I'm not an American, so my understanding of American politics is probably lacking. Basically the Constitution states that things not expressly given to the federal government or implied to be under federal government control are given to the states. Marriage is included in this section of powers given to the states. If the Feds make a law next week that says SS marriage is legal everywhere, that would be a direct opposition to states rights and should be struck down just as the DOMA act was. Not true. Federal law trumps states. The Civil Rights Act stomped all over states rights. But if history has taught us anything, it's that our states are even worse at making laws than our federal government. I don't think so man... I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that the distribution of powers between the federal level and the States is pretty rigid in the US. Sometimes there is trespassing but the federal doesn't trump states, not easily anyway.
No it's actually explicitly stated that Federal Law trumps state law. That's the reason the Civil Rights act wasn't immediately struck down.
|
On June 27 2013 06:57 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 06:56 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 06:55 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 06:54 Wingblade wrote:On June 27 2013 06:45 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 06:39 docvoc wrote:
After re-reading this. This also means that the federal government cannot make same-sex marriage legal. If the government cannot make something illegal, then it must leave it up to the states to ensure its legality. That is going to make same-sex marriage a really tough, long fight. If states rights are upheld for this, then states rights must be upheld later as well. This is going to get complicated, fast. I've always kinda felt that the point of states' rights was to allow states to tailor laws to the unique circumstances that befit a particular region and/or demographic within that state that may not be efficient for the entire country as a whole. If that's the point, then why should Texas be able to forbid SSM while New York permits it? Is not marriage a simple matter of freedom for consenting adults willing to enter into a mutually beneficial contractual agreement? It baffles me that this sort of universal question is delegated to individual states. Either all SS people should be allowed to marry or they shouldn't. I don't understand why crossing state lines changes the veracity of the legal argument, nor why SCOTUS can't rule that banning SSM is indefensible. But I'm not an American, so my understanding of American politics is probably lacking. Basically the Constitution states that things not expressly given to the federal government or implied to be under federal government control are given to the states. Marriage is included in this section of powers given to the states. If the Feds make a law next week that says SS marriage is legal everywhere, that would be a direct opposition to states rights and should be struck down just as the DOMA act was. Not true. Federal law trumps states. The Civil Rights Act stomped all over states rights. But if history has taught us anything, it's that our states are even worse at making laws than our federal government. I don't think so man... I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that the distribution of powers between the federal level and the States is pretty rigid in the US. Sometimes there is trespassing but the federal doesn't trump states, not easily anyway. No it's actually explicitly stated that Federal Law trumps state law. That's the reason the Civil Rights act wasn't immediately struck down.
Isn't that on ambiguous matters? I'd be curious to see where it says that.... I mean, States aren't shit if the feds can actually do whatever they want, so I highly doubt that the constitution says Federal Law trumps all.
|
On June 27 2013 06:59 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 06:57 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 06:56 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 06:55 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 06:54 Wingblade wrote:On June 27 2013 06:45 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 06:39 docvoc wrote:
After re-reading this. This also means that the federal government cannot make same-sex marriage legal. If the government cannot make something illegal, then it must leave it up to the states to ensure its legality. That is going to make same-sex marriage a really tough, long fight. If states rights are upheld for this, then states rights must be upheld later as well. This is going to get complicated, fast. I've always kinda felt that the point of states' rights was to allow states to tailor laws to the unique circumstances that befit a particular region and/or demographic within that state that may not be efficient for the entire country as a whole. If that's the point, then why should Texas be able to forbid SSM while New York permits it? Is not marriage a simple matter of freedom for consenting adults willing to enter into a mutually beneficial contractual agreement? It baffles me that this sort of universal question is delegated to individual states. Either all SS people should be allowed to marry or they shouldn't. I don't understand why crossing state lines changes the veracity of the legal argument, nor why SCOTUS can't rule that banning SSM is indefensible. But I'm not an American, so my understanding of American politics is probably lacking. Basically the Constitution states that things not expressly given to the federal government or implied to be under federal government control are given to the states. Marriage is included in this section of powers given to the states. If the Feds make a law next week that says SS marriage is legal everywhere, that would be a direct opposition to states rights and should be struck down just as the DOMA act was. Not true. Federal law trumps states. The Civil Rights Act stomped all over states rights. But if history has taught us anything, it's that our states are even worse at making laws than our federal government. I don't think so man... I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that the distribution of powers between the federal level and the States is pretty rigid in the US. Sometimes there is trespassing but the federal doesn't trump states, not easily anyway. No it's actually explicitly stated that Federal Law trumps state law. That's the reason the Civil Rights act wasn't immediately struck down. Isn't that on ambiguous matters? I'd be curious to see where it says that.... I mean, States aren't shit if the feds can actually do whatever they want, so I highly doubt that the constitution says Federal Law trumps all.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.
The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate[1]
The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Nullification is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law.[2]
Supremacy Clause
|
Well that's not what that means actually, anyway I think... in any instance in which a federal law that is applicable under the federal powers granted to it by the constitution comes into conflict with a state law, then the federal law has supremacy.
It's how it works here and I'm pretty sure it's how it works in the US. It's only when there's a conflict that this applies.
To my knowledge, there are plenty of things for which the federal government has no authority whatsoever, and they would need to legally change the constitution to change that... And changing the constitution requires the approval of some State legislatures, not sure how many, maybe it varies depending on what's being done...
|
On June 27 2013 05:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote:
The dissents on the DOMA case were all based upon the SCOTUS not having jurisdiction to rule. This line especially, from Scalia sums it up well:
"That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every- where “primary” in its role."
To me this screams of hypocrisy and cherry picking times to apply such an attitude. He essentially took the opposite view in Bush v Gore. And isn't it exactly the job of the Supreme Court to decide constitutional questions when they arise? Like that's literally the only thing it does. That is the endless debate that people have about the Supreme Court: Is it an agent for change? People debate it until the end of time and use phrased like "activist judges" and so on. There are good sides and bad sides to the argument. In general, from working the the legal field, activist judges are bad and generally cause more harm than good. But Scalia is correct that they do not have supremacy over what is constitutional and what isn't. It is a terrible tool for change, since they are limited by their rulings and can only address issues that are brought before them. He would argue that it is the Representatives in Congress and the Executive branch's job to address these issues across the board, rather than bring each one up before the court for them to decide on its own merits. You are going to see a lot more like these, where the Court tell says to Congress "Yo, you guys should be handling this shit, not us."
Well, that makes some sense, yet he seems to be saying that 'equal protection' as described under the 5th amendment doesn't really mean anything. Congress (and states) can pass laws that are not in line with the constitution, and therefore you have the Courts to do that job. And that is what happened in Romer vs. Evans, and Lawrence vs. Texas - a state, or even the majority of the population, can not impose laws that discriminate and deprive people from basic protection just because of their sexual orientation, since those laws are at odds with the Constitution.
Scalia's dissent makes some sense in the beginning, but I got lost at the end, I just can't follow his logic.
This post lines-out his dissent pretty well, and there are some contradictions in there, as well as plenty of over-the-top vitriol. There's even a part that the Chief didn't want to join, probably because it was particularly hateful of gays.
http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=166093
To a previous poster, here you can find the opinions (and all the amicus briefs, transcripts of oral argument etc etc, just in case you're bored... The dissent is in the same pdf, below the majority opinion,
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/windsor-v-united-states-2/
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/hollingsworth-v-perry/
http://www.scotusblog.com also has a flurry of posts (written by law profs and other legal scholars) explaining the different consequences of the rulings today. Scotusblog is pretty awesome, they have good analyses of difficult-to-grasp opinions...
|
On June 27 2013 06:55 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 06:54 Wingblade wrote:On June 27 2013 06:45 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 06:39 docvoc wrote:
After re-reading this. This also means that the federal government cannot make same-sex marriage legal. If the government cannot make something illegal, then it must leave it up to the states to ensure its legality. That is going to make same-sex marriage a really tough, long fight. If states rights are upheld for this, then states rights must be upheld later as well. This is going to get complicated, fast. I've always kinda felt that the point of states' rights was to allow states to tailor laws to the unique circumstances that befit a particular region and/or demographic within that state that may not be efficient for the entire country as a whole. If that's the point, then why should Texas be able to forbid SSM while New York permits it? Is not marriage a simple matter of freedom for consenting adults willing to enter into a mutually beneficial contractual agreement? It baffles me that this sort of universal question is delegated to individual states. Either all SS people should be allowed to marry or they shouldn't. I don't understand why crossing state lines changes the veracity of the legal argument, nor why SCOTUS can't rule that banning SSM is indefensible. But I'm not an American, so my understanding of American politics is probably lacking. Basically the Constitution states that things not expressly given to the federal government or implied to be under federal government control are given to the states. Marriage is included in this section of powers given to the states. If the Feds make a law next week that says SS marriage is legal everywhere, that would be a direct opposition to states rights and should be struck down just as the DOMA act was. Not true. Federal law trumps states. The Civil Rights Act stomped all over states rights. But if history has taught us anything, it's that our states are even worse at making laws than our federal government.
If states rights was stomped on by the Civil Rights Act, then why did the court explictly state in their DOMA ruling that the federal law interfered with the states right to determine marriage? Is the application of states rights only applicable when you feel like it?
|
On June 27 2013 07:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 06:59 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 06:57 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 06:56 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 06:55 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 06:54 Wingblade wrote:On June 27 2013 06:45 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 06:39 docvoc wrote:
After re-reading this. This also means that the federal government cannot make same-sex marriage legal. If the government cannot make something illegal, then it must leave it up to the states to ensure its legality. That is going to make same-sex marriage a really tough, long fight. If states rights are upheld for this, then states rights must be upheld later as well. This is going to get complicated, fast. I've always kinda felt that the point of states' rights was to allow states to tailor laws to the unique circumstances that befit a particular region and/or demographic within that state that may not be efficient for the entire country as a whole. If that's the point, then why should Texas be able to forbid SSM while New York permits it? Is not marriage a simple matter of freedom for consenting adults willing to enter into a mutually beneficial contractual agreement? It baffles me that this sort of universal question is delegated to individual states. Either all SS people should be allowed to marry or they shouldn't. I don't understand why crossing state lines changes the veracity of the legal argument, nor why SCOTUS can't rule that banning SSM is indefensible. But I'm not an American, so my understanding of American politics is probably lacking. Basically the Constitution states that things not expressly given to the federal government or implied to be under federal government control are given to the states. Marriage is included in this section of powers given to the states. If the Feds make a law next week that says SS marriage is legal everywhere, that would be a direct opposition to states rights and should be struck down just as the DOMA act was. Not true. Federal law trumps states. The Civil Rights Act stomped all over states rights. But if history has taught us anything, it's that our states are even worse at making laws than our federal government. I don't think so man... I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that the distribution of powers between the federal level and the States is pretty rigid in the US. Sometimes there is trespassing but the federal doesn't trump states, not easily anyway. No it's actually explicitly stated that Federal Law trumps state law. That's the reason the Civil Rights act wasn't immediately struck down. Isn't that on ambiguous matters? I'd be curious to see where it says that.... I mean, States aren't shit if the feds can actually do whatever they want, so I highly doubt that the constitution says Federal Law trumps all. Show nested quote +Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.
The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate[1]
The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Nullification is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law.[2] Supremacy Clause
The last paragraph is extremely important. Marriage has been affirmed as a right of the states, and not one of the Federal government's constiutionally authorized powers. Federal laws that attempt to grant SS marriage to the entire country are not consistent with the Constitution UNLESS an amendment is passed that deems otherwise.
|
On June 27 2013 06:59 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 06:57 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 06:56 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 06:55 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 06:54 Wingblade wrote:On June 27 2013 06:45 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 06:39 docvoc wrote:
After re-reading this. This also means that the federal government cannot make same-sex marriage legal. If the government cannot make something illegal, then it must leave it up to the states to ensure its legality. That is going to make same-sex marriage a really tough, long fight. If states rights are upheld for this, then states rights must be upheld later as well. This is going to get complicated, fast. I've always kinda felt that the point of states' rights was to allow states to tailor laws to the unique circumstances that befit a particular region and/or demographic within that state that may not be efficient for the entire country as a whole. If that's the point, then why should Texas be able to forbid SSM while New York permits it? Is not marriage a simple matter of freedom for consenting adults willing to enter into a mutually beneficial contractual agreement? It baffles me that this sort of universal question is delegated to individual states. Either all SS people should be allowed to marry or they shouldn't. I don't understand why crossing state lines changes the veracity of the legal argument, nor why SCOTUS can't rule that banning SSM is indefensible. But I'm not an American, so my understanding of American politics is probably lacking. Basically the Constitution states that things not expressly given to the federal government or implied to be under federal government control are given to the states. Marriage is included in this section of powers given to the states. If the Feds make a law next week that says SS marriage is legal everywhere, that would be a direct opposition to states rights and should be struck down just as the DOMA act was. Not true. Federal law trumps states. The Civil Rights Act stomped all over states rights. But if history has taught us anything, it's that our states are even worse at making laws than our federal government. I don't think so man... I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that the distribution of powers between the federal level and the States is pretty rigid in the US. Sometimes there is trespassing but the federal doesn't trump states, not easily anyway. No it's actually explicitly stated that Federal Law trumps state law. That's the reason the Civil Rights act wasn't immediately struck down. Isn't that on ambiguous matters? I'd be curious to see where it says that.... I mean, States aren't shit if the feds can actually do whatever they want, so I highly doubt that the constitution says Federal Law trumps all.
Care to quote that Klondike? The US Constitution trumps all. Federal law only trumps state law where the federal government has jurisdiction. There are two centuries of precedent giving states jurisdiction over domestic relation laws. A state law can only be struck down if it violates the Constitution such as Loving v. Virginia held. But keep in mind that ruling only came after a majority of states had already overturned laws banning interracial marriage. Legal experts predict that it could be another decade before the Supreme Court will take up a case to decide if same-sex marriage bans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
|
On June 27 2013 07:16 Daethan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 06:59 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 06:57 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 06:56 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 06:55 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 06:54 Wingblade wrote:On June 27 2013 06:45 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 06:39 docvoc wrote:
After re-reading this. This also means that the federal government cannot make same-sex marriage legal. If the government cannot make something illegal, then it must leave it up to the states to ensure its legality. That is going to make same-sex marriage a really tough, long fight. If states rights are upheld for this, then states rights must be upheld later as well. This is going to get complicated, fast. I've always kinda felt that the point of states' rights was to allow states to tailor laws to the unique circumstances that befit a particular region and/or demographic within that state that may not be efficient for the entire country as a whole. If that's the point, then why should Texas be able to forbid SSM while New York permits it? Is not marriage a simple matter of freedom for consenting adults willing to enter into a mutually beneficial contractual agreement? It baffles me that this sort of universal question is delegated to individual states. Either all SS people should be allowed to marry or they shouldn't. I don't understand why crossing state lines changes the veracity of the legal argument, nor why SCOTUS can't rule that banning SSM is indefensible. But I'm not an American, so my understanding of American politics is probably lacking. Basically the Constitution states that things not expressly given to the federal government or implied to be under federal government control are given to the states. Marriage is included in this section of powers given to the states. If the Feds make a law next week that says SS marriage is legal everywhere, that would be a direct opposition to states rights and should be struck down just as the DOMA act was. Not true. Federal law trumps states. The Civil Rights Act stomped all over states rights. But if history has taught us anything, it's that our states are even worse at making laws than our federal government. I don't think so man... I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that the distribution of powers between the federal level and the States is pretty rigid in the US. Sometimes there is trespassing but the federal doesn't trump states, not easily anyway. No it's actually explicitly stated that Federal Law trumps state law. That's the reason the Civil Rights act wasn't immediately struck down. Isn't that on ambiguous matters? I'd be curious to see where it says that.... I mean, States aren't shit if the feds can actually do whatever they want, so I highly doubt that the constitution says Federal Law trumps all. Care to quote that Klondike? The US Constitution trumps all. Federal law only trumps state law where the federal government has jurisdiction. There are two centuries of precedent giving states jurisdiction over domestic relation laws. A state law can only be struck down if it violates the Constitution such as Loving v. Virginia held. But keep in mind that ruling only came after a majority of states had already overturned laws banning interracial marriage. Legal experts predict that it could be another decade before the Supreme Court will take up a case to decide if same-sex marriage bans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Thought so!
|
On June 27 2013 07:15 Wingblade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 07:00 farvacola wrote:On June 27 2013 06:59 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 06:57 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 06:56 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 06:55 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 06:54 Wingblade wrote:On June 27 2013 06:45 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 06:39 docvoc wrote:
After re-reading this. This also means that the federal government cannot make same-sex marriage legal. If the government cannot make something illegal, then it must leave it up to the states to ensure its legality. That is going to make same-sex marriage a really tough, long fight. If states rights are upheld for this, then states rights must be upheld later as well. This is going to get complicated, fast. I've always kinda felt that the point of states' rights was to allow states to tailor laws to the unique circumstances that befit a particular region and/or demographic within that state that may not be efficient for the entire country as a whole. If that's the point, then why should Texas be able to forbid SSM while New York permits it? Is not marriage a simple matter of freedom for consenting adults willing to enter into a mutually beneficial contractual agreement? It baffles me that this sort of universal question is delegated to individual states. Either all SS people should be allowed to marry or they shouldn't. I don't understand why crossing state lines changes the veracity of the legal argument, nor why SCOTUS can't rule that banning SSM is indefensible. But I'm not an American, so my understanding of American politics is probably lacking. Basically the Constitution states that things not expressly given to the federal government or implied to be under federal government control are given to the states. Marriage is included in this section of powers given to the states. If the Feds make a law next week that says SS marriage is legal everywhere, that would be a direct opposition to states rights and should be struck down just as the DOMA act was. Not true. Federal law trumps states. The Civil Rights Act stomped all over states rights. But if history has taught us anything, it's that our states are even worse at making laws than our federal government. I don't think so man... I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that the distribution of powers between the federal level and the States is pretty rigid in the US. Sometimes there is trespassing but the federal doesn't trump states, not easily anyway. No it's actually explicitly stated that Federal Law trumps state law. That's the reason the Civil Rights act wasn't immediately struck down. Isn't that on ambiguous matters? I'd be curious to see where it says that.... I mean, States aren't shit if the feds can actually do whatever they want, so I highly doubt that the constitution says Federal Law trumps all. Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.
The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate[1]
The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Nullification is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law.[2] Supremacy Clause The last paragraph is extremely important. Marriage has been affirmed as a right of the states, and not one of the Federal government's constiutionally authorized powers. Federal laws that attempt to grant SS marriage to the entire country are not consistent with the Constitution UNLESS an amendment is passed that deems otherwise.
You're right, and it is very unlikely that Congress would vote to write SSM into law (they can't get anything done these days anyway). However, the way to marriage equality in all 50 states would be that SCOTUS simply rules that state laws that explicitly ban SSM are in violation of the 5th and 14th amendment. This would de facto mean that SSM is the law of the land in all states, and imply (not explicitly make) that marriage is a right for people of the same sex. It'll be 2-3 years before those cases reach The Court.
|
On June 27 2013 04:27 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:57 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
So if it's declared unconstitutional at a federal level, does that mean it trickles down and all the states have to respect the federal ruling of SSM being legal and it being against the constitution to discriminate against that?
Alternatively, if the states aren't required to immediately adapt to this ruling wouldn't it take one lawsuit in each state which would then make that court look at the principle established in this case and then automatically make SSM legal?
If anyone could clarify, that would be awesome. The ruling has nothing to do with that, no. States can choose to not allow SSM within their state and also not respect the SSM performed in other states. What this ruling does is that in the states that allow SSM, the federal government must consider them married for purposes of federal law such as estate tax, social security etc.
Thanks.
But I thought no one is immune to the constitution, IE: A state couldn't make slavery legal just because they wanted it. So if the supreme court, the highest court in the land says that the constitution doesn't allow discrimination against same sex marriage then wouldn't that have to trickle down and effect every state equally the same way Roe V. Wade made abortion legal throughout the country based off the right to privacy?
|
On June 27 2013 07:15 Wingblade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 07:00 farvacola wrote:On June 27 2013 06:59 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 06:57 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 06:56 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2013 06:55 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 06:54 Wingblade wrote:On June 27 2013 06:45 Shiori wrote:On June 27 2013 06:39 docvoc wrote:
After re-reading this. This also means that the federal government cannot make same-sex marriage legal. If the government cannot make something illegal, then it must leave it up to the states to ensure its legality. That is going to make same-sex marriage a really tough, long fight. If states rights are upheld for this, then states rights must be upheld later as well. This is going to get complicated, fast. I've always kinda felt that the point of states' rights was to allow states to tailor laws to the unique circumstances that befit a particular region and/or demographic within that state that may not be efficient for the entire country as a whole. If that's the point, then why should Texas be able to forbid SSM while New York permits it? Is not marriage a simple matter of freedom for consenting adults willing to enter into a mutually beneficial contractual agreement? It baffles me that this sort of universal question is delegated to individual states. Either all SS people should be allowed to marry or they shouldn't. I don't understand why crossing state lines changes the veracity of the legal argument, nor why SCOTUS can't rule that banning SSM is indefensible. But I'm not an American, so my understanding of American politics is probably lacking. Basically the Constitution states that things not expressly given to the federal government or implied to be under federal government control are given to the states. Marriage is included in this section of powers given to the states. If the Feds make a law next week that says SS marriage is legal everywhere, that would be a direct opposition to states rights and should be struck down just as the DOMA act was. Not true. Federal law trumps states. The Civil Rights Act stomped all over states rights. But if history has taught us anything, it's that our states are even worse at making laws than our federal government. I don't think so man... I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that the distribution of powers between the federal level and the States is pretty rigid in the US. Sometimes there is trespassing but the federal doesn't trump states, not easily anyway. No it's actually explicitly stated that Federal Law trumps state law. That's the reason the Civil Rights act wasn't immediately struck down. Isn't that on ambiguous matters? I'd be curious to see where it says that.... I mean, States aren't shit if the feds can actually do whatever they want, so I highly doubt that the constitution says Federal Law trumps all. Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.
The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate[1]
The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Nullification is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law.[2] Supremacy Clause The last paragraph is extremely important. Marriage has been affirmed as a right of the states, and not one of the Federal government's constiutionally authorized powers. Federal laws that attempt to grant SS marriage to the entire country are not consistent with the Constitution UNLESS an amendment is passed that deems otherwise.
Even if marriage is a right of the states a federal court can rule that certain practices would violate the 14th amendment. If a federal judge rules that it violates the 14th amendment to have marriage and not allow gays then they have functionally granted SSM unless the relevant states want to get rid of marriage entirely within the state.
|
On June 27 2013 07:31 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 04:27 NovaTheFeared wrote:On June 27 2013 03:57 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
So if it's declared unconstitutional at a federal level, does that mean it trickles down and all the states have to respect the federal ruling of SSM being legal and it being against the constitution to discriminate against that?
Alternatively, if the states aren't required to immediately adapt to this ruling wouldn't it take one lawsuit in each state which would then make that court look at the principle established in this case and then automatically make SSM legal?
If anyone could clarify, that would be awesome. The ruling has nothing to do with that, no. States can choose to not allow SSM within their state and also not respect the SSM performed in other states. What this ruling does is that in the states that allow SSM, the federal government must consider them married for purposes of federal law such as estate tax, social security etc. Thanks. But I thought no one is immune to the constitution, IE: A state couldn't make slavery legal just because they wanted it. So if the supreme court, the highest court in the land says that the constitution doesn't allow discrimination against same sex marriage then wouldn't that have to trickle down and effect every state equally the same way Roe V. Wade made abortion legal throughout the country based off the right to privacy?
The court didn't rule on whether offering marriage only to heterosexual couples was a violation of the 14th. They only ruled that it was a violation to withhold federal benefits to people with state sanctioned SSM's
|
On June 27 2013 07:31 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 04:27 NovaTheFeared wrote:On June 27 2013 03:57 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
So if it's declared unconstitutional at a federal level, does that mean it trickles down and all the states have to respect the federal ruling of SSM being legal and it being against the constitution to discriminate against that?
Alternatively, if the states aren't required to immediately adapt to this ruling wouldn't it take one lawsuit in each state which would then make that court look at the principle established in this case and then automatically make SSM legal?
If anyone could clarify, that would be awesome. The ruling has nothing to do with that, no. States can choose to not allow SSM within their state and also not respect the SSM performed in other states. What this ruling does is that in the states that allow SSM, the federal government must consider them married for purposes of federal law such as estate tax, social security etc. Thanks. But I thought no one is immune to the constitution, IE: A state couldn't make slavery legal just because they wanted it. So if the supreme court, the highest court in the land says that the constitution doesn't allow discrimination against same sex marriage then wouldn't that have to trickle down and effect every state equally the same way Roe V. Wade made abortion legal throughout the country based off the right to privacy?
This will come later, in another challenge. Because of procedural rules, it didn't come to the question in the prop-8 case. In 2-3 years, a proper case will be before The Court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
