Posted on 06/01/2005 9:24:53 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
Decree is your word, it doesn't apply in a constitutional republic. Royalty issues decrees, in America we legislate. So your argument here is with yourself. Good luck.
Yep, they can make Constitutional law & 'regulations', - but not decrees.
Like I said, argue with yourself on decrees, it doesn't interest me.
Reasonable regulations. I agree.
Right, so the states can regulate marriage.
Unreasonable reg. -- Why should I care if Bruce wants to 'marry' you? - I don't.
Since Bruce is presumably a male he can not marry another male. Words have meaning. Newspeak doesn't interest me wither. But you've already agreed that states can regulate marriage, if you insist on changing the meaning of words then lobby your legislature to do so. Here, I won't wish you luck.
They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.
There is no infringement, anybody can make contracts with anybody else. You just can't urinate down my leg and call ir April showers.
Wrong. -- The USSC could issue an opinion that such an Amendment was repugnant to Constitutional principles. -- And any government Official, at any level, could then refuse to enforce such an Amendment, on the grounds that it violated Constitutional principles.
I want you to cite me the relevant section of the constitution supporting your idea. Failing that you should retract the statement. Good luck here, you're gonna need it.
So I guess we agree that while government can regulate marriage, they can not abridge the right to marry?
Certainly and since the definition of marriage since the founding of this country has been the union of one man and one woman, I think you've seen the light.
:-} We've gone from no government involvement to some government involvement. That was quick.
But the government does not have the authority to stop individuals from freely ENTERING INTO any contract as long as that contract does not infringe on someone else's rights to life, liberty, or property.
Certainly they do. Can a 12 year old enter into a marriage contract, a work contract or any other contract? Of course the answer is no. Laws preclude it and those laws are made by legislatures so your statement fails with even the least of scrutiny.
The *libertarians are anarchists* is a straw man. I have not called for the elimination of all civil law, just civil law that has no legitimate authority.
You forgot to add, IYHO. But in America there are many opinions, you only get one vote. You don't get to pick and choose laws for the rest of us.
The enforcement of contracts and the protection of individuals from foreign and domestic threats to life, liberty, and property are the only legitimate functions of government.
In libertarinaville, in America it is different and there is nothing unconstitutional about it. States regualte marriage, that power is constitutionally granted and long standing in American jurisprudence. It simply is, to argue otherwise is simply a waste of time.
Tell that to the Mormons.
It was told to the Mormons by Abe Lincoln, they don't need to hear again at this late stage.
Marriage is not something the state has the authority to define.
Right, it is a word with meaning and you sure the hell don't have a right to redefine it. Glad we're clear on that.
Right, and the arbiter that convenes the juries is who, the contractee with the biggest guns?
No, we have a Constitutional government that convenes juries, walsh. I suggest you do more study on how its supposed to operate.
Am I to understand that you an anarcho libertarian type?
From what I can see, you're virtually incapable of understanding me, or the Constitution I've pledged to support & defend.
You can't even make a rational argument, Guitarman can. He's wrong but lucid, you need to go back and read the Constitution, the Federalist papers and the Declaration of Independence. Then get back to me.
Congress doesn;t regulate marriage, the states do.
States can "regulate", but they cannot make laws that decree marriage 'illegal' based on what the state legislators think will be beneficial to society. - Neither feds nor states have ever been delegated such prohibitive powers. --
--- they can make Constitutional law & 'regulations', - but not decrees.
Decree is your word, it doesn't apply in a constitutional republic.
That's my point. - Thanks.
Royalty issues decrees, in America we legislate. -- argue with yourself on decrees, it doesn't interest me.
Yep, we legislate under rule of constitutional law, not rules as decreed by politicians.
You can't marry your sister. You can't marry a two year old.
Reasonable regulations. I agree.
Right, so the states can regulate marriage.
Amazing, -- you got my point.
If you don't live in Mass you can't marry somebody of the same sex.
Unreasonable reg. -- Why should I care if Bruce wants to 'marry' you? - I don't.
Since Bruce is presumably a male he can not marry another male.
So you claim, begging the question.
the Words have meaning. Newspeak doesn't interest me wither. But you've already agreed that states can regulate marriage,
Yep, reasonable regulations.
The states and Congress can certainly amend the constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woma if they so choose.
They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.
There is no infringement, anybody can make contracts with anybody else. You just can't urinate down my leg and call it April showers.
There you go 'boldly' contradicting yourself again. You've been arguing that you & Bruce can't contract to 'marry'.
Dude, when they amend the constituion that is the law of the land until further amendment. There is no judicial review --- . Sorry.
Wrong. -- The USSC could issue an opinion that such an Amendment was repugnant to Constitutional principles. -- And any government Official, at any level, could then refuse to enforce such an Amendment, on the grounds that it violated Constitutional principles.
I want you to cite me the relevant section of the constitution supporting your idea. Failing that you should retract the statement. Good luck here, you're gonna need it.
I cite Article VI, wherein ALL officials in the US are sworn to support our Constitutional principles as the Law of the Land.
_______________________________________
jwalsh07 writes an aside:
You can't even make a rational argument, -- you need to go back and read the Constitution, the Federalist papers and the Declaration of Independence. Then get back to me.
You just attempted above to refute my rational arguments. -- You failed. Get back to me when you gather the courage to try again.
You must be one of those Liberaltarians I've read about to last this long on this board. Thanks for being the irrelevant 2% of the political population, oh and thanks for voting for Bush.
Now go hit your bong and watch another rerun of Gilligan's Island while you still live in your parents basement.
(Words of another FR poster that apply directly to you...)
Your repeating yourself. And we are still laughing at you, little petty despot. :)
Your theory that an amendment to the consitution can violate the constitution is novel. That means certain portions of the consitution are unamendable.
Go F--- yourself...
We will ALWAYS laugh at you :)
Wrong. -- The USSC could issue an opinion that such an Amendment was repugnant to Constitutional principles. -- And any government Official, at any level, could then refuse to enforce such an Amendment, on the grounds that it violated Constitutional principles.
Torie wrote:
Your theory that an amendment to the consitution can violate the constitution is novel.
Not novel at all. Justice Marshall first said as much in his 1803 Marbury v Madison opinion.
That means certain portions of the consitution are unamendable.
Exactly. The republic would fail if the 2nd Amendment was 'repealed', for instance.
No matter how large a super majority passed such an 'amendment', millions of patriots would remain who would refuse to accept such an infringement on our liberty.
Go suck a shotgun...
Here is the text of the opinion. Perhaps you would be so kind as to copy and paste the language upon which you rely for your assertion?
BWAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahaha!!! Nobody will ever listen to you little fascist.
Bullshirt...
I think there are a number of trolls here of late on FR... and two of them might be here... and it ain't you or I...
LOL. What really worries me is that some here are really that confused and dense about it all.
Torie wrote:
Your theory that an amendment to the consitution can violate the constitution is novel.
Not novel at all. Justice Marshall first said as much in his 1803 Marbury v Madison opinion.
Here is the text of the opinion. Perhaps you would be so kind as to copy and paste the language upon which you rely for your assertion?
Marshall wrote: " -- The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish, for their future govern-ment, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated.
The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. -- "
Gay marriage is not "illegal," it just doesn't exist. You can't marry another man for the same reason you can't marry your dog, or marry a rock.
The fed's powers were delegated to them by the state. The state's powers were delegated to them by the people. In case you didn't notice, The American people overwhelmingly reject your libertarian faggotry, and have ratified constitutional amendments protecting marriage from the likes of you. It's too bad for you there are so few libertarians in America so you can't forcefully impose your degenerate immorality on the rest of the country.
An act = statute, not a Constitutional amendment. The constitution is indeed supreme to statutes, and indeed when the constitution is in conflict with itself, some sections are indeed deemed by SCOTUS to trump others, such as the First Amendment. Indeed the Amendments all trump the original text. But what trumps everything is the most recently adopted amendment. It by definition is designed to trump any conflicting language. Are we making any progrsss here?
" think there are a number of trolls here of late on FR"
That would be you Dashboard. :) Not Torie, who I may disagree with but who is at least civil and seems intent on having a discusion. And I am sure that Torie, unlike you, doesn't believe that morality is the invention of stupid religionists. Or that the only thing that makes an action right is brute force. When the going gets tough logically you resort to personal petty snipes. Because in your offline life nobody takes you seriously. They, like the rest of us, just laugh at you :)
Nobody on this planet except a sociopath can operate without accepting certain a priori moral precepts. I am not sure Dashwood would assert otherwise. If he does, then he is deluding himself, since he if a libertarian embraces a boatload of them.
You will love this...
The following was posted by another FReeper to some lunkhead and is going to be a standard format I am going to "steal," it applies so neatly to these two Bozos...
You must be one of those Liberaltarians I've read about to last this long on this board. Thanks for being the irrelevant 2% of the political population, oh and thanks for voting for Bush.Now go hit your bong and watch another rerun of Gilligan's Island while you still live in your parents basement.
Is that a gas or what?
-- So now you want to argue about the fine points of language? Feel free to engage some of our resident experts on the creative use of words.
They are designed to be permanent until the "sacred" text is amended. You do know a Constitutional convention called by the states can rewrite the whole Constitution don't you? I have never read with my beady little eyes any string of words asserting that the Constitution, or some parts thereof, were not subject to amendment, until I read you. You are simply sui generis, with a new idea, indeed a novel idea, but not a good idea, or a correct idea, legally.
He must be one of those Liberaltarians I've read about to last this long on this board. Thank him for being the irrelevant 2% of the political population, oh and thank him for voting for Bush.
Now he will go hit his bong and watch another rerun of Gilligan's Island while he still lives in his parents basement.
In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments.
In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them. - Chief Justice Marshall
Well, I'll tell you. Courts issues decrees and royalty isssues decrees. In this country at this time the only government entity that issues decrees and is both a court and royalty is SCOTUS.
And as I guy I know is wont to say:
There you have it.
That means certain portions of the consitution are unamendable.
Exactly. The republic would fail if the 2nd Amendment was 'repealed', for instance.
No matter how large a super majority passed such an 'amendment', millions of patriots would remain who would refuse to accept such an infringement on our liberty.
-- what trumps everything is the most recently adopted amendment. It by definition is designed to trump any conflicting language.
You contend then that if a repeal of the 2nd Amendment was ratified, it would be valid and "trump" our right to bear arms?
Are we making any progrsss here?
You are rapidly progressing on a path to putting your foot in mouth, imo. But hey, -- feel free to continue.
And then we had the 14th amendment. Amendments matter, particularly if SCOTUS give them a robust scope in its decisions. The 14th amendment and the robust reading of the commerce clause has largely interred states rights. I don't mourn that much - indeed I don't mourn it a all (although I mourn the way the 14th amendment has struck down federal statutes outside the scope and reach or race issues). We are one nation, that will sink or swim together. There is no going back, practically or prudentially.
tpaine/P_A_I will explain to you that Marshall was wrong and the Bill of rights always applied to the states. You'll have to ask him if that means that the 14th amendment can or can't be repealed.
If the second amendment were repealed, any right to bear arms in a well regulated militia or otherwise would have to rest on some other basis. You just are not comfortable with the application of legal mechanics, if it does not comport with your policy agenda. That is not a new or novel idea. We see it all the time.
Nobody ever understands your schizophrenic ramblings. Fortunately no one else on the planet thinks the Constitution says what you imagine it does in your own little fantasy world. The American people overwhelmingly reject your libertarian faggotry, and have ratified constitutional amendments protecting marriage from the likes of you. It's too bad for you there are so few libertarians in America so you can't forcefully impose your degenerate immorality on the rest of the country.
Sure thing joe. Whatever you say.
PAI is a recycled poster?
No problem, pai, and while you libraltarians are still fighting the gubmint, we conservatives will be running it.
You don't recognize tpaine? His nauseating posting style is a dead giveaway as well as his intense nationalist anti-federalism.
I think you may be right. There are eerie echoes. :)
-- "The [Constitutional] principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. -- "
They are designed to be permanent until the "sacred" text is amended.
We can't amend away our inalienable rights, torie. Get it yet?
You do know a Constitutional convention called by the states can rewrite the whole Constitution don't you?
A three fourths majority could try, - of course, -- but any serious infringements on individual rights would lead to civil war. - And imo, the Constitutionalists would win again.
I have never read with my beady little eyes any string of words asserting that the Constitution, or some parts thereof, were not subject to amendment, until I read you.
Marshall's words from 1803 mean nothing to you? Weird fella.
You are simply sui generis, with a new idea, indeed a novel idea, but not a good idea, or a correct idea, legally.
It's only new & novel to you my boy. You need to read more.
You seemed to be fusing as an idea armed insurrection or civil disobedience with the meaning and application of the law. Mixing it all up, may have culinary merit, but not, for discussion purposes, public policy merit.
If these matters cannot be resolved throught the rule of law, via the ballot box, the alternative is not a pleasant prospect. Fortunately most respect the result of the ballot box, and nobody is tampering with the civil right to participate in the public square in any meaningful sense. In the end, civil society only works, if the citizenry are civil minded. All the Constitutional paper in the world, however noble, will not substitute for the good habits and morals and willingness of the citizenry, to tolerate a pluralistic democratic governance.
If the second amendment were repealed, any right to bear arms in a well regulated militia or otherwise would have to rest on some other basis.
You contend then that we have no inalienable right to bear arms in our self defense?
You just are not comfortable with the application of legal mechanics, if it does not comport with your policy agenda. That is not a new or novel idea. We see it all the time.
"We" being who? -- And I am quite comfortable with the legal mechanics of our Constitution, which you admittedly are not.
The courts are a convoluted mess. I say we toss out all precedent cases and start over...
-- "The [Constitutional] principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. -- "
They are designed to be permanent until the "sacred" text is amended.
We can't amend away our inalienable rights, torie. Get it yet?
You do know a Constitutional convention called by the states can rewrite the whole Constitution don't you?
A three fourths majority could try, - of course, -- but any serious infringements on individual rights would lead to civil war. - And imo, the Constitutionalists would win again.
I have never read with my beady little eyes any string of words asserting that the Constitution, or some parts thereof, were not subject to amendment, until I read you.
Marshalls words from 1803 mean nothing to you? Weird fella.
You are simply sui generis, with a new idea, indeed a novel idea, but not a good idea, or a correct idea, legally.
It's only new & novel to you my boy. You need to read more.
You seemed to be fusing as an idea armed insurrection or civil disobedience with the meaning and application of the law.
I do? Where do you get that odd idea?
Mixing it all up, may have culinary merit, but not, for discussion purposes, public policy merit.
Strange ideas you have for "public policy", torie. -- Claiming we can amend away our inalienable rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.