Posted on 10/12/2010 1:06:43 PM PDT by maddog55
Edited on 10/12/2010 1:19:20 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The ruling claims it violates the 1st amend of perverts. Which group of people have been violating the 1st amend right of normal people? That is right the perverts. Any words the perverts do not like. The perverts demand that they not be used. Faggot? That’s so gay? Next the other perverts will chant the same thing!
That's for posting the link to the relevant code. I no longer suffer from being misinformed.
That's for posting the link to the relevant code. I no longer suffer from being misinformed.
I don’t thats part of the very few legitimate areas of jurisdictional for the federal Courts.
I do however have a problem with lower courts calming world wide jurisdiction. Her ruling should at least be limited to the soldiers from her district.
I also have a problem with the Federal courts not only ignoring the limits of our constitution but even their own rules of respecting past presidencies.
I’m starting to think we would be better off if we had judges openly demonstrating the abusive power usurped by the Federal courts.
In this particular ruling the judge striped the military of its ability to keep information secrete.(her 1st amendment clam)
Of course the 14th amendment clam’s logic could just as easily be used to argue to abolish any and all government laws and acts, if “equal protection under the law” and/or “due process of law” don’t have to be under or of the “law”.
But such is the lawless arbitrary dictates of our modern Federal courts...
It must be nice to be a Federal judge to be almost entirely unaccountable and have punitive dictatorial powers. I mean even if the higher courts over ruled you, you still had your way for the long peroid in which it took for them to do that. And really as is demonstratively the case there is little to nothing to prevent you from doing that or something similar again.
“the part that appears unconstitutional is the prohibition on them speaking about it”
Nobody tells them they have to be quiet about anything. There is no prohibition on speaking about being gay. There is a prohibition on being gay. That is all. I don’t see a free speech problem whatsoever. It would be as if to say that an officer who holds controversial political opinions (let’s say he’s a white supremecist, for instance) is unconstitutionally constrained because while out of uniform he holds his tongue so that he won’t be passed over for promotion. Restriction on speech that is, but only very indirectly.
Same with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Confusion, I think, arises from the “don’t tell” part, which leads people to think saying you’re gay is forbidden. But it isn’t. Clearly, what’s forbidden is being gay, and a restriction on being gay is not a restriction on speech. Just certain people feel contrained by the need to keep secrets does not make the telling the part that’s outlawed.
“Of course the 14th amendment clam’s logic could just as easily be used to argue to abolish any and all government laws and acts, if ‘equal protection under the law’ and/or ‘due process of law” don’t have to be under or of the ‘law’.
But such is the lawless arbitrary dictates of our modern Federal courts...”
Exactly. We shouldn’t (almost) ever read anything into invocations of due process or equal protection. Those clauses long ago lost any connection to the sort of meaning (logical, historical, philosophical) usually associated with language. They are invoked as a matter of course, like a letterhead. I assure you that no one involved gave any thought to the propriety of their inclusion.
The issue is if you have a constitutional right to be gay, and I see no where in the Constitution where it protects any perceived "right" to be gay. You don't have a due process right to have the federal government respect your choices. The government does not have to accept all choices as being equal.
Honestly i think it was irresponsible of the writers(and ratifiers who were not being blackmailed) of the 14th amendment to include them in the first place when really all they were allegedly trying to do was protect blacks from racial discrimination.
They would have done far better to simply say: “No government under the United States shall discriminate on the account of race.”
More to the point harder to “reinterpret” drastically differently then intended. Of course that presume that we were dealing with logically competent and honest people. I can’t say the folks that just got done turning our voluntary union into one held together only with tyrannical sword of force to be honest or logical competent people.
Instead I would call them traitors to our republic for transferring it into an empire of perpetual government(union) servitude/exploration.
Thats just me of course, and I’m sure your right, even as written the 14th amendment cannot be logically applied in this way unless it must also be applied to abolish every other law.
“Honestly i think it was irresponsible of the writers...of the 14th amendment to include them in the first place when really all they were allegedly trying to do was protect blacks from racial discrimination.”
Yes, but if it were so easy to write airtight constitutions everyone would. I, too, resent the more elastic of clauses, since pinning down their intended meanings is commonly viewed as parochial at best.
Still, the 14th amendment is not so nebulous as people pretend. I don’t know about “equal protection,” but “due process” was a venerated part of the age-old English (world, perhaps) legal tradition. Until recent times retaining a pretty clear meaning. Though admittedly it’s always been a bit fuzzy precisely what process is due each man in each particular insatnce. But not so fuzzy as to apply in such a way—as you indicate—to justify jetisoning basically every law ever created.
“since it doesn’t actually replace or supersede the part of UCMJ which prohibits homosexual activity, homosexual activity is still explicitly banned.”
Yes, and I spoke too freely when I said that the military outlaws being gay. That was a glib way to put it. They outlaw gay activity. You can be gay, obviously, and follow military law. That was the whole point of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
“I see no where in the Constitution where it protects any perceived ‘right’ to be gay”
That’s merely evidence of your honesty (or perhaps sanity). Federal judges have thus far been adept at linking sexual activity with privacy and therefor with, I don’t know what, the Western tradition of individual autonomy? Throw in the 4th, 5th, 9th, and whatever other amendments you can think of, and there it is. It’s all mumbo-jumbo, though, as we know.
“Whether she knows it or not, this bimbo just put the final torpedo in the ‘RATS’ ship. Good for her!”
My first thought, too. Can they stop shooting themselves in the foot? I don’t think so. :)
It still remains to be seen if we Pubbies can roll back the tide, though...
Yeah. Don’t know about you but I’m not seeing many Republican ads on the boob tube. The DemocRATS are slinging some heavy duty mud and lies here in Arizona. The ‘RATS are giving their buddy McCain a pass though.
The locals in Wisconsin (Johnson running against Feingold and Walker running against the Mayor of Milwaukee for Governor) are running a LOT of local ads. But they HAVE to around here.
Wisconsin is moving from mamby-pamby Purple to nearly solid Red this cycle. :)
Dane and Milwaukee Counties always mess things up for the rest of our BEAUTIFUL, NORMAL and GOD-FEARING state. ;)
I guess liberals STILL loathe the military.
Exactly.
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.