Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does that mean laws duly enacted in the states that prohibit pig ****ing may be struck down by the Court because it`s one of those liberties that "have always existed?"
Perhaps, if you read the Constitution you would come across the Tenth Amendment and not write such ridiculous things.
Judicial review is legislating from the bench and an assumed power not provided by the Constitution.
Perhaps if you read the constitution you would have come across the 14th amendment.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Somehow when I read this I just don't see the part that says except the gays, or the blacks, or the Jews, or the Catholics, or the Irish, or any other subset of the citizenry you might like to think of as somehow less than you.
As far as pig f***ing goes, as soon as pigs become citizens capable of giving informed consent then knock yourself out as it shouldn't be illegal.
And interestingly the supreme court has not ruled on any case regarding cakes and gays, so it really doesn't matter in regards to the supreme court and their ruling in Obergfell.
The specific issue isn't the point, the point is by what constitutional authority does the federal government override individual liberty, or state sovereignty?
As far as marriage of any variety, where in the constitution do we find such reference? There is none.
But I do understand the argument about equal protection under the law, I just disagree with how it has been twisted, not unlike how the 1st Amendment has been twisted relative to religion, and the 2nd, relative to infringement.
Equal protection, in my opinion does not infer equal treatment, or equal outcomes, but only applies to due process, and the protection of one's constitutionally protected rights.
As for gay marriage, I don't believe the federal government has the authority to universally dictate to the states on such matters, while I am not in favor of government involvement in marriage of any type, period.
There would not even be an issue here at all, if the government was excluded from such matters across the board. The same argument used to promote government mandate on the matter .. ie, equal treatment arguments ignores the fact that there is a lack thereof relative to married versus single persons. Of course the motive behind gay marriage revolves around the "benefits" afforded married couples, but is that not unequal and unfair to provide benefits to married persons that are denied to single people?
The bottom line is, most domestic issues should be dealt with at the state and local level, where the people most affected also have the most control.
Of course, that gay couple who demands federal dictate on their behalf, contrary to state law, probably wouldn't like such powers to be used against them, when uncle Sam marches in, shuts down their state legalized medical marijuana facility, confiscates all of their goodies, and plants their arses in a federal penitentiary for trafficking in a schedule 1 drug. You feel me,?
The truth is, freedom ain't free, and liberty isn't always convenient. But it sure beats the alternative, even though so many have become so short sighted, that they just don't see how they are slowly destroying their own freedoms, all in the name of equality.
Your overlords and saviors in Washington DC rely on such short sightedness, and they know exactly how to manipulate the masses to achieve their agendas, which has everything to do with their best interests, and nothing to do with ours.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 02-16-2016 at 06:30 PM..
Discrimination is everywhere, and is practiced routinely by everyone. Each time you grab a burger for lunch, are you not choosing which burger joint you buy from? You make that choice for whatever reason .. cheaper, or better or more convenient. But what about those places you didn't buy from? Aren't you discriminating against them? Maybe that burger joint that has too high prices is owned by a homosexual ... maybe you should be forced to buy their burgers so long as they claim that you are not buying their burgers because they are gay?
Maybe you should have no choice to do anything, but do only what you are told to do?
For one person, discrimination, to another, personal choice. To do away with discrimination, requires that we eliminate personal choice.
The price is much too high.
You're mixing personal discrimination with the legal discrimination. Two separate things.
Perhaps if you read the constitution you would have come across the 14th amendment. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Somehow when I read this I just don't see the part that says except the gays, or the blacks, or the Jews, or the Catholics, or the Irish, or any other subset of the citizenry you might like to think of as somehow less than you.
As far as pig f***ing goes, as soon as pigs become citizens capable of giving informed consent then knock yourself out as it shouldn't be illegal.
The bolded part is what Scalia did not like yet he is held up as this rigid constitutionalist, this is where he allowed his religion to get in the way of judgment.
OK, I missed that ... Now explain to me your point? Is it your contention that the son was a conservative because of loyalty to the King, and therefore, because he was considered a traitor, conservatives by nature are traitors? I don't get the relevance of his son, which probably explains why I missed the reference.
You misunderstand me.
Benjamin Franklin's son William Franklin (1730 - 1813) was NOT a "traitor." I am NOT calling conservatives "traitors." Au contraire ... William Franklin, the Governor of the colony of New Jersey, was loyal to the English King. Had the loyalists won it would have been Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, et al who probably would have been hung as traitors.
I see "conservatism" and "liberalism" as political philosophies and nothing more.
Perhaps if you read the constitution you would have come across the 14th amendment.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Somehow when I read this I just don't see the part that says except the gays, or the blacks, or the Jews, or the Catholics, or the Irish, or any other subset of the citizenry you might like to think of as somehow less than you.
As far as pig f***ing goes, as soon as pigs become citizens capable of giving informed consent then knock yourself out as it shouldn't be illegal.
Glad you brought this to the forefront. Let's address this carefully.
While I am of the radical side who sees the 14th as an overt act of declaring us all slaves, and subjects under the jurisdiction of the United States Inc., rather than our rightful government of the United States of America, which are two distinct and separate entities, one legit, the other, not ... I'll resist the urge to cast pearls before swine, and pretend the 14th has legitimacy, for argument sake.
First, in absence of a constitutional repeal of the 10th, the 14th cannot in any way shape or form override the 10th. And this is true and applies to any amendment, which cannot violate any other portion of the Constitution on its own.
Now let's look at the portion for which I'm sure you erroneously believe is the linchpin of your position .... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ...
That seems clear enough. Now all we have to do is document these privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, including their where abouts in the text of the Constitution. Oops, here we are again, looking for language dealing with these often cited but never sighted privileges that don't exist .... Ah snap!
Perhaps the drafters of the 14th should have included those privileges and immunities in the amendment, or at least tell us where we can find them.
You're mixing personal discrimination with the legal discrimination. Two separate things.
Nope. The two are quite conflated by your side. I might, as a business owner decide not to do business with you, and I reserve that right, as a free man. I don't need a reason, I simply have the right to decide who I will work with or for, period. And that IS LEGAL, and always has been.
More recently in modern times, liberty hating liberals have decided that the tail should wag the dog, and while I don't need to state a reason for refusing you my services, as it is my right to do, all someone has to do is claim that I have refused service to special classes of citizens that strangely possess superior rights to my own. Of course, the circular reasoning being used here is enough to make ones head explode, given the argument being used is of protecting equal rights, while simultaneously inferring that these special classes of citizens have special protections which override my rights, even though we are supposed to be equal.
There is no end to such circular reasoning, which is why it is called circular. It's like a dog chasing his own tail.
Nope. The two are quite conflated by your side. I might, as a business owner decide not to do business with you, and I reserve that right, as a free man. I don't need a reason, I simply have the right to decide who I will work with or for, period. And that IS LEGAL, and always has been.
Just because you wish upon a star, that doesn't make it so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
