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.
Never have been able to understand the liberal insistence on outsourcing their own thought process.
The Constitution is written in plain English with no need for interpretation.
If the Founders wanted the Constitution to be "interpreted", they would have delegated the task to a specific government body and they would have written their intentions into the Constitution itself.
The reason they didn't go that route should be obvious, but I'll wait while you have someone with credentials explain to you what I really meant.
They did. The federal judiciary. As evidenced by the words of Madison and Hamilton I've posted twice here already.
I'm not an originalist, but when it comes to the basics of how the three branches of the federal government should function and what their roles would be, I think they provided a good blueprint. If anything, the supremacy clause would necessitate the federal judiciary's role of review of state laws in my opinion, it's much less cumbersome and efficient (and makes more sense) than having the national legislature (which isn't in-session year round and at the time of adoption, was in session less than today) specifically address any conflict arising between state and federal law or the constitutionality of state law.
Harrier is waiting for you to tell him why government endorsement in marriage is necessary.
That is your answer - there is no legitimate reason for government to be in the marriage business.
Marriage should be a private matter.
Marriage is a private matter, it's just recognized by the government. People seem to like it that way. I see no reason to change it.
It's the status quo, it's already here. You're the one who wants to get rid of it, so the onus is on you to explain why we need to do all this. I already pointed out the government will remain in the marriage business (through the courts) regardless of what you think.
You do understand that something needs to actually be written in the Constitution for it to be part of the Constitution, right?
lol
Again, I trust their interpretation of the role of the federal judiciary more than yours.
I can't possibly simplify it more than that.
If you don't think the document is open to any other interpretation than yours, take it up with Madison and Hamilton and then get back to me.
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.
