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.
I hate to sound like a dick, but do you even know what "unconstitutional" means?
I have no doubt that society, and societies viewpoints change over time. But when society changes, the Constitution doesn't, or shouldn't change, it is the laws that should change.
Laws are a reflection of society, if society changes, then society should simply change the laws. If 60% of the US public really wants same-sex marriage, then change the law.
To say that society has changed, and so the Constitution should change, is intellectually dishonest. If society has changed, then society would change the laws, and there would be no need for a change the meaning of the Constitution through "reinterpretation".
When you use the Supreme Court to change the meaning of the Constitution in a way that was never intended. Especially in what everyone knows will be a split "5-4" outcome. You undermine the legitimacy of the Constitution itself. In essence, the Constitution no longer truly exists, and becomes nothing more than whatever a bare majority of Supreme Court justices say it is.
That is neither a Democracy or a Republic, it is a weird form of oligarchy. Where a mere five unelected/lifetermed men can create, change, or abolish the laws in any way they see fit.
It always amazes me how the American people just accept whatever the Supreme Court says without much complaint. This country truly is a nation of cowards.
I really love these two daily show videos. It does a good job in explaining how unaccountable the government has become to the people here.
Two hundred plus years of jurisprudence disagree with you. Originalism is a dead concept that almost no one seriously tries to argue anymore. If the Founding Fathers didn't want the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of laws than they should have brought that up when John Marshall first overturned a law.
You seem to forget that the Constitution does change. It's called Amending it. The 14th Amendment was an addition to the Constitution. Prior to that, one could not assert their equal protection rights on Constitutional grounds.
We don't dictate civil rights by popular vote.
There isn't actually a reinterpretation, merely a new set of legal issues to apply the 14th Amendment to. The 14th Amendment hasn't changed.
I think that poster is trying to argue the concept of originalism.
You seem to forget that the Constitution does change. It's called Amending it. The 14th Amendment was an addition to the Constitution. Prior to that, one could not assert their equal protection rights on Constitutional grounds.
There isn't actually a reinterpretation, merely a new set of legal issues to apply the 14th Amendment to. The 14th Amendment hasn't changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199
I disagree. The constitution was written by a bunch of men who have been dead for more than 200 years. Not a single one them had even a fart's intuition what the world of 2015 would be like. Parts of it are extremely, painfully vague, using language that no one would use today.
Either dust it off and fix it, or dump it. Washington lawmaking is so corrupt and broken, that updating the laws to avoid further amendments is a no-go. Senators and Representatives are either bought-off, too scared, or both. They aren't about to make a law legalizing same-sex marriage. (Mumbles something about god and gays)
So we're left with the courts, specifically the SCOTUS, whose framework is also horrifically corrupt and outdated.
The problem is that both of you are not only wrong, but also dangerous. You just don't understand.
Let me explain.
The 14th amendment isn't being used for same-sex marriage simply because same-sex marriage is suddenly a "new issue". Just like the issue in "Loving v. Virginia" wasn't a new issue either.
Look at it like this, the current interpretation of the equal-protection clause says that the government can't discriminate whatsoever(unless it places a heavy burden on society). If that was the original meaning of the equal-protection clause, then what about voting rights for blacks and women? I mean, under your interpretation of the equal-protection clause, wouldn't it have guaranteed both blacks and women a right to vote?
If that is the case, then why did we even bother with creating the 15th and 19th amendments? Especially considering the exact same Congress who created the 14th amendment created the 15th amendment as well.
If you honestly believe that the 14th amendment granted either a right to same-sex marriage, or any other right that it supposedly gave over the last 150 years. All you really have to do is ask, "What if this same court case had been brought before the Supreme Court in 1870? Would the Supreme Court in 1870 have declared same-sex marriage a right based on the 14th amendment's equal protection clause?".
Everyone knows that it wouldn't have been. There is no reason to even fight about it.
Thus if everyone was going to actually be honest, they would just admit that the 14th amendment never gave a right to same-sex marriage. But people aren't honest. And these dishonest people have created a new Judicial ideology called the "living document theory". Where they have declared that the Constitution's meaning should change as society changes.
And on the surface this doesn't seem unreasonable. I mean, on its face it is correct. As society changes, the laws which govern society should change. I don't think anyone can really disagree with that. The problem is, from what source should these changes come?
What no one seems to realize, is that if you think the Supreme Court should reinterpret the Constitution in a "modern context". What you are saying is that the Supreme Court should be given the authority and power to rewrite the Constitution however they see fit. In effect, you are making the Supreme Court a sort of tribunal with quasi-dictatorial powers.
Effectively you are telling the Supreme Court that they can say the Constitution means whatever they think it should mean, and no one has the right to question them.
And while you may agree with Roe v. Wade, or a Loving v. Virginia . Do you still agree with a Bush v. Gore, a Citizens United, or a Dred v. Scott?
All I'm saying is, I would rather society change the Constitution themselves, instead of entrusting almost unlimited power in a Supreme Court which is both unelected and life-termed.
In short, if you want to change the law, you should just change the law. No one wins when the Supreme Court hands down a 5-4 decision on such a controversial issue.
I don't think so. Loving v Virginia was a case of equal protection, not marriage itself. If marriage were a fundamental right, there would be very few restrictions, but there are many. Age, blood relatives, multiple spouses.
See the problem then, like the Loving case, is that gay marriage is legal in one state, but not in others. You travel from one state, or move, and your marriage is not recognized in that state. Same as what happened with the Lovings married in Maryland (?) and going back to Virginia. Not happening with gay couples right now?
I'm not opposed to you enjoying the same benefits. I'm opposed to the hypocrisy. You don't have an issue discriminating against single people?
I don't care if single people get married. In fact I'm pretty sure that most single people can go get married.
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.
