Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

View Poll Results: Should we allow gays the same rights as hetrosexuals?
Yes 68 72.34%
No 8 8.51%
Leave it to the states. Not a federal issue. 17 18.09%
GAZ says FU BRC, you are gay 1 1.06%
Voters: 94. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-09-2012, 10:03 AM  
BigRedChief BigRedChief is offline
Brainwashed
 
BigRedChief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Swims with fishes
Casino cash: $19144
VARSITY
SCOTUS to take on allowing Gays to marry. What say you?

There are two cases(DOMA and Proposition 8) to be heard by the SCOTUS this session.

At the base of the question is do gay Americans have the same rights as heterosexual Americans? And if so, do they need their constitutional rights protected at the federal level.

I've never had an openly gay friend, co-worker or family member. I did coach a little league baseball team. On that team I had a player with two Mom's. The players and the parents accepted the kid of the two Mom's as any other player. The other parents let their kids go over to the two Mom's house for sleepovers etc. It wasn't a factor to consider in the slightest.

I don't have any personal experience to know what rights is actually being denied. However, I believe that for whatever reason they were born that way. It's not a choice. You can't pray it out of them. You can't give them therapy and turn them into heterosexuals. They are what they are naturally and we should just accept them.

IMHO, the government/city/state/society have no right to tell it's citizens what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. some of our citizens who they can and who they can't love. Who they can and can't marry. History will not be kind to the discrimination of gays, with cause. It's time to end this era of gay discrimination.
Posts: 44,931
BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 03:25 PM   #316
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
Bless FSU!
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $23731
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmo20002 View Post
Two problems with your side note. The first is that it did actually originate in the House.
Nope. Substantively it's a Senate bill through trickery. Now, it's a new bill written from the bench by the SC—even more bogus. You ignored the "trickery" I stated earlier.
On September 17, 2009, Congressman Charlie Rangel introduced a bill in the House, H.R. 3590, the "Service Members Home Ownership TAX Act of 2009," whose purpose was "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees." The bill passed the House on October 8 by a 416-0 vote.

On November 19, Harry Reid introduced his own version of H.R. 3590 in the Senate. He took the bill that had been unanimously passed by the House, renamed it the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," deleted all its contents after the first sentence, and replaced it with totally different content. What followed was the first pass of the Senate version of ObamaCare....

In his majority opinion, Justice Roberts failed to even mention the bill’s legislative history. He ignored the Origination Clause problem presented by Senate Majority Leader Reid's “shell bill” and its constitutional circumvention. Presumably, he relied upon the “enrolled bill rule” established in the Court’s 1892 Marshall Fields Co. v. Clark decision as an excuse to overlook Senator Reid’s fraudulent trickery. Under the “enrolled bill rule,” the Court essentially says if Congress tells it a bill originated in a specific House, it simply accepts that statement of enrollment as the “proper origination of the bill.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ustice-Roberts
Looks like trickery and legal error to me.

Quote:
Beyond that, the second is that the SC has said that not every law that might impose a tax is a "Bill for Raising Revenue" if the "tax" is incidental to the law's primary purpose.
Link?

I don't see how it's incidental when it's re-labeled by Roberts as a tax and he shot down the mandate part. Nor do I defer to the SC, where flawed men sit, over the actual language of the document.

Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1:
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
Sorry, but you're WRONG!
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution

“We do not believe in aggressive or preventive war. Such war is the weapon of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States.”~ Truman, Sept 1, 1950
Posts: 59,901
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 03:32 PM   #317
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
Bless FSU!
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $23731
Sorry to turn this digression to a hijack...just this last one:

From same link:

Scalia, in his NFIB v. Sebelius dissent, touched on the Origination Clause, but not to the fullest degree he could have:
To say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but rewrite it…Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they must pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off.
Scalia continued:
We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty. See Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962, 111th Congress, 1st Session, 501 (2009); America’s Health Future Act of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Congress, 1st Session, 1301. Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.
Scalia, however, failed to take the dissent to the next logical step by arguing that if the individual mandate is a tax, ObamaCare violates the Origination Clause since every substantive element of it originated in the Senate. Perhaps he knew that Justice Roberts was unreachable, having already determined to legislate from the bench. Or perhaps he’s merely waiting for a future plaintiff to make the argument.
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution

“We do not believe in aggressive or preventive war. Such war is the weapon of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States.”~ Truman, Sept 1, 1950
Posts: 59,901
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 03:48 PM   #318
cosmo20002 cosmo20002 is offline
Debunking your bullshit
 
cosmo20002's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: KC area
Casino cash: $22828
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
Nope. Substantively it's a Senate bill through trickery. Now, it's a new bill written from the bench by the SC—even more bogus. You ignored the "trickery" I stated earlier.
On September 17, 2009, Congressman Charlie Rangel introduced a bill in the House, H.R. 3590, the "Service Members Home Ownership TAX Act of 2009," whose purpose was "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees." The bill passed the House on October 8 by a 416-0 vote.

On November 19, Harry Reid introduced his own version of H.R. 3590 in the Senate. He took the bill that had been unanimously passed by the House, renamed it the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," deleted all its contents after the first sentence, and replaced it with totally different content. What followed was the first pass of the Senate version of ObamaCare....

In his majority opinion, Justice Roberts failed to even mention the bill’s legislative history. He ignored the Origination Clause problem presented by Senate Majority Leader Reid's “shell bill” and its constitutional circumvention. Presumably, he relied upon the “enrolled bill rule” established in the Court’s 1892 Marshall Fields Co. v. Clark decision as an excuse to overlook Senator Reid’s fraudulent trickery. Under the “enrolled bill rule,” the Court essentially says if Congress tells it a bill originated in a specific House, it simply accepts that statement of enrollment as the “proper origination of the bill.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ustice-Roberts
Looks like trickery and legal error to me.



Link?

I don't see how it's incidental when it's re-labeled by Roberts as a tax and he shot down the mandate part. Nor do I defer to the SC, where flawed men sit, over the actual language of the document.

Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1:
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
Sorry, but you're WRONG!
You proved my point for me. Obamacare was HR 3590--originated in the HOUSE. The "trickery" as you call it is noneltheless legal, is often used in the Senate, and the SC has blessed other "revenue" laws that originated in a similar way.

Its incidental because the main purpose wasn't to raise revenue--it was to broaden access to health insurance.

I understand that you do not recognize the SC, but here in the real world...

If you really want to wordsmith it, the Cons says bills "for raising revenue." "For" indicates a primary purpose. I don't think you can reasonably argue the bill's primary purpose is to raise revenue when 99% of the bill deals with access to insurance, relatively few would be impacted by the "tax," and there's not even a mechanism for collection/penalty for not actually paying the "tax." Dont shoot the messenger---
Posts: 20,578
cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 03:50 PM   #319
cosmo20002 cosmo20002 is offline
Debunking your bullshit
 
cosmo20002's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: KC area
Casino cash: $22828
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post

Scalia, however, failed to take the dissent to the next logical step by arguing that if the individual mandate is a tax, ObamaCare violates the Origination Clause since every substantive element of it originated in the Senate. Perhaps he knew that Justice Roberts was unreachable, having already determined to legislate from the bench. Or perhaps he’s merely waiting for a future plaintiff to make the argument.
Thank you.
Posts: 20,578
cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 03:50 PM   #320
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
Bless FSU!
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $23731
Nope.

And it's time to take this discussion to a new thread.
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution

“We do not believe in aggressive or preventive war. Such war is the weapon of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States.”~ Truman, Sept 1, 1950
Posts: 59,901
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 03:51 PM   #321
go bowe go bowe is offline
bye bye bo...
 
go bowe's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: independence
Casino cash: $10007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
You know how I know you haven't actually looked at any of these cases?
From Loving v Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

I'm sure the rest of your uninformed opinion matters.
yep, he said so and it must be true, despite what the supremes themselves have said and despite what most legal scholars have to say about it...

he thinks he's john ****ing marshall...
Posts: 30,461
go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 03:51 PM   #322
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
Bless FSU!
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $23731
Is there a Mod around to cut these last few posts off to a new thread ...titled: ACA violates Origination Clause.
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution

“We do not believe in aggressive or preventive war. Such war is the weapon of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States.”~ Truman, Sept 1, 1950
Posts: 59,901
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 03:54 PM   #323
go bowe go bowe is offline
bye bye bo...
 
go bowe's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: independence
Casino cash: $10007
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
Is there a Mod around to cut these last few posts off to a new thread ...titled: ACA violates Origination Clause.
is there a mod around to cut these last few pea brain quotes off to the trash heap?
Posts: 30,461
go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.go bowe has parlayed a career as a truck driver into debt free trailer and jon boat ownership.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 03:57 PM   #324
cosmo20002 cosmo20002 is offline
Debunking your bullshit
 
cosmo20002's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: KC area
Casino cash: $22828
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
Nope.

And it's time to take this discussion to a new thread.
I'd agree with you that amending a House bill to essentially introduce a new topic is a bit "tricky"--but the bill DID, IN FACT originate in the House. Those congressman have all kinds of little procedural tricks, and the SC pretty much lets them conduct business as they wish. They've had chances to overturn laws tainted by this "trick" but have declined to do so.
Posts: 20,578
cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 03:59 PM   #325
cosmo20002 cosmo20002 is offline
Debunking your bullshit
 
cosmo20002's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: KC area
Casino cash: $22828
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
Is there a Mod around to cut these last few posts off to a new thread ...titled: ACA violates Origination Clause.
BEP trying to hide yet another defeat--asking for mod intervention.
Posts: 20,578
cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 04:03 PM   #326
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
Bless FSU!
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $23731
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmo20002 View Post
I'd agree with you that amending a House bill to essentially introduce a new topic is a bit "tricky"--but the bill DID, IN FACT originate in the House. Those congressman have all kinds of little procedural tricks, and the SC pretty much lets them conduct business as they wish. They've had chances to overturn laws tainted by this "trick" but have declined to do so.
Procedurally but not substantively. It was completely changed to a new bill making it a shell bill instead of merely adding amendments.

You make a case for neglect though. That doesn't make it right. Meanwhile, there are other legal challenges, including on this point, by Pacific Legal Foundation.

http://www.californiahealthline.org/...om-states.aspx

http://www.pacificlegal.org/releases...se-of-Congress
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution

“We do not believe in aggressive or preventive war. Such war is the weapon of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States.”~ Truman, Sept 1, 1950

Last edited by BucEyedPea; 03-27-2013 at 04:10 PM..
Posts: 59,901
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 04:16 PM   #327
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by alnorth View Post
Here's one odd twist that people haven't thought about yet, presuming DOMA is struck down but we don't get a sweeping prop 8 decision.

If states are forced to recognize marriages from other states (and I think they probably will have to), then we'll have de facto legalized gay marriage in the whole country. Mississippi won't have to dirty their hands with granting the marriage certificate, but gay couples in that state would simply have to find a state where gay marriage is quick and easy. Maybe they'll have to buy a plane ticket and spend their honeymoon in some cold northern state, but thats it.
This basic issue happened already in United States History, the Dred Scott case. And the case was a primary cause for the creation of the Republican party because of the intense backlash, it was a great unionizing event for radicals and conservatives in the north against slavery.

Basically, the same situation. Being a slave from one state, you stay a slave if you were transported into a free state. Not only that, Chief Justice Taney ruled that no black person could be a citizen of the state, and Dred Scott had no baring to sue. Taney's reasoning, the founding fathers did not think blacks were citizens. That the framers regarding blacks as (direct quote) "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race ... and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." What this meant was states could make individual laws regarding black citizenship, but the federal government or other states did not recognize them as citizens. Another direct quote from Taney, basically saying no state could "introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution." (both quotes can be found in "The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics" 1978)

Notice the similarities between the those arguments and the anti gay marriage crowd today. State rights and all that, founders didn't mean this or that. Didn't work then, isn't going to work now. History as shown that the federal government will step in when states take away basic freedom, eventually. We always have to fight. And change the constitution if we have too. And marriage is a Fundamental Right. That is a legal definition.

The issue will be decided at the federal issue for this and various other reasons, if not now, sometime in the future. Its not a matter of if, but when. And again, those wishing to restrict freedom will be on the wrong side of history.
Posts: 4,213
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 04:28 PM   #328
cosmo20002 cosmo20002 is offline
Debunking your bullshit
 
cosmo20002's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: KC area
Casino cash: $22828
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
Procedurally but not substantively. It was completely changed to a new bill making it a shell bill instead of merely adding amendments.
You make a case for neglect though. That doesn't make it right. Meanwhile, there are other legal challenges, including on this point, by Pacific Legal Foundation.

http://www.californiahealthline.org/...om-states.aspx

http://www.pacificlegal.org/releases...se-of-Congress
I completely understand how it was done. Nevertheless, it is fairly common, and as of today, legaly sound. Surely an originalist like you can admit that the bill did originate in the House and met the Consitutional requirement.

Obama's citizenship has had legal challenges as well. Pacific Legal's efforts will have the same fate.
Posts: 20,578
cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.cosmo20002 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 05:29 PM   #329
WhawhaWhat WhawhaWhat is offline
MVP
 

Join Date: Feb 2013
Casino cash: $14242
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
The constitution already applies to gays. You're suggesting that we need to create a new kind of marriage (same sex) so we can treat gays different than we treat straights.

I suspect that you wouldn't say that it's unconstitutional to treat people with kids different than we treat those who choose not to have kids by giving them extra tax breaks, would you? If not, what's different?

I don't think anything new is being created, which is where we differ I think. The marriage is the same to me whether it's a man and woman, man and man, woman and woman. It is just a commitment to someone they love and want to spend the rest of their life with. The same advantages or disadvantages should apply to each marriage. This was where I think the equal protection clause should be applied that I was referring to earlier.

To the second point, I wouldn't say it's unconstitutional to treat people differently with kids than without. I also don't have any children so my knowledge of the differences is pretty limited, so I don't have a great response for that question. However, people choose to have children or not and choose to get married or not so I think the comparison may be a little off. If it's decided, for instance, that gay people that have kids get different tax advantages than straight people, then that would be wrong.
Posts: 5,174
WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.WhawhaWhat Forgot to Remove His Claytex and Got Toxic Shock Syndrome.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 05:36 PM   #330
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
Bless FSU!
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $23731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
This basic issue happened already in United States History, the Dred Scott case. And the case was a primary cause for the creation of the Republican party because of the intense backlash, it was a great unionizing event for radicals and conservatives in the north against slavery.

Basically, the same situation. Being a slave from one state, you stay a slave if you were transported into a free state. Not only that, Chief Justice Taney ruled that no black person could be a citizen of the state, and Dred Scott had no baring to sue. Taney's reasoning, the founding fathers did not think blacks were citizens. That the framers regarding blacks as (direct quote) "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race ... and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." What this meant was states could make individual laws regarding black citizenship, but the federal government or other states did not recognize them as citizens. Another direct quote from Taney, basically saying no state could "introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution." (both quotes can be found in "The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics" 1978)

Notice the similarities between the those arguments and the anti gay marriage crowd today. State rights and all that, founders didn't mean this or that. Didn't work then, isn't going to work now. History as shown that the federal government will step in when states take away basic freedom, eventually. We always have to fight. And change the constitution if we have too. And marriage is a Fundamental Right. That is a legal definition.

The issue will be decided at the federal issue for this and various other reasons, if not now, sometime in the future. Its not a matter of if, but when. And again, those wishing to restrict freedom will be on the wrong side of history.
There's two people here you're assuming are anti-gay marriage, simply because you have made assumptions based on two-valued logic and relied on stereotypes because you misread a legal argument. That's patteeu and I. You are a very good at making strawman arguments but I think it's because you can't process certain points of view outside of anti-gay marriage and pro-gay marriage to see there's other views in-between. In other words, you're pretty stupid when it comes to logic.

Furthermore you rely on a lot of PC history from govt and have not questioned certain things—at all. Your side always relies on the slavery/race card even when it does NOT apply. The Republican "1860 presidential platform promised not to disturb Southern slavery; its first president supported the Fugitive Slave Act and the proposed "Corwin Amendment" to the Constitution that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery." ( DiLorenzo) The Radical Republicans used duress to get the passage of the 14th Amendment. You need to look at the Woods video that covers all that omitted history. But of course it will not confirm your bias.
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution

“We do not believe in aggressive or preventive war. Such war is the weapon of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States.”~ Truman, Sept 1, 1950

Last edited by BucEyedPea; 03-27-2013 at 05:53 PM..
Posts: 59,901
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:15 AM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.