BREAKING: SCOTUS denies review in all SSM petitions

[shibumiseeker]

A democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. A constitutional republic guarantees the right of the sheep to not be dinner even though the wolves don't like it.

 

[Arthur Dent]

I don't see why the government is in the marriage business in the first place, but if they are going to be in it, everything should be equal for all.

That said, Churches/individual clergy should also be equally protected to do or not do any marriage they want.

Money. You have to buy a marriage license.

 

[hornadylnl]

Money. You have to buy a marriage license.

Control. By the government and by the people. I get to control the relationships of those I find icky.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Control. By the government and by the people. I get to control the relationships of those I find icky.

Point well taken.

 

[hornadylnl]

Point well taken.

Social Engineering is bad except when it's used to garner an outcome we find favorable.

 

[MisterChester]

No. Black people had the natural rights, it just took the 14th Amendment for the government to finally recognize the rights. Do you believe in the living document theory or the original intent theory?

It's not either or. It's a living document that we must also consider the original intent at the same time. Take the 2nd amendment for example. The original intent was to ensure the people have the right to bear arms. Did they mean all arms, or just certain ones? If you go with the original intent theory, you could say that anyone should have the right to own nuclear or biological weapons. They are some kind of a weapon. But you must also consider the fact that the writers of the constitution had no idea what kind of technology that would come after the musket. That's why it lives and breathes. You have an intention, and you apply it to the current society. The SC's choice to not take the case here just shows that they believe the previous rulings have satisfied the constitution. Marriage is not mentioned in the federal constitution, so it's a state thing. The real question is if a state denies it, does it infringe on incorporated amendments to the constitution? The decision to not take it could very well mean that it does.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

you could say that anyone should have the right to own nuclear or biological weapons.

Please tell me where in our founding document I am forbidden to create or possess or bear biological or chemical or nuclear arms. Go ahead. I'll wait.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

It's not either or. It's a living document that we must also consider the original intent at the same time. Take the 2nd amendment for example. The original intent was to ensure the people have the right to bear arms. Did they mean all arms, or just certain ones? If you go with the original intent theory, you could say that anyone should have the right to own nuclear or biological weapons. They are some kind of a weapon. But you must also consider the fact that the writers of the constitution had no idea what kind of technology that would come after the musket. That's why it lives and breathes. You have an intention, and you apply it to the current society. The SC's choice to not take the case here just shows that they believe the previous rulings have satisfied the constitution. Marriage is not mentioned in the federal constitution, so it's a state thing. The real question is if a state denies it, does it infringe on incorporated amendments to the constitution? The decision to not take it could very well mean that it does.

Your entire argument fails to address that the founders allowed for an amendment process that would be used to address future issues. The 2nd Amendment only applied to the federal government until the 14th Amendment. States were free to regulate arms unless their own constitution or laws prohibited them.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

The living document theory was done by the progreesives. If it wasn't, then why didn't the Supreme Court issue a ruling that found slavery unconstitutional? They didn't because they didn't have the power to. That's why the 13th Amendment was passed.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Your entire argument fails to address that the founders allowed for an amendment process that would be used to address future issues. The 2nd Amendment only applied to the federal government until the 14th Amendment. States were free to regulate arms unless their own constitution or laws prohibited them.

Although it wasn't incorporated by the SC, read Nunn v Georgia. They seemed to hold that the second applied to their state.

Also, People v Goodwin in NY applied the 5th.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

I see the strongest protection for individual rights coming from the original intent theory to constitutional interpretation. Why do you think the anti-gun people haven't tried to amend the second amendment? That's because it is very to amend the Constitution. It is much easier to stack the Court with liberal judges to interpret the 2nd Amendment to only apply to militias than it is to amend it. By believing in living document you are permitting your rights to be taken away with much more ease.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I see the strongest protection for individual rights coming from the original intent theory to constitutional interpretation. Why do you think the anti-gun people haven't tried to amend the second amendment? That's because it is very to amend the Constitution. It is much easier to stack the Court with liberal judges to interpret the 2nd Amendment to only apply to militias than it is to amend it. By believing in living document you are permitting your rights to be taken away with much more ease.

Yep. What we're allowing to have happen is modifying the constitution without actually going to the effort to amend it. When we cheer decisions, especially when they're contortions of the original intent, we're backing ourselves into corners that will require real amendments to actually undo. This ends-justifying-the-means crap is great when the judge leans your way but don't ***** when he leans against you because they're only doing what we want them to do. We should insist our elected officials and judges be faithful to their ******* oathes.

 

[zippy23]

immorality is the downfall of the constitution. All it takes is corruption, you stack the courts with your activists, politicians make careers living off tax money, and the people only have to vote to take your money. Immorality is our downfall. Its sad the SCOTUS did not take up this case, i think they may have had a hard time with it, and it would have become a state issue, which it is and should be. The majority loses again thanks to corrupt judges.

 

[hornadylnl]

immorality is the downfall of the constitution. All it takes is corruption, you stack the courts with your activists, politicians make careers living off tax money, and the people only have to vote to take your money. Immorality is our downfall. Its sad the SCOTUS did not take up this case, i think they may have had a hard time with it, and it would have become a state issue, which it is and should be. The majority loses again thanks to corrupt judges.

So were we at our most moral when the constitution was ratified?

 

[MisterChester]

Your entire argument fails to address that the founders allowed for an amendment process that would be used to address future issues. The 2nd Amendment only applied to the federal government until the 14th Amendment. States were free to regulate arms unless their own constitution or laws prohibited them.

The 2nd amendment was incorporated in McDonald v Chicago. There is an amendment creation process, but it would be severely impractical and inefficient to add an amendment for every constitutional question. Some things really are worth the time and effort for it, no doubt, but not everything. I'd rather not see amendments that say "the 4th amendment does/does not apply to this or that blah blah". Especially if they get something wrong, then they have to go through the process over again to repeal the bad amendment.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

The 2nd amendment was incorporated in McDonald v Chicago. There is an amendment creation process, but it would be severely impractical and inefficient to add an amendment for every constitutional question. Some things really are worth the time and effort for it, no doubt, but not everything. I'd rather not see amendments that say "the 4th amendment does/does not apply to this or that blah blah". Especially if they get something wrong, then they have to go through the process over again to repeal the bad amendment.

So convenience trumps liberty?

 

[copperhead-1911]

They really need to have the supreme court settle it once and for all. Some say the Windsor decision made bans unlawful. It did not it just deal with the federal level. that is the issue.

 

[MisterChester]

So convenience trumps liberty?

I fail to see how this has anything to do with what I said. What liberty are you talking about? What convenience? Do you mean you'd rather have a horribly inefficient government for the sake of liberty? How do you expect that government to protect them if it can't do anything?

 

[CathyInBlue]

At this stage, the government being too inefficient to suppress liberty is the same thing as the government being efficient at defending it. PoTAYtoe, poTAHtoe.