Use google.
Meh.
Present your evidence, don't run away.
Use google.
Meh.
As Cathy so eloquently asked, are we only afforded the rights specifically granted in the constitution? Was a black man's right to be free God given or was it granted by a constitutional amendment?
The 14th Amendment was enacted to give equal protection to people of all races. SSM was not contemplated during the enactment of the 14th. Either you believe in a living document which protects SSM or original intent, which does not grant equal protection to SSM. Which theory do you subscribe to?
It's alright to be on the moral high-horse and say everyone around you is doing it wrong... but society, as a whole, can't be cured by the few.
It's the route we're on, it's the path we've unwillingly taken. Morals and personal responsibility seem like a thing of the past.
The central state grew stronger today.
All hail the state.
So it was the government who gave black people rights. They weren't born with them.
I join JUSTICE SCALIA'S dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is ... uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.
I recognize that as a Member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to "decide cases 'agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.'" Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I "can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy," ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions," ante, at 562.
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?
The original intent was to deny people of their natural rights. The original intent was that the government had the power to deny rights. Is that the theory you support?
The living document theory is no better than original intent. But to demand original intent is to demand that everything that came with it.
Your belief legitimizes 80 years of slavery and 100 years of institutionalized racism. Your belief is that if the American people and congress choose to repeal the second amendment, you would rather accept it than have a judge overturn it.Including the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. That's what the Amendments were for. That's why the 13th and the 14th Amendment were enacted. Your belief gives the Supreme Court the whimsical power to give and restrict rights according to the popular belief of the day. If the Supreme Court so declares tomorrow that the 2nd Amendment only gives militias' the rights to bear arms, then so it is the law, just like SSM.
Your belief legitimizes 80 years of slavery and 100 years of institutionalized racism. Your belief is that if the American people and congress choose to repeal the second amendment, you would rather accept it than have a judge overturn it.
Your belief legitimizes 80 years of slavery and 100 years of institutionalized racism. Your belief is that if the American people and congress choose to repeal the second amendment, you would rather accept it than have a judge overturn it.
Congress cannot repeal any amendment. They can do as they've done in the past: write the legislation and then offer it to the states for ratification. The states via their elected state legislators amend the Constitution
18th and 21st Amendments.
Unratified Amendments
Six amendments adopted by Congress and sent to the states have not been ratified by the required number of states. Four of these, including one of the twelve Bill of Rights amendments, are still technically open and pending. The other two amendments are closed and no longer pending, one by terms set within the Congressional Resolution proposing it (†) and the other by terms set within the body of the amendment (‡).
So you have more faith in 5 out of 9 justices in upholding the Second Amendment than you do the difficulty of the amendment process?
No less so than the American people and congress to conspire to enslave people and institutionalize racism. Your way is tyranny of the majority. The courts can be the tyranny of the few. How far off do you think we are from an anti gun population sufficient enough to stack congress with enough anti gunners to pass an amendment? And you wouldn't want men in robes to have the ability to overturn such a thing?
Our founders gave us 3 branches of government to act as a check on each other. It seems that many want to ditch the judiciary because they're not favorable to their own agenda. One method is not better than the other. It takes all 3 branches.
No less so than the American people and congress to conspire to enslave people and institutionalize racism. Your way is tyranny of the majority. The courts can be the tyranny of the few. How far off do you think we are from an anti gun population sufficient enough to stack congress with enough anti gunners to pass an amendment? And you wouldn't want men in robes to have the ability to overturn such a thing?
Our founders gave us 3 branches of government to act as a check on each other. It seems that many want to ditch the judiciary because they're not favorable to their own agenda. One method is not better than the other. It takes all 3 branches.
Why'd you bother to grace us with your presence this time?
No less so than the American people and congress to conspire to enslave people and institutionalize racism. Your way is tyranny of the majority. The courts can be the tyranny of the few. How far off do you think we are from an anti gun population sufficient enough to stack congress with enough anti gunners to pass an amendment? And you wouldn't want men in robes to have the ability to overturn such a thing?
Our founders gave us 3 branches of government to act as a check on each other. It seems that many want to ditch the judiciary because they're not favorable to their own agenda. One method is not better than the other. It takes all 3 branches.
Why shouldn't a 13 year old girl be able to marry a 25 year old man, MrJarrel? Age is just a number.
It's not clear, nor is it good judicial policy. Essentially, it makes opinions and whims the standard to measure the Constitutionality of a law rather than historical precedent. Again, it's not like the law can't be changed.
I'll ask it again because no one has answered. Why not use the amendatory or legislative process like was done for civil rights based on race? If these issues are equivalent....why are SSM advocates so afraid of the citizens? I guess if the citizens of a state...the people do not want gay marriage, that's not a viewpoint worth being "reserved" to the people or "retained" by the people. Some people's opinions are worth protecting, and others, not.....whoever gets the judicial sympathy, they're the special ones. Nice.