Incest rears its ugly head

[HoughMade]

If you want to make a constitutional argument, you have to present the clause of the constitution that grants the government the power to regulate/prohibit consensual interpersonal relationships.

If there is no power granted in the constitution, then the law is unconstitutional.

It is a state law issue and always should have been. It should have never been a federal issue to begin with.

I suppose you are going to tell me that states have to get their power to regulate from the federal constitution?

Why all the fear of the states and the people?

 

[printcraft]

No to both.

So am I supposed to care about my neighbors kids or not?
Can I get at least one straight answer?

 

[rw496]

So am I supposed to care about my neighbors kids or not?
Can I get at least one straight answer?

Yes, if they're dating each other

 

[mom45]

 

[RockofStrength]

 

[Liberty Sanders]

It went like this, and I'm paraphrasing:
US Constitution: We are going to leave these issues to the States.
Indiana: Cool, well gay marriage is banned then via state law, and almost AMENDMENT to the State Constitution
US Constitution: No, can't do that it's fundamental to the natural rights of man even though the US Constitution gives the States the authority to do this. We now retract that power.

So, finally Rambone is arguing in favor of a strong Federal Government.

The Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage, so under the 10th Amendment responsiblilty for legislation concerning it falls to the states.

However, it does NOT follow that the states can legislate in such a manner that violates the rights of all US citizens, nor can a majority of citizens band together to curtail the basic rights of a minority of citizens.

The claim that the states have a right to "define" marriage in such a way as to exclude gays because a majority of its citizens voted to do it is utterly false.

 

[hornadylnl]

So am I supposed to care about my neighbors kids or not?
Can I get at least one straight answer?

You're free to care as much or as little about your neighbors' kids as you want. Hell, you're even free to care about your neighbors' unborn children and then call them welfare queens when they need help buying groceries. That's the conservative way.

But if I feel that it is my duty to tell other countries how they must live and govern, would it not stand to reason that I can walk into my neighbors homes and tell them how and what they must feed their children, what tv shows they can watch, what music they can listen to, what time they must be in bed, etc?

We can tell Timbuktu how to run their country but I'll be damned if that Obama broad has a say in school lunches.

 

[printcraft]

You're free to care as much or as little about your neighbors' kids as you want. Hell, you're even free to care about your neighbors' unborn children and then call them welfare queens when they need help buying groceries. That's the conservative way.

But if I feel that it is my duty to tell other countries how they must live and govern, would it not stand to reason that I can walk into my neighbors homes and tell them how and what they must feed their children, what tv shows they can watch, what music they can listen to, what time they must be in bed, etc?

We can tell Timbuktu how to run their country but I'll be damned if that Obama broad has a say in school lunches.

If Timbuktu already had the freedom we have here you would have a point.

The way it is they can't argue about school lunch without the fear of having their heads chopped off.

Also, the jury is still out on the whole "broad" thing.

 

[hornadylnl]

If Timbuktu already had the freedom we have here you would have a point.

The way it is they can't argue about school lunch without the fear of having their heads chopped off.

Also, the jury is still out on the whole "broad" thing.

If states should have the right to be free or not free as they want to be without interference from the federal government, why shouldn't Timbuktu have that right?

 

[rw496]

The Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage, so under the 10th Amendment responsiblilty for legislation concerning it falls to the states.

However, it does NOT follow that the states can legislate in such a manner that violates the rights of all US citizens, nor can a majority of citizens band together to curtail the basic rights of a minority of citizens.

The claim that the states have a right to "define" marriage in such a way as to exclude gays because a majority of its citizens voted to do it is utterly false.

It'd absolutely true. The only thing stopping the States from depriving you of every right you think you have is incorporation through the 14th amendment. The Court had previously ruled that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal govt. The Indiana Congress very nearly added a prohibition in gay marriage to the State Constitution but the feds stepped in

 

[cobber]

So, finally Rambone is arguing in favor of a strong Federal Government.

He's not the only one.


And here's something from the NR worth a gander.

How Academic Philosophers Are Trying to End The Gay-Marriage Debate ? And Getting It Wrong | National Review Online

 

[printcraft]

If states should have the right to be free or not free as they want to be without interference from the federal government, why shouldn't Timbuktu have that right?

They probably want to be free, it's the natural human condition and yearning, but "sucking it up and going it alone" doesn't always work.
Hell, we probably wouldn't be here if it weren't for the French.
Instead of God Bless America, we would have bad teeth, be drinking tea and saying God Bless the Queen.

 

[rambone]

If you want to make a constitutional argument, you have to present the clause of the constitution that grants the government the power to regulate/prohibit consensual interpersonal relationships.

If there is no power granted in the constitution, then the law is unconstitutional.

So, finally Rambone is arguing in favor of a strong Federal Government.

Sorry, no.

He's not the only one.

No, actually no.

It is a state law issue and always should have been. It should have never been a federal issue to begin with.

I suppose you are going to tell me that states have to get their power to regulate from the federal constitution?

It is a state issue. But even the states have their own constitutions. Without a clause in the state constitution that empowers the state government to prohibit interpersonal relationships, the states are out of bound to do so.

 

[hornadylnl]

Do the states have the power to single out gun owners and deny them use of state parks? You don't have a right to the park.

 

[oldpink]

[video=youtube;xWGAdzn5_KU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWGAdzn5_KU[/video]

 

[Arthur Dent]

Based upon....go figure....actual Constitutional Amendments, you know, that little known or used process where the legislative process is actually used to change the Constitution. The 14th Amendment was designed to address the end of slavery and to specifically address racial equality, upon which Loving is based.

Constitutional amendments...the legislative process....so old fashioned.

If you knew your history you would know that most US states had laws prohibiting interracial marriage, including Indiana which had it from 1818 to 1965, both before and after the 14th amendment which was ratified in 1868. It took an extra 99 years for those laws to be thrown out in 1967.

History...learning...so old fashioned.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Didn't exist? You can have whatever philosophy you want. I deal in reality. The Constitution did not protect the rights of black people until it was changed to do so through the legislative system- amending the Constitution. The fact it was immoral does not change the legalities of what the Constitution applied to. You seem to be advocating that new rights should be protected by the Constitution based upon the whim of judges. That is way too much power to put in a group of unelected, tenure for life academics.

Rather, if we believe that things which were not previously recognized as protected by the Constitution should now be protected, the call should be the people's through the Amendment process. Why is everyone so afraid of the Constitution?

It's already been done, through the 9th amendment. But it takes a judicial ruling to tell the tiny brains that certain rights do exist even though they are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

 

[findingZzero]

This sounds like a debate on the Supreme Court, but the Scalias' outnumber everyone else. Impressive debate though.

 

[jamil]

This sounds like a debate on the Supreme Court, but the Scalias' outnumber everyone else. Impressive debate though.

That's not how I see it. One side is arguing from principle, the other side is arguing from reason. I think in that case it would be more fruitful to argue whether the principle is reasonable.

 

[rgrimm01]

So this "hook up" began when she was 16 and he was, at a minimum, 34ish. Any argument in support of that behavior? In my mind, that should be illegal. Add to that the fact that he is her father makes it that much worse.

As far as marriage, is it not in society's best nterest to actually have branches in our family trees? Should not a high probability of mutated offspring be avoided?

I do not see this as an argument for an overreaching big goverment. Setting morality aside, this s a health concern and an example of an impressionable misguided child taken advantage.