Active Users:1060 Time:13/11/2024 06:19:52 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
yes but a shiny stainless steel pot random thoughts Send a noteboard - 09/08/2010 11:21:33 PM
That is because it would deal with the direct issue 14th was created to deal with, which is my point. If the 14 can be applied to being over wieght then it would offer the same protection to overwieght people as it does to minorites. This is prety simple concept here and I am not sure why you are having difiiculty with it. You claimed the 14th wouldn't apply to airlines now you agree that is it does but claim I am not supporting my argument. I think you may not understand the concept of supporting an argument.

What the hell are you talking about? The 14th deals with the actions of government, not of private companies. It does not apply to overweight people re: airlines, and I never said that it did. There are other laws that apply to cases of racial discrimination, but we're not talking about those either.


And those laws are based on the fourteenth and fifteenth amendment. If an airlines were to sue claiming that the federal government can not tell them how much they can charge people for tickets one of the reasons they would lose it the fourteenth.

The second amendment was written to allow civilians to arm themselves the second was written to allow for the free expression of political point of views. In neither case has the courts changed the intent of the law they have merely clarified it to come in line with changing technology. There were no assault weapons when those amendments were passed and giant corporations did not get involved in directly in campaigns but there were homosexuals. If the intent had been to provide protection to homosexuals as a protected group they would been a record of that being discussed at the time.

I see no substantive difference between clarifying the application of law due to changes in technological and economic norms vs. due to changes in social norms. The philosophy of the 14th Amendment is clear; whether or not it was considered in a limited vein and applied unevenly in the past due to specific biases is irrelevant to that. The idea of corporate personhood recently approved by the Supreme Court is a huge deviation from the philosophy of the First Amendment and the Founding Fathers' intent. Claiming we should interpret the Constitution only under the original conditions in which it was written is an extreme position, and one that the corporate personhood issue shows that you take inconsistently.


But there is a very real difference. When the second and third amendment was written they didn't know anything about automatic weapons and massive media campaigns but they did know what homosexuality was and they did nothing to protect it. You are wrong about treating companies as individuals and giving them rights, corporations have long been seen as having many of the same protections as citizens.

I agree with the part about changing social norms but the problem is social norms have not changed enough in this case or the amendment never would have passed. Courts can adept to changing social norms but they should not be the ones trying to change them.

It is because the 14th is written so broadly that we have to cautious of how much it is allowed to expand. It is written so broadly that the courts can use it to justify virtually any actions.

But you've yet to demonstrate in any quantitative way that it was expanded "too far" in this specific case.


Sure I have but you refuse to accept it. A court decided to expand the constitution despite the fact that every other branch of government opposed it and the voters in every state that has voted on have opposed it. That is the courts acting independently and that is to far. If it was a case of defending existing rights or well defined rights I would agree but the courts are too alone on this.

And in how many of those states was it done through legislative action?

New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C., so half of them. Maine saw gay marriage put into law by the legislature and then overturned by a public referendum after a fear-mongering campaign led by the Catholic Church and funded mainly by the out-of-state group National Organization for Marriage.


So two states out 48 have passed it and how many have passed referendums banning it? I would say the social change you were talking about still has a little ways to go. Which by the way was my point.

And the other branches have to keep the judicial branch in check and not allow them to create which ever laws they see fit and can justify under broadly worded passages in the constitutions by applying them in ways that are clearly outside of the intent it was created for. Sadly we don’t have much a check in that regard outside of simply doing what Jackson did.

Yes, and they can do that, if they have the votes, by proposing and ratifying a Constitutional Amendment (which is what I hope will happen with corporate personhood).


Wow that is the most backasswards idea of balance of power that I have ever seen. You are arguing that the check to keeps from running amuck a writing laws they way they see fit is amend the constitution.

Sorry but that is horse shit. The country is over two hundred years old and suddenly gay marriage is a fundamental part over nation’s government. I didn’t say large change had to be done gradually I said it has to be done with some level of consensus and the more the consensus the faster and more affective the change. That sort of change often takes time but that is incidental not required.

The principle of equal rights is a fundamental part of the nation's government. The fact that it's taken so long to be applied to this issue in practice doesn't change that.


That is great sunshine and roses but it really isn't a fundamental part of government and never has been. If it was we not have had slavery and Jim Crow. I am all for equal rights but I don't want some life time appointed judge to be the sole authority of whose rights need to be protected. His job is to follow the constitution not bring about social justice.

Sorry but no I don’t have to dissect a legal opinion that is pages and pages long to believe that a gay judge from San Francisco who decides that the 14th amendment makes it unconstitutional for states to ban gay marriage is acting on his personal belief and not on the law. I am sure he is a brilliant man and his findings are well documented and supported but that does not change the fact that he is using his place on the bench to bring social change. If I want to make an in-depth argument about this ruling it would make sense for me to dig deep into his ruling but I am making a broader argument then that.

You do if you expect anyone else to take your belief seriously.


That would be valid argument if we were discussing the specifics of his ruling but since we are discussing broader concepts his ruling is nothing more then someone’s opinion on it. Feel free to site any part of you like but please don’t feel free to give me reading assignments. Read the entire bible and the Koran then come back and refute every point dealing homosexuality and law and then I will take you seriously.

It really comes down to the basic argument that the role of the court is not change laws and society but to ensure that the changes brought by the other branches meets the constitution. Courts should not be a vehicle for change and I feel safe in the assumption that there is nothing in his ruling that will change my opinion on that.

Reply to message
Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional ironclad - 04/08/2010 10:40:50 PM 1364 Views
Thank God. *NM* Ghavrel - 04/08/2010 10:52:30 PM 381 Views
Amen. *NM* Dannymac - 05/08/2010 02:09:24 AM 437 Views
Good news, but as the article says, it'll go all the way to the SC. Legolas - 04/08/2010 10:55:58 PM 714 Views
So then is that how we do it? Jeordam - 04/08/2010 11:01:19 PM 839 Views
Of course. ironclad - 04/08/2010 11:04:59 PM 745 Views
His point was ßelals Girl - 04/08/2010 11:40:14 PM 894 Views
Yeah but: What Ghavrel said below *NM* ironclad - 05/08/2010 08:01:02 AM 433 Views
And again... ßelals Girl - 05/08/2010 06:08:56 PM 593 Views
To quote my property professor: "Can I make you think like a Californian?" Tom - 05/08/2010 06:39:48 PM 664 Views
well that is sort of the idea of how democracy works snoopcester - 04/08/2010 11:06:57 PM 729 Views
I'm not the one who came up with the referendum system, you do realize. Legolas - 04/08/2010 11:11:13 PM 735 Views
The referendum system, in my opinion, has been a failure, especially in CA. Dreaded Anomaly - 04/08/2010 11:46:21 PM 819 Views
democracy has been a failure in CA. random thoughts - 05/08/2010 02:42:21 PM 605 Views
No. It just shows the problems of a crazy electorate. Tom - 05/08/2010 03:29:21 PM 722 Views
I think you made my point *NM* random thoughts - 05/08/2010 03:35:00 PM 400 Views
About Californians being crazy, yes. *NM* Tom - 05/08/2010 04:53:32 PM 374 Views
we vote fro way to much crap in general random thoughts - 05/08/2010 02:41:19 PM 665 Views
Yeah, I agree. Legolas - 05/08/2010 04:11:34 PM 659 Views
my one recent dealing with our criminal justice random thoughts - 05/08/2010 04:25:30 PM 697 Views
Yes, you still have to abide by the Constitution, even if a lot of people don't like it. *NM* Ghavrel - 05/08/2010 12:07:44 AM 385 Views
Amend the Constitution to alter the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't like it. *NM* Tom - 05/08/2010 01:09:51 AM 446 Views
just a devil's advocate position here, but.... moondog - 05/08/2010 04:23:43 AM 743 Views
Marriage is either an economic status regulated by law or a religious institution. Tom - 05/08/2010 05:13:17 AM 777 Views
There are certain things that should not be decided by a vote... Dannymac - 05/08/2010 02:02:45 AM 731 Views
I do agree with you on that. Hell yes, and on a subject like this in particular. nossy - 05/08/2010 02:17:24 AM 786 Views
Re: I do agree with you on that. Hell yes, and on a subject like this in particular. snoopcester - 05/08/2010 10:46:54 AM 779 Views
I understand it. nossy - 05/08/2010 03:06:40 PM 761 Views
I know you don't support proposition 8 snoopcester - 05/08/2010 03:29:34 PM 749 Views
nossy - 05/08/2010 03:34:01 PM 786 Views
But that is just simplistic and silly to complain about when it is a long standing possibility snoopcester - 05/08/2010 03:46:59 PM 669 Views
Oh, ees it? nossy - 05/08/2010 04:07:39 PM 806 Views
Well they knew the rules before they started the whole thing snoopcester - 05/08/2010 04:12:33 PM 646 Views
Why would you complain if you won? nossy - 05/08/2010 04:15:20 PM 736 Views
You could recognise that you won by the system working in a way you don't like? snoopcester - 05/08/2010 04:23:58 PM 618 Views
I'm sure that happens, in general. nossy - 06/08/2010 02:43:18 PM 603 Views
It seems to happen a lot nowadays snoopcester - 06/08/2010 03:06:33 PM 637 Views
It's so weird that you feel differently - there is only room for one opinion here! nossy - 06/08/2010 03:41:52 PM 563 Views
There is only room for one opinion and mine is the right one snoopcester - 06/08/2010 03:49:16 PM 685 Views
instead it should be decided by judges who answer to no one? *NM* random thoughts - 05/08/2010 07:12:59 AM 389 Views
The same judges who upheld our private right to bear arms. Tom - 05/08/2010 02:09:07 PM 766 Views
not when judges stop using the Constitution random thoughts - 05/08/2010 02:30:51 PM 740 Views
Sexual preference is not the right being protected. Tom - 05/08/2010 03:22:04 PM 809 Views
I know that the 14th amendment is routinely used in ways it was never intended. random thoughts - 05/08/2010 05:25:07 PM 720 Views
I realize that, but it is ultimately a good thing. Tom - 05/08/2010 05:31:19 PM 792 Views
I am really on the fence a bit on the whole issue random thoughts - 05/08/2010 06:00:59 PM 734 Views
I generally agree with you. Tom - 05/08/2010 06:33:56 PM 751 Views
let's take away the citizenship of all black people if that's the way you think moondog - 05/08/2010 09:06:23 PM 648 Views
Come now lets not be stupid random thoughts - 06/08/2010 05:31:18 PM 614 Views
sorry but your statement was completely ignorant. moondog - 06/08/2010 07:27:09 PM 733 Views
I will talk as soon as you stop spouting stupid rhetoric and say something relevant random thoughts - 06/08/2010 07:54:09 PM 697 Views
bullshit. you will personally attack me no matter what i say. moondog - 07/08/2010 02:04:04 PM 746 Views
Let's just be clear about which amendment is which. Dreaded Anomaly - 05/08/2010 11:50:57 PM 613 Views
but that still ignores intent and expands the law in ways not intnented when it created random thoughts - 06/08/2010 04:53:43 AM 673 Views
Yes, no, no, and no. Dreaded Anomaly - 06/08/2010 05:29:09 AM 707 Views
there are serious flaws in your thinking here random thoughts - 06/08/2010 06:18:13 PM 788 Views
Your assertions continue to lack support. Dreaded Anomaly - 06/08/2010 07:23:17 PM 815 Views
not all you just refuse to see things you disagree with random thoughts - 06/08/2010 08:36:32 PM 783 Views
...said the pot to the kettle Dreaded Anomaly - 06/08/2010 09:17:28 PM 851 Views
yes but a shiny stainless steel pot random thoughts - 09/08/2010 11:21:33 PM 898 Views
You continue to be wrong about history and the role of courts. Dreaded Anomaly - 10/08/2010 01:05:39 AM 1244 Views
If he's wrong, a lot of law scholars and Supreme Court Justices are wrong. Legolas - 10/08/2010 01:44:05 AM 701 Views
Brown vs. Board of Education, 'nuff said. *NM* Dreaded Anomaly - 10/08/2010 04:32:37 AM 385 Views
Actually, that only proves his point, if I understand correctly. *NM* Legolas - 10/08/2010 11:11:19 AM 413 Views
part oif the problem appears to be you completely missing the point random thoughts - 10/08/2010 01:23:19 PM 913 Views
let my simplify my argument random thoughts - 10/08/2010 01:42:47 PM 617 Views
There's a simple way to determine the degree to which that opinion is objective or subjective... Legolas - 06/08/2010 09:32:21 PM 648 Views
Since when is marriage a right? *NM* Jeordam - 05/08/2010 04:11:16 PM 374 Views
it may not be a "right"... LadyLorraine - 05/08/2010 04:22:44 PM 649 Views
This is where the debate comes into play.... Jeordam - 05/08/2010 05:04:08 PM 664 Views
How much would it change the debate if it was nurture, really? Legolas - 05/08/2010 09:48:22 PM 681 Views
except this is not merely a matter of changing society LadyLorraine - 05/08/2010 11:18:48 PM 728 Views
1948. *NM* jh - 05/08/2010 04:50:30 PM 370 Views
It's a benefit that is being extended selectively to one set of the populace. Tom - 05/08/2010 04:52:52 PM 732 Views
Hey, I'm single.... Jeordam - 05/08/2010 05:05:41 PM 644 Views
That's a specious argument and you know it. Tom - 05/08/2010 05:13:17 PM 717 Views
A homosexual has every opportunity as well..... Jeordam - 05/08/2010 05:23:56 PM 663 Views
Oh quit the bullshit already. Tom - 05/08/2010 05:29:15 PM 865 Views
Slow your role... Jeordam - 05/08/2010 09:08:54 PM 771 Views
Your religious beliefs have 100% to do with your position. Tom - 05/08/2010 09:43:23 PM 814 Views
Sorry, but what a nonsense. ironclad - 05/08/2010 09:27:17 PM 632 Views
hey that's it, jens! you solved the WHOLE PROBLEM!!! LadyLorraine - 05/08/2010 11:24:29 PM 766 Views
ON TO WORLD HUNGER! ironclad - 06/08/2010 07:59:51 AM 659 Views
LET THEM HAVE CAEK. *NM* jh - 06/08/2010 02:29:56 PM 355 Views
Are you sure it's wise to feed people on a lie? *NM* Floffe - 06/08/2010 02:34:26 PM 446 Views
People are fed lies all the time LadyLorraine - 06/08/2010 09:30:37 PM 641 Views
Quite so, but I don't think it's commonly a mainstay of their diet *NM* Floffe - 06/08/2010 09:50:33 PM 385 Views
It is the only thing which is abundant enough for everyone to have some... *NM* jh - 06/08/2010 10:01:44 PM 626 Views
I agree with you Sareitha Sedai - 05/08/2010 05:06:40 PM 698 Views
That's not valid. Tom - 05/08/2010 05:26:50 PM 710 Views
I invite you to read the judge's conclusions, linked again inside. Dreaded Anomaly - 05/08/2010 11:43:44 PM 750 Views
Since 1948 Napoleon62 - 06/08/2010 04:01:02 AM 855 Views
gah. can. only. see. typo. *NM* nossy - 06/08/2010 03:43:21 PM 345 Views
I don't see any typo... *NM* Legolas - 06/08/2010 04:07:18 PM 402 Views
Open the link. *NM* nossy - 06/08/2010 04:47:04 PM 491 Views
Oh, right. Yeah, that does kinda detract from things. *NM* Legolas - 06/08/2010 04:48:47 PM 380 Views
I agree random thoughts - 05/08/2010 07:22:17 AM 722 Views
And Civil Rights lost the Democrats the South. Dannymac - 05/08/2010 03:44:56 PM 734 Views
but it was done by congress passing laws and the president signing those laws random thoughts - 05/08/2010 04:20:19 PM 683 Views
uhm, what? LadyLorraine - 05/08/2010 04:24:43 PM 672 Views
those were mostly rulings up holding laws not stiking them down random thoughts - 05/08/2010 05:05:15 PM 741 Views
I was under the impression that the supreme court had a role in it snoopcester - 05/08/2010 04:31:51 PM 660 Views
but the court was not over turning the laws passed by congress random thoughts - 05/08/2010 05:11:06 PM 706 Views
No, like in this case, isn't it? snoopcester - 05/08/2010 05:24:19 PM 653 Views
I would say that is another case of judicial activism and shows the danger of the practice random thoughts - 05/08/2010 05:43:02 PM 619 Views
Which one is? I imagine from different view points both are. snoopcester - 06/08/2010 10:34:11 AM 621 Views
The law wasn't constitutional. Dannymac - 07/08/2010 06:17:04 AM 657 Views
well it will take a higher court to decide that random thoughts - 09/08/2010 10:46:15 PM 688 Views
Hard to believe it's the same governor who said "Gay marriage should be between a man and a woman." *NM* TaskmasterJack - 04/08/2010 11:05:45 PM 458 Views
Or "Iff it bleeds we can kill itt!" *NM* ironclad - 04/08/2010 11:14:45 PM 434 Views
Another step in the right direction. *NM* snoopcester - 04/08/2010 11:08:15 PM 453 Views
Link to the full court order inside: Dreaded Anomaly - 04/08/2010 11:43:29 PM 845 Views
The judge quoting Scalia in favour of gay marriage is fairly amusing. Legolas - 04/08/2010 11:50:47 PM 723 Views
What page was that on? Tim - 05/08/2010 11:25:49 AM 639 Views
Nah, it was way above page 109, in the findings of fact somewhere. Legolas - 05/08/2010 12:37:48 PM 743 Views
Oh, that is brilliant. Tim - 05/08/2010 01:12:21 PM 647 Views
Pretty much. Legolas - 05/08/2010 01:44:22 PM 774 Views
I've always wondered what basis there is for banning necrophilia if "it's disgusting" is invalid. Tim - 05/08/2010 01:51:19 PM 722 Views
because you cannot give consent when you are dead? Camilla - 05/08/2010 03:04:46 PM 710 Views
what if you give consent while you are still alive? random thoughts - 05/08/2010 03:21:59 PM 811 Views
Is it then illegal? Camilla - 05/08/2010 03:23:46 PM 729 Views
given I imagine the pro-necrophilia lobby isn't strong in numbers or influence snoopcester - 05/08/2010 03:33:11 PM 782 Views
Re: given I imagine the pro-necrophilia lobby isn't strong in numbers or influence Camilla - 05/08/2010 03:34:57 PM 825 Views
I would think it would be illegal even then random thoughts - 05/08/2010 03:34:31 PM 743 Views
Wikipedia to the rescue! Legolas - 05/08/2010 04:20:15 PM 870 Views
you would hope the other states would cover it under improper treatmentof human remains random thoughts - 05/08/2010 07:38:59 PM 689 Views
A dead body is just an object, not a person with rights. Tom - 05/08/2010 03:27:08 PM 732 Views
Yes, but Camilla - 06/08/2010 08:42:05 AM 684 Views
Absolutely not. Tom - 06/08/2010 03:21:14 PM 737 Views
not to mention necrophilia has a large potential to be hazardous to health. LadyLorraine - 06/08/2010 09:42:43 PM 785 Views
That was a very well written judgement. Tim - 05/08/2010 11:24:38 AM 738 Views
Tom - 05/08/2010 12:10:02 AM 733 Views
Totally agree. Rebekah - 05/08/2010 01:01:42 PM 776 Views
+1 *NM* LadyLorraine - 05/08/2010 03:42:08 PM 399 Views
Irrelevant decision.....this was heading to SCOTUS from day 1 *NM* trzaska2000 - 05/08/2010 12:53:26 AM 413 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes