Gay Adoption banned in Arkansas - Kids get ripped from foster homes

Watermark said:
Everyone is a protected class under the 14th. Original intent is not taken seriously by any real legal scholar.
Click to expand...

The bill, as it was written, did not specifically target gays and lesbians.

So I doubt that your proposal would result in any legal action.
 
Watermark said:
Everyone is a protected class under the 14th. Original intent is not taken seriously by any real legal scholar.
Click to expand...

except for those wearing the black robes on the bench. you'll have to tell them that they are not real constitutional scholars and get them to change their mind. If you can do that, tell them that the machine gun ban is unconstitutional also.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
except for those wearing the black robes on the bench. you'll have to tell them that they are not real constitutional scholars and get them to change their mind. If you can do that, tell them that the machine gun ban is unconstitutional also.
Click to expand...

Scalia is an originalist, but he holds to original meaning, not original intent. A person who believes in original intent would strike down brown v. board of education.
 
Solitary said:
The bill, as it was written, did not specifically target gays and lesbians.

So I doubt that your proposal would result in any legal action.
Click to expand...

You know, immediately after the supreme court struck down the grandfather voting clause that prevented blacks from voting well after they should've been able to, the Arakansas legislature passed a law that said that anyone who wasn't registered to vote in 10 days would permanently be stripped of franchise.

That was truck down 20 years later, because the intent of a law must also be taken into account. The intent of this law was to deny equal protection to homosexuals, even if it's not stated explicitly.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
in your opinion, what was the original intent of the 14th?
Click to expand...

To insure that blacks didn't have laws that specifically targeted them once they were free. There were a lot of people with many different intents who wrote the law, though. That's where original intent fails. We should directly interpret the words and ignore the intent. If its used in a way they didn't intend it, then they simply should have done a better job writing the amendment.
 
Watermark said:
To insure that blacks didn't have laws that specifically targeted them once they were free. There were a lot of people with many different intents who wrote the law, though. That's where original intent fails. We should directly interpret the words and ignore the intent. If its used in a way they didn't intend it, then they simply should have done a better job writing the amendment.
Click to expand...

are you perhaps confusing original intent with strict constructionism?
 
Solitary said:
I think they need to take the kids that they remove from adoptive families and foster care and drop them off at the churches who campaigned for this measure.

Funny that they don't want "certain" people to adopt kids, but they are not willing to step up and do it themselves.
Click to expand...
That's a great idea. The Catholic children's services has plenty of qualified parents who want them.
 
Watermark said:
No, I specifically said that Scalia didn't believe in original intent.

But you said that the only thing that should apply to a case is what the judges believe its intent was.
Click to expand...

as stated by the framers in the constitutional debates, federalist and anti-federalist papers. It's not hard to see what was intended by our founding fathers when reading these documents. It's also not difficult to surmise what they intended in the 15 years following the adoption of the constitution.

I leave you with this quote.

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
thomas jefferson
 
SmarterThanYou said:
as stated by the framers in the constitutional debates, federalist and anti-federalist papers. It's not hard to see what was intended by our founding fathers when reading these documents. It's also not difficult to surmise what they intended in the 15 years following the adoption of the constitution.

I leave you with this quote.

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
thomas jefferson
Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson isn't the only founding father. He didn't even believe in judicial review, mostly the supreme court in his time was hostile to his presidency, having been appointed by the federalists. I take his criticism more as just partisan bickering than anything else.

The 14th amendment wasn't even passed by the foudners. Again, if they didn't want the 14th amendment to extend freedom to all minorities they should have chosen a (worse) wording.
 
Watermark said:
Thomas Jefferson isn't the only founding father. He didn't even believe in judicial review, mostly the supreme court in his time was hostile to his presidency, having been appointed by the federalists. I take his criticism more as just partisan bickering than anything else.

The 14th amendment wasn't even passed by the foudners. Again, if they didn't want the 14th amendment to extend freedom to all minorities they should have chosen a (worse) wording.
Click to expand...
Not only that but Thomas Jefferson wasn't a framer at all of this document. THE FRAMER Madison believed that the Supreme Court was there to check the excesses of state legislators as well as congress. Read Federalist 39 sometimes if you want to see what the man who wrote the Constitution thought was the proper role of the Supreme Court.
 
This story is really unbelievable. I work in child protective services, so this one is definitely an area of interest to me. The fools who pushed for this legislation have no idea of the nightmare experienced by children who age out of the foster care system. It's an highly imperfect solution to the terrible problem of child abuse/neglect. However, this idea of narrowing who can be foster/adoptive parents really goes against the number one goal of all children in alternative care - permanency, as early as possible.

This is nothing more than anti-child legislation being used as a political football. It's a fucking disgrace, nothing more. Not to mention, it's discrimination, pure and simple.
 
Southern Man said:
That's a great idea. The Catholic children's services has plenty of qualified parents who want them.
Click to expand...

They do? Well they should have let someone know. Because everything I have read spoke of a shortage of homes for children.
 
Solitary said:
They do? Well they should have let someone know. Because everything I have read spoke of a shortage of homes for children.
Click to expand...

There are many excellent foster homes out there (private and state-licensed), but the problem is that when it comes to adoption, most want children under 5 years old and Caucasian. Like the criminal justice system, there is considerable disproportionality among non-whites in the child welfare system. This creates a problem when a majority of adoptive parents only want to adopt a small percentage of children waiting for adoption.
 
ironhead said:
There are many excellent foster homes out there (private and state-licensed), but the problem is that when it comes to adoption, most want children under 5 years old and Caucasian. Like the criminal justice system, there is considerable disproportionality among non-whites in the child welfare system. This creates a problem when a majority of adoptive parents only want to adopt a small percentage of children waiting for adoption.
Click to expand...

That is why allowing singles and gays to adopt is so important. They will adopt the kids no one else wants.
 
ironhead said:
There are many excellent foster homes out there (private and state-licensed), but the problem is that when it comes to adoption, most want children under 5 years old and Caucasian. Like the criminal justice system, there is considerable disproportionality among non-whites in the child welfare system. This creates a problem when a majority of adoptive parents only want to adopt a small percentage of children waiting for adoption.
Click to expand...
There are other problems in that system as well. I watched as kids were taken from loving parents because the parents were white while the children were black. I posted it on this site, tried to get news sites interested, and finally had nothing left and simply lost.

Those kids had gone from barely speaking to outgoing and fun kids that my children played with. When we went down to see them off, they were once again locked inside themselves and distrusting. It was a shame to see it.
 
Damocles said:
There are other problems in that system as well. I watched as kids were taken from loving parents because the parents were white while the children were black. I posted it on this site, tried to get news sites interested, and finally had nothing left and simply lost.

Those kids had gone from barely speaking to outgoing and fun kids that my children played with. When we went down to see them off, they were once again locked inside themselves and distrusting. It was a shame to see it.
Click to expand...

It amazes me that we still allow race or gender to have an effect on these situations.

Kids need a safe home and parents that love them. All other considerations are secondary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top