Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas r

CFM said:
The problem with the statement of will of the people, especially when made by people like christiefan915, is that when they are in the majority, that is how it is considered. However, when they aren't on the majority side, they call it mob rule.

Since the Constitution says marriage belongs as a State decision, not in so many words but based on the 10th Amendment, it should be left to the States. The founding fathers provided a means which which to change the Constitution through the amendment process. Same sex marriage supporters knew that would never happen. That's why they go through the courts. Funny thing is they use a concept that the FF didn't use but was granted to the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court itself in 1803.
Click to expand...
I bolded where you self conflict your argument. The 10th is "federalism" and federalism is not written in text except for enumerated powers. IOW, federalism changes over time - hopefully in a dynamic fashion, and not thru the courts.
I am speaking of separation of powers here -SCOTUS is rightfully reluctant to take those up.

The 14th (stare decisis) was employed for gay marriage -and while Kennedy's language was dubious/hilarious ,
and excoriated by Scalia; it still was the right decision both from a practical and equality pov .

Much of this would be solved if we weren't so damned hyper-partisan self poisoning in our electoral politics.
The parties play the voters, and we all froth to defend that. screw that mentality. think for yourself
and do not contribute to any PAC/political party.
Almost always it goes back to the Jefferson quote" "people ultimately get the kind of government they deserve"
 
CFM said:
Nothing. As a Conservative, I look at what the person says not the letter next to their name like you do.
Click to expand...

I listen to what they say also, as I mentioned about agreeing with Trump's comments about the Iraq War.

You commented you've never agreed with anything Hillary or Sanders said, yet you think I only look at the letter next to the name?
 
anatta said:
I bolded where you self conflict your argument. The 10th is "federalism" and federalism is not written in text except for enumerated powers. IOW, federalism changes over time - hopefully in a dynamic fashion, and not thru the courts.
I am speaking of separation of powers here -SCOTUS is rightfully reluctant to take those up.

The 14th (stare decisis) was employed for gay marriage -and while Kennedy's language was dubious/hilarious ,
and excoriated by Scalia; it still was the right decision both from a practical and equality pov .

Much of this would be solved if we weren't so damned hyper-partisan self poisoning in our electoral politics.
The parties play the voters, and we all froth to defend that. screw that mentality. think for yourself
and do not contribute to any PAC/political party.
Almost always it goes back to the Jefferson quote" "people ultimately get the kind of government they deserve"
Click to expand...

You're confused as usual. Since dealing with marriage wasn't something the founders believed belonged at the federal level, they left it out as a delegated power. Since states aren't prohibited from dealing with marriage, the 10th amendment says they have the reserved powers to do so making marriage a state level power. The founding fathers provided a means with which to change the wording of the Constitution so marriage could be added as a federal level delegated power. That hasn't happened and you know it never would under the amendment process. That's why you Liberal idiots have to find some faggot loving judges to do what the founding fathers didn't intend for them to do and that is change the constitution to suit a political agenda.

Federalism does change and the founders provided a way. That you don't want to follow it is your problem.
 
christiefan915 said:
I listen to what they say also, as I mentioned about agreeing with Trump's comments about the Iraq War.

You commented you've never agreed with anything Hillary or Sanders said, yet you think I only look at the letter next to the name?
Click to expand...

I've read what both believe on the ISSUES and I see nothing more than foolishness.

You pick and choose. If you like Trump so much, are you going to vote for him? If not, thanks for proving my point.
 
CFM said:
I've read what both believe on the ISSUES and I see nothing more than foolishness.

You pick and choose. If you like Trump so much, are you going to vote for him? If not, thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

So you're holding yourself to a different standard than you expect from everyone else. I see the same thing on the con side that you see on the liberal side. Furthermore, I'm not a single-issue voter, nor was Trump's comment on the current issues.
 
Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West...

Mott the Hoople said:
Well fine but that is definitely not what the founding fathers intended the U.S. Constitution to be. They intended it to be a dynamic living functioning blue print for governing and not a static written in stone document.
Click to expand...

Surely you can prove this
 
CFM said:
You're confused as usual. Since dealing with marriage wasn't something the founders believed belonged at the federal level, they left it out as a delegated power. Since states aren't prohibited from dealing with marriage, the 10th amendment says they have the reserved powers to do so making marriage a state level power. The founding fathers provided a means with which to change the wording of the Constitution so marriage could be added as a federal level delegated power. That hasn't happened and you know it never would under the amendment process. That's why you Liberal idiots have to find some faggot loving judges to do what the founding fathers didn't intend for them to do and that is change the constitution to suit a political agenda.

Federalism does change and the founders provided a way. That you don't want to follow it is your problem.
Click to expand...
1st off I'm not a liberal nor a conservative, i'm so right down the middle moderate I scare myself :whoa:

But to your point. Not everything is enumerated -,and the states still control their marriage requirements - the only exception is they cannot prohibit gay marriage because of the inequality (14th). Other then that they can set waiting periods. fees etc.
Don't forget federalism (Xth) also gives all non-delegated powers to the states and the people respectively.

Text:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people
Click to expand...
So there is no need/desire/reason
CFM said:
"to change the wording of the Constitution so marriage could be added as a federal level delegated power"
Click to expand...
 
I Love America said:
Surely you can prove this
Click to expand...

I believe that the document itself was intended to be static, and written in stone. Certainly, the reason for having a written constitution was a result of living under the English Constitution, and John Adams felt that it was the best means to prevent constitutional abuses. Jefferson, for one, did predict that the document might not be acceptable to future generations, whom he predicted would establish their own constitutions of government.
 
Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West...

Eno L. Camino said:
I believe that the document itself was intended to be static, and written in stone. Certainly, the reason for having a written constitution was a result of living under the English Constitution, and John Adams felt that it was the best means to prevent constitutional abuses. Jefferson, for one, did predict that the document might not be acceptable to future generations, whom he predicted would establish their own constitutions of government.
Click to expand...

Well of course the founders knew that things would change. That is why they put in the amendment process. Using Motts definition one could easily say queers can't marry as easily as they could.

They also knew that without strict rules of governance at the federal level we would devolve into what we have become.
 
Thing1 said:
I'd be surprised if the next President didn't have at least one liberal vacancy to fill. It all evens out.

At times like these, I tend to think there is an inherent flaw to the process. I can't really think of a better way to do it - but it just seems too arbitrary to have justices who serve for decades decided by political winds that change every few years.
Click to expand...

The next president will most likely be a dem so a liberal justice retiring means they will be replaced by a liberal. Not the same thing as the potential of replacing one of the most diehard conservatives with a pressumably liberal choice.

also the way we fix this is to have liberal judges respect the constitution and not be activist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top