Ted Cruz Is Not A Constitutionalist

Robo

Robo

Verified User
Ted Cruz is no constitutionalist.

Ted Cruz is a religionist.

Ted Cruz cannot point to anyplace in the Constitution that mandates by constitutional law a certified definition of marriage as a contract reserved for one man, one woman, nor authorizes to the federal government any power to enforce such a mandate. On the contrary, the Constitution mandates that the people have rights not necessarily enumerated in the Constitution, (Amendment 9). The Constitution also mandates that no State shall make any law to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law, (Amendment 14)
 
Robo said:
Ted Cruz is no constitutionalist.

Ted Cruz is a religionist.

Ted Cruz cannot point to anyplace in the Constitution that mandates by constitutional law a certified definition of marriage as a contract reserved for one man, one woman, nor authorizes to the federal government any power to enforce such a mandate. On the contrary, the Constitution mandates that the people have rights not necessarily enumerated in the Constitution, (Amendment 9). The Constitution also mandates that no State shall make any law to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law, (Amendment 14)
Click to expand...
yours ( and the courts) are relying on the Equal Protection Clause.Traditional state purview goes to marriage reg.s

background -> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/15/supreme-court-gay-marriage/25574803/
 
anatta said:
yours ( and the courts) are relying on the Equal Protection Clause.Traditional state purview goes to marriage reg.s

background -> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/15/supreme-court-gay-marriage/25574803/
Click to expand...

States cannot constitutionally violate the Constitution. Before the 14th amendment, States may well have had the constitutional power to decide marriage laws. Since the States ratified the 14th amendment, such powers, if at all constitutional, they were thereafter surrendered. Of course I would still argue that before the 14th amendment the 9th amendment protected agreeable adult gay marriage contracts because the founding principles included "limited government" and agreeable adult gay marriage contracts violate nobody's rights and that's what liberty is all about.
 
The 14th limited the States and Feds the power to deny equal protection under the law.

The States can still regulate marriage, just not in such a way that denies equal protection without valid reason.
 
Jarod said:
The 14th limited the States and Feds the power to deny equal protection under the law.

The States can still regulate marriage, just not in such a way that denies equal protection without valid reason.
Click to expand...

The only power that any State has to deny/prohibit any action by any people is totally dependent on proving a rational argument that said action violated somebody else's right/rights to life, liberty, property or the pursuit of happiness, especially if said action is sanctified by the State for one group of the people while ignoring sanctification to, and denying other groups that same action.
 
Robo said:
Ted Cruz is no constitutionalist.

Ted Cruz is a religionist.

Ted Cruz cannot point to anyplace in the Constitution that mandates by constitutional law a certified definition of marriage as a contract reserved for one man, one woman, nor authorizes to the federal government any power to enforce such a mandate. On the contrary, the Constitution mandates that the people have rights not necessarily enumerated in the Constitution, (Amendment 9). The Constitution also mandates that no State shall make any law to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law, (Amendment 14)
Click to expand...

Marriage IS one man, one woman.
 
Eno L. Camino said:
Marriage IS one man, one woman.
Click to expand...

This is not true in the eyes of the law. You have a right for it to be true in your opinion. Your church can define it that way. The Government, however does not define it that way.

It used to be that Marriage was one man, one woman of the same race... that changed also.
 
Damocles said:
And you get to still believe that even though others have different beliefs and get to follow those. Amazing place, America... eh?
Click to expand...

good boy



come


come



you have further to go to get to reality



keep jumping over those right wing idiot hurdles.


at some point you will actually be standing on solid ground instead of a swamp of lies
 
Robo said:
States cannot constitutionally violate the Constitution. Before the 14th amendment, States may well have had the constitutional power to decide marriage laws. Since the States ratified the 14th amendment, such powers, if at all constitutional, they were thereafter surrendered. Of course I would still argue that before the 14th amendment the 9th amendment protected agreeable adult gay marriage contracts because the founding principles included "limited government" and agreeable adult gay marriage contracts violate nobody's rights and that's what liberty is all about.
Click to expand...
States purview exists long after the enactment of the 14th. If you are saying SCOTUS applying the 14th to marriage is recent -I agree ..

I do not see how the 1oth applies here -the 10th is the basis of federalism. The 9th is limitations
Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government
Click to expand...
on gov't powers to individuals regarding both the feds and the states.
 
Robo said:
Marriage is a contract that government has no business being in.
Click to expand...

A contract is only a contract to the extent that the government will enforce it, otherwise there is no contract.

A Contract is a construct of the law.
 
Robo said:
Ted Cruz is no constitutionalist.

Ted Cruz is a religionist.

Ted Cruz cannot point to anyplace in the Constitution that mandates by constitutional law a certified definition of marriage as a contract reserved for one man, one woman, nor authorizes to the federal government any power to enforce such a mandate. On the contrary, the Constitution mandates that the people have rights not necessarily enumerated in the Constitution, (Amendment 9). The Constitution also mandates that no State shall make any law to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law, (Amendment 14)
Click to expand...

Marriage is not covered in the Constitution, and therefore should not have been ruled on at all.
 
Jarod said:
This is not true in the eyes of the law. You have a right for it to be true in your opinion. Your church can define it that way. The Government, however does not define it that way.

It used to be that Marriage was one man, one woman of the same race... that changed also.
Click to expand...

The founding fathers never wrote anything about Marriage into the Constitution, and certainly never would have imagined any of this going on!
 
Marriage was instituted by God and therefore is a Religious ceremony and the Constitution forbids Congress to right any law circumventing the free exercise thereof The Government should have never gotten involved in the first place.
 
Jarod said:
This is not true in the eyes of the law. You have a right for it to be true in your opinion. Your church can define it that way. The Government, however does not define it that way.

It used to be that Marriage was one man, one woman of the same race... that changed also.
Click to expand...

Actually nature defined it that way. You know science?

Ever see two male lions mate for life?
 
patriot66 said:
The founding fathers never wrote anything about Marriage into the Constitution, and certainly never would have imagined any of this going on!
Click to expand...

Under the 14th Amendment that absolutely does not matter.

They never wrote anything about desegregation into the Constitution, and certainly never would have imagined any of that going on!
 
patriot66 said:
Marriage was instituted by God and therefore is a Religious ceremony and the Constitution forbids Congress to right any law circumventing the free exercise thereof The Government should have never gotten involved in the first place.
Click to expand...

That is a valid constitutional argument, had the Government not gotten into marriage in the first place, it would have been no issue. States could, if they chose, stop being involved in marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top