More evidence of Virginia's blueness...

[SmarterthanYou]

The Constitution is the supreme law.

again, does the constitution show where there's a right to gay marriage? who wrote the constitution? maybe you can answer some of the questions instead of just posting little factoids that don't address the issue.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the state; and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of Attorney General on which I am now about to enter. So help me God.',

Oath of Office for Florida Attorney General.

i see support, protect, and defend. I do not see interpret.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

If the majority of a State passed a law banning private ownership of all guns, I would join you in my expectation that my Attorney General not defend that law, because it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

like DC? where were you on that issue? or chicago? or New York City? if a majority of the country then voted to allow new machine gun ownership, where would you stand on THAT issue?

 

[christiefan915]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/ap/top-news/va-ags-office-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/ncyf2/

VA, attorney general wont defend his State's ban on same sex marriage, it violates the Constitution's equal protection and due process clauses.

Same thing with our Attorney General in PA, I was never so proud of a politician.

 

[christiefan915]

I thought we were a democracy where the majority ruled? why is this AG not executing the peoples will?

I thought you were a firm believer in states' rights.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I thought you were a firm believer in states' rights.

states do not have rights. governments of any capacity do not have rights. they only have powers prescribed to them from 'we the people'. you thought wrong.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

did the AG write the constitution, or did we the people?

maineman, can you explain why you groaned this statement of mine? do you disagree with it? or are you angry that I pointed out the truth?

 

[Jarod]

again, does the constitution show where there's a right to gay marriage? who wrote the constitution? maybe you can answer some of the questions instead of just posting little factoids that don't address the issue.

1. The Constitution's equal protection and due process clauses, prohibit discrimination based issues not reasonably related to a legitimate state interest.

2. The Constitution was written by a committee in the late 1780's, made up of representatives from eleven of the thirteen original States. These representatives were appointed by the various State legislatures. The State legislatures were made up mostly of individuals voted in by male landowners of those States or appointed by governors.

Did that answer your questions?

 

[Jarod]

i see support, protect, and defend. I do not see interpret.

To protect or defend a law, you must have an idea about what it means. To have an understanding of what it means, it must be interpreted.

That was one of your silliest of arguments.

 

[Truth Detector]

I suppose that if the people of Virginia are all that upset by the actions of their AG, they can impeach him. If not... folks who don't live there probably should not be telling the AG there how to do his job.

That isn't the debate or the question shit-for-brains; try to grow some intelligence so that you can comprehend what is being debated.

Yes, you really are THAT incredibly stupid.

 

[Jarod]

like DC? where were you on that issue? or chicago? or New York City? if a majority of the country then voted to allow new machine gun ownership, where would you stand on THAT issue?

I don't believe that machine guns are protected by the 2nd.

 

[Truth Detector]

If the majority of a State passed a law banning private ownership of all guns, I would join you in my expectation that my Attorney General not defend that law, because it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

That wasn't the question counselor; where is it the AGs duty to select which laws he can and will enforce?

I just read the Virginia AG website which elaborated on the duties of their AG and could find nothing that would indicate the AG can interpret what laws violate the Constitution and could selectively enforce. Maybe you could find the part that supports your claim he can?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

1. The Constitution's equal protection and due process clauses, prohibit discrimination based issues not reasonably related to a legitimate state interest.

and who determines the legitimate state interest? we the peope?

2. The Constitution was written by a committee in the late 1780's, made up of representatives from eleven of the thirteen original States. These representatives were appointed by the various State legislatures. The State legislatures were made up mostly of individuals voted in by male landowners of those States or appointed by governors.

so you're saying 'we the people'. right?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

To protect or defend a law, you must have an idea about what it means. To have an understanding of what it means, it must be interpreted.

That was one of your silliest of arguments.

because plain written text can't be simply understood. this is why all the lawyers should be shot. you fucked up a perfectly good system with 'interpretation'.

 

[Truth Detector]

They elected him, and will likely re-elect him, that's my point about the changing tide in VA. Next is North Carolina.

That wasn't the question counselor; why can't you answer a simple question? Could be because you want to purposefully avoid the truth and the folly of your claims?

 

[Truth Detector]

the pace of enlightenment is quickening... and the righties know it.

I'm amused by the premise that violating the public trust and acting outside the law is enlightenment.

 

[Jarod]

and who determines the legitimate state interest? we the peope?

so you're saying 'we the people'. right?

1. It usually ends up being the members of the Supreme Court, using precedent and interpretation of the Constitution to determine what a legitimate State interest is, it is something the legislature should consider, but they generally don't because they are subject to the political whims of the majority.

2. No.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I don't believe that machine guns are protected by the 2nd.

then what is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and what does it protect? and when you 'interpret' this Amendment, please provide the historical text of the founders which prove your interpretation.

 

[Truth Detector]

They have lost the social side of their argument, some are embracing it and others are running scared. .

Please explain to me how acting outside of your legal duties is the social side of an argument?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

1. It usually ends up being the members of the Supreme Court, using precedent and interpretation of the Constitution to determine what a legitimate State interest is, it is something the legislature should consider, but they generally don't because they are subject to the political whims of the majority.

2. No.

then we go back to who wrote the constitution. did the supreme court write it? did the supreme court ratify it? is the supreme court the sole interpreter of the constitution? please provide the historical text of the framers to back up your supposition.