"Clarence Thomas Admits Defeat in the Right Wing’s War on Marriage Equality"

[TrueBlue]

Clarence Thomas Admits Defeat in the Right Wing’s War on Marriage Equality

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/09/clarence-thomas-admits-defeat-wings-war-marriage-equality.html


"Thomas is on the wrong side of history in his effort to block marriage equality. Today, for all purposes, he admitted it."

=========================================
Yes, he certainly is on the wrong side of history and he's feeling the hot flashes over it now.

[Cigar]

More History More Legacy ...

[Howey]

Clarence Thomas Admits Defeat in the Right Wing’s War on Marriage Equality

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/09/clarence-thomas-admits-defeat-wings-war-marriage-equality.html



=========================================
Yes, he certainly is on the wrong side of history and he's feeling the hot flashes over it now.

Been there. Remember?

[SoonToBe2LT]

Clarence Thomas Admits Defeat in the Right Wing’s War on Marriage Equality

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/09/clarence-thomas-admits-defeat-wings-war-marriage-equality.html



=========================================
Yes, he certainly is on the wrong side of history and he's feeling the hot flashes over it now.

Meh, I wouldn't say historically the right wing has waged war on marriage equality. I come from a Southern Deomcrat household that believed in family values, but was otherwise progressive.

However, I am a Republican and I do support same sex marriage equality. I think the definition of equality to more extreme conservatives needs to change.

SSM should be considered a right, IMO

[Cthulhu]

Or...

*OR*

We could just get the feds out of the marriage business altogether.

Just a thought.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Blackrook]

The federal courts have no business imposing same-sex marriage on the states and the American people. This is just another naked grab for raw power by the federal courts.

[TrueBlue]

Or...

*OR*

We could just get the feds out of the marriage business altogether.

Just a thought.
Oh well of course. Perfect plan! That's the impeccable Republican solution isn't it. So they can continue to be intolerant and discriminatory towards Gays and Lesbians in the states all they want that is, and with no oversight to keep them in line. We get it.


Expose the Republican Solution Already!

[Matty]

I put my foot down! I refuse to bake wedding cakes! I'm gonna bake cherry pies instead!

[Cthulhu]

Oh well of course. Perfect plan! That's the impeccable Republican solution isn't it. So they can continue to be intolerant and discriminatory towards Gays and Lesbians in the states all they want that is, and with no oversight to keep them in line. We get it.


Expose the Republican Solution Already!

Well as per the constitution that is how it ought to be done. That whole 10nth amendment gig ya know...

But to be frank, I don't think the states should have an oar in it either.

It isn't a republican solution, it is a voluntarist solution. Let marriage be left to the peole to sort out - a religious custom, legal contract, or a social idea. Gov doesn't need it's hand in the pie.

Not everybody who opposes the progressive machine is a republican, especially when you consider the fact that many republicans are progressive in action - they just cater to different clientele is all.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Cthulhu]

The federal courts have no business imposing same-sex marriage on the states and the American people. This is just another naked grab for raw power by the federal courts.
Power to the people when they like it, power to the courts when they don't.

In thing new under the sun.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Cthulhu]

Oh well of course. Perfect plan! That's the impeccable Republican solution isn't it. So they can continue to be intolerant and discriminatory towards Gays and Lesbians in the states all they want that is, and with no oversight to keep them in line. We get it.


Expose the Republican Solution Already!

I should open a business, exclusive to da gheys.

I'll call it Teh Ebil Ghey Cakes Inc.

I'd make a killing. And they will never know it is a Mormon who is making the cash off of it. I'll send my kids to private school on gay money.

Even better, when I pay my tithing, it will be gay tithing. Gay money used to help an organization that opposes everything they stand for.

Vengeance, prosperity, funding my church, and draining the progressive homosexual lobby of cash -all in one swoop.

So much win...

*wipes tear*


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Chris]

Oh well of course. Perfect plan! That's the impeccable Republican solution isn't it. So they can continue to be intolerant and discriminatory towards Gays and Lesbians in the states all they want that is, and with no oversight to keep them in line. We get it.


Expose the Republican Solution Already!



I'm with Cthulhu on this. Republicans intolerantly want to define marriage one way, Democrats intolerantly another way, when government's really got no business meddling in marriage. Let the people decide.

[PolWatch]

I should open a business, exclusive to da gheys.

I'll call it Teh Ebil Ghey Cakes Inc.

I'd make a killing. And they will never know it is a Mormon who is making the cash off of it. I'll send my kids to private school on gay money.

Even better, when I pay my tithing, it will be gay tithing. Gay money used to help an organization that opposes everything they stand for.

Vengeance, prosperity, funding my church, and draining the progressive homosexual lobby of cash -all in one swoop.

So much win...

*wipes tear*

I like the way you think...I'm a terrible baker....but I'm good at washing dishes.....

[Chris]

Oh, and he admitted nothing as your headline distorts. From your own link, if you'd read it:


He practically admitted that the fight against marriage equality may be on its last legs.


Yet rather than treat like applicants alike, the Court looks the other way as yet another Federal District Judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the Court’s resolution of a constitutional question it left open in United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___ (2013) (slip op., at 25-26). This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution of that question.

[Matty]

Cherry pie!

[Captain Obvious]

Cherry pie!

http://dougernst.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/jason-biggs-pie.jpg

[Cthulhu]

I like the way you think...I'm a terrible baker....but I'm good at washing dishes.....
When my last remaining grandmother keels over dead, I'm adopting you.

...provided you're not dead.

I can make bread with some degree of proficiency, DM can do the serious baking. But yes, we will need a good dish washer.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Cthulhu]

I should open a business, exclusive to da gheys.

I'll call it Teh Ebil Ghey Cakes Inc.

I'd make a killing. And they will never know it is a Mormon who is making the cash off of it. I'll send my kids to private school on gay money.

Even better, when I pay my tithing, it will be gay tithing. Gay money used to help an organization that opposes everything they stand for.

Vengeance, prosperity, funding my church, and draining the progressive homosexual lobby of cash -all in one swoop.

So much win...

*wipes tear*
What do you think TrueBlue?

Think my market ing scheme will work?

I call it "hate marketing". I think I'm onto something big here. If cigarette companies can make money off of people they are killing, I can certainly make a buck off of people that are butthurt.

Ha! "Butthurt". Didn't even think about it.

But it fits so perfectly.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Hal Jordan]

I'm with @Cthulhu (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=872) on this. Republicans intolerantly want to define marriage one way, Democrats intolerantly another way, when government's really got no business meddling in marriage. Let the people decide.

It's true, the government has absolutely no business in marriage, federal, state, or even local. Marriage should be between the people getting married and those they want involved with that. If the government gets out of marriage completely, everybody wins.

[domer76]

The federal courts have no business imposing same-sex marriage on the states and the American people. This is just another naked grab for raw power by the federal courts.
Your dog whistle states' rights thing doesn't wash anymore. Give it up

[Chris]

It's true, the government has absolutely no business in marriage, federal, state, or even local. Marriage should be between the people getting married and those they want involved with that. If the government gets out of marriage completely, everybody wins.

You took it down to the level the principle should be applied, no government intervention at all, not even at the local level. It should be left to the people getting married--though I would add room for the social influence of family, friends and community around them.

[Ransom]

It's true, the government has absolutely no business in marriage, federal, state, or even local. Marriage should be between the people getting married and those they want involved with that. If the government gets out of marriage completely, everybody wins.

Marriages have rights associated, Hal. Assets, who has custody over the children. Government must get involved many times just to force parents to care for their children, especially financially.

They should get out of the abortion arguments too then, my guess you want laws on the books protecting a woman's right to choose.

Marriage isn't merely between two people, it's a legal contract. Issues concerning immigration arise if one of the spouses is not an American Citizen. Women must have some legal recourse should a marriage dissolve, women have rights to marital assets including husband 401ks or properties. Government must be involved to settle prenup disputes or asset or children issues.

Let's think before we just throw shat out here, Hal. Wouldn't that be a better course of action. Homework first, comment second?

[Chris]

Marriages have rights associated, Hal. Assets, who has custody over the children. Government must get involved many times just to force parents to care for their children, especially financially.

They should get out of the abortion arguments too then, my guess you want laws on the books protecting a woman's right to choose.

Marriage isn't merely between two people, it's a legal contract. Issues concerning immigration arise if one of the spouses is not an American Citizen. Women must have some legal recourse should a marriage dissolve, women have rights to marital assets including husband 401ks or properties. Government must be involved to settle prenup disputes or asset or children issues.

Let's think before we just throw shat out here, Hal. Wouldn't that be a better course of action. Homework first, comment second?



Absolutely no need for government to arbitrate contracts voluntarily made between people.


(A) They should get out of the abortion arguments too then, (B) my guess you want laws on the books protecting a woman's right to choose.

(A) and (B) are contradictory. How can government both get out of and get into abortion. Think, man, before you throw that nonsense from the fence you sit.

[Hal Jordan]

Marriages have rights associated, Hal. Assets, who has custody over the children. Government must get involved many times just to force parents to care for their children, especially financially.

They should get out of the abortion arguments too then, my guess you want laws on the books protecting a woman's right to choose.

Marriage isn't merely between two people, it's a legal contract. Issues concerning immigration arise if one of the spouses is not an American Citizen. Women must have some legal recourse should a marriage dissolve, women have rights to marital assets including husband 401ks or properties. Government must be involved to settle prenup disputes or asset or children issues.

Let's think before we just throw shat out here, Hal. Wouldn't that be a better course of action. Homework first, comment second?

Alright, son, listen up when the adults are talking.

What you speak of in your first paragraph deals mostly with parental issues, not marriage issues. The two can go together, but are not always related. Assets are closer, but you have those issues even outside of marriage as well. Roommates can have those disputes. None of the things you have mentioned mean that the government has to have anything to do with marriage.

Abortion has nothing to do with this. If you want my thoughts on that, make an abortion thread.

Currently marriage is a contract, and that's all it is. It doesn't have the meaning it used to, and I believe that's one reason the divorce rate is so high. Marriage was never intended to be involved with government, and the government used to know that and stayed out of it. You can involve legal recourse without involving the marriage aspect.

Take your own advice and think. Yes, you should do your homework first and comment second. If you need help, I think my great-nephew could tutor you. He's 11.

[Hal Jordan]

Absolutely no need for government to arbitrate contracts voluntarily made between people.

Even if it were, they do it all of the time without involvement of marriage...




(A) and (B) are contradictory. How can government both get out of and get into abortion. Think, man, before you throw that nonsense from the fence you sit.
One can only hope he would...

[iustitia]

"on the wrong side of history"

Every time I see that I want to vomit. It's so cliché and means nothing. It's tantamount to "you're wrong because you're going to lose". Seriously, what does that even mean? Stalin was evil as shit but he was apparently on the right so of history because he succeeded. Make an argument or don't. Platitudes are gay.

[iustitia]

So they can continue to be intolerant and discriminatory towards Gays and Lesbians in the states all they want that is, and with no oversight to keep them in line.

And this is, ladies and gentlemen, the main agenda of statists. To keep people in line and subjugate states in the name of tolerance. Egalitarianism has destroyed any possibility of republicanism working.

[TrueBlue]

And this is, ladies and gentlemen, the main agenda of statists. To keep people in line and subjugate states in the name of tolerance. Egalitarianism has destroyed any possibility of republicanism working.
Actually, ladies and gentlemen, what I'm fighting against, doing away with the Federal government in favor of states' rights, is the Main Agenda of Control by CONServatives. And talk about keeping people in line and their subjugation, if they had their way they'd probably also bring in the whips and chains in order to keep them in line and reprogram them into their convoluted way of thinking. Sad state of affairs that would be if people were naive enough to fall for and believe their egregious and harmful agenda because there would be absolutely no checks and balances under their rule.


Oligarchy Is Not Our Style.

[Matty]

Actually, ladies and gentlemen, what I'm fighting against, doing away with the Federal government in favor of states' rights, is the Main Agenda of Control by CONServatives. And talk about keeping people in line and their subjugation, if they had their way they'd probably also bring in the whips and chains in order to keep them in line and reprogram them into their convoluted way of thinking. Sad state of affairs that would be if people were naive enough to fall for and believe their egregious and harmful agenda because there would be absolutely no checks and balances under their rule.


Oligarchy Is Not Our Style.






Tsk tsk tsk. Racist much?

[Chris]

Actually, ladies and gentlemen, what I'm fighting against, doing away with the Federal government in favor of states' rights, is the Main Agenda of Control by CONServatives. And talk about keeping people in line and their subjugation, if they had their way they'd probably also bring in the whips and chains in order to keep them in line and reprogram them into their convoluted way of thinking. Sad state of affairs that would be if people were naive enough to fall for and believe their egregious and harmful agenda because there would be absolutely no checks and balances under their rule.


Oligarchy Is Not Our Style.



And yet Oligarchy is what you will get if you pursue a strong centrally planned government that meddles in every facet of our lives. As Ford put it, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

[Cthulhu]

Actually, ladies and gentlemen, what I'm fighting against, doing away with the Federal government in favor of states' rights, is the Main Agenda of Control by CONServatives. And talk about keeping people in line and their subjugation, if they had their way they'd probably also bring in the whips and chains in order to keep them in line and reprogram them into their convoluted way of thinking. Sad state of affairs that would be if people were naive enough to fall for and believe their egregious and harmful agenda because there would be absolutely no checks and balances under their rule.


Oligarchy Is Not Our Style.

You will never get the Flux Capacitor.

Ever.

...and you're wrong by the way.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[TrueBlue]

I'm with @Cthulhu (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=872) on this. Republicans intolerantly want to define marriage one way, Democrats intolerantly another way, when government's really got no business meddling in marriage. Let the people decide.
Considering how the American people including Evangelicals are now lots more tolerant with regard to Marriage Equality and you want to let the people decide, it would be a decision made by about 59% of the American public now favoring Same-Sex Marriage. So, hmmmm. Could have juicy results!

[TrueBlue]

What do you think @TrueBlue (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1308)?

Think my market ing scheme will work?

I call it "hate marketing". I think I'm onto something big here. If cigarette companies can make money off of people they are killing, I can certainly make a buck off of people that are butthurt.

Ha! "Butthurt". Didn't even think about it.

But it fits so perfectly.
That would go perfectly with your line of thinking and convoluted reasoning. "Hate marketing" is right up your.....your.....alley! :) :)

[Chris]

Considering how the American people including Evangelicals are now lots more tolerant with regard to Marriage Equality and you want to let the people decide, it would be a decision made by about 59% of the American public now favoring Same-Sex Marriage. So, hmmmm. Could have juicy results!

No, you're still thinking government, majoritarian democracy. My argument is government has no say whatsoever.

[TrueBlue]

No, you're still thinking government, majoritarian democracy. My argument is government has no say whatsoever.
Weren't you paying attention? The topic was for the PEOPLE to rule instead of government. And right now the figure is on or about 59% of the PEOPLE in America who are in favor of Same-Sex Marriage. So, that could prove interesting if it were left entirely up to them instead of government. Pay attention next time.

[Cthulhu]

Weren't you paying attention? The topic was for the PEOPLE to rule instead of government. And right now the figure is on or about 59% of the PEOPLE in America who are in favor of Same-Sex Marriage. So, that could prove interesting if it were left entirely up to them instead of government. Pay attention next time.
If you give Chris numbers, you better have a source attached to them.

Even then, be prepared to have him strangle you with them. Because given your track record of accurately reporting stuff in your own sources...yeah. You're doomed bub.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Cthulhu]

That would go perfectly with your line of thinking and convoluted reasoning. "Hate marketing" is right up your.....your.....alley! :) :)
I'll need you in the hate marketing campaign.

Gotta have an experienced consultant on hand.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[iustitia]

How is rejecting the voters and their representatives for judges not oligarchy? That's the definition of oligarchy. Jesus Christ.

Also, as I've stated before here, I'm jewish and hispanic. I get real friggin tired of douchebag leftists always resorting to the race card because they're either too stupid or dishonest to have a real debate about federalism.

Lastly, what was is "convoluted" about the conservative position here? Does Trueblue even know the meaning of half the words she uses? The same goes for "checks and balances". How is conferring absolute power over American affairs to judges an example of checks and balances, but federalism isn't? States and towns can do stupid and even evil things, but logic dictates that concentrating power only allows for even greater errors and crimes.

[Chris]

Weren't you paying attention? The topic was for the PEOPLE to rule instead of government. And right now the figure is on or about 59% of the PEOPLE in America who are in favor of Same-Sex Marriage. So, that could prove interesting if it were left entirely up to them instead of government. Pay attention next time.

People ruling is right back at the government, the state. When I say keep government out and let people decide I mean keep government of any sort out and let people decide for themselves about marriage. Some will accept marriage between gays, some won't, just leave it alone.

[gamewell45]

I put my foot down! I refuse to bake wedding cakes! I'm gonna bake cherry pies instead!

Probably healthier for you.

[TrueBlue]

How is rejecting the voters and their representatives for judges not oligarchy? That's the definition of oligarchy. Jesus Christ.

Also, as I've stated before here, I'm jewish and hispanic. I get real friggin tired of douchebag leftists always resorting to the race card because they're either too stupid or dishonest to have a real debate about federalism.

Lastly, what was is "convoluted" about the conservative position here? Does Trueblue even know the meaning of half the words she uses? The same goes for "checks and balances". How is conferring absolute power over American affairs to judges an example of checks and balances, but federalism isn't? States and towns can do stupid and even evil things, but logic dictates that concentrating power only allows for even greater errors and crimes.
When voters in the states try to overpower citizen and human rights by way of their being a majority voting against a minority it becomes quite clear that the Federal Courts need to step in posthaste to equalize that situation in order to obtain parity for the disenfranchised.

And race card? Where the hell are you pulling that one out from? A rabbit's hat or your ass? I did not mention anything about you with regards to race or ethnicity.

I do realize that my answers have stung your ass like a swarm of bees that you are trying to run away from but facts be facts. The CONServative position is convoluted logic trying to take control of the minority by the majority. That's why we need checks and balances that only the Federal Courts can provide.

Hm, it appears I might have given you more credit at one time than you actually deserved. With what you have to say you are only a poorly-positioned echobag for the Conservatives. Which figures.

[texan]

I would like to know when you judgmental politically correct hypocrites will get on board with me and allow plural marriages. If its not the governments business its not the governments business........You with me?

[Chris]

I would like to know when you judgmental politically correct hypocrites will get on board with me and allow plural marriages. If its not the governments business its not the governments business........You with me?


If government has any legitimate purpose, according to, say, the Declaration, it is to protect natural rights from harm by force or fraud. So tell me, does plural marriage cause harm?

[Cthulhu]

I would like to know when you judgmental politically correct hypocrites will get on board with me and allow plural marriages. If its not the governments business its not the governments business........You with me?
Your bedroom, not mine. Makes no difference to me how many of X you have yourself married to. Just don't shove it in my face and force me to embrace your lifestyle and we're cool.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[silvereyes]

Your bedroom, not mine. Makes no difference to me how many of X you have yourself married to. Just don't shove it in my face and force me to embrace your lifestyle and we're cool.
Well! There goes your invite! ;)

[iustitia]

When voters in the states try to overpower citizen and human rights by way of their being a majority voting against a minority it becomes quite clear that the Federal Courts need to step in posthaste to equalize that situation in order to obtain parity for the disenfranchised.

Right except that that isn't a thing and yo know it. Gay marriage has never been a thing until this century. By definition marriage excluded same-sex couples. It wasn't a thing and to suggest that trying to retain its original intent is an attempt "to overpower citizen and human rights" which never existed before is idiotic. Be real, you don't care about human rights or you wouldn't trust an institution like the Court with a historically horrendous record on human rights and civil liberties.


And race card? Where the hell are you pulling that one out from? A rabbit's hat or your ass? I did not mention anything about you with regards to race or ethnicity.

Your conflation of states' rights, conservative control, and whips and chains was clearly an allusion to racial injustices. Don't be a troll.


I do realize that my answers have stung your ass like a swarm of bees that you are trying to run away from but facts be facts. The CONServative position is convoluted logic trying to take control of the minority by the majority. That's why we need checks and balances that only the Federal Courts can provide.

Nothing you could ever vomit into a post could sting anyone. 'Convoluted' means extremely complex and difficult to follow. Your characterization of the federalist position makes no sense, so I'll assume you didn't know what the word meant. But since I just defined it for you, I'm sure you can give it another shot. Though, if anything, your argument that checks and balances arise from centralizing power and concentrating it into the hands of 9 lawyers that rule for life is pretty convoluted. The court has supported Indian removal, slavery, segregation, forced sterilization, concentration camps, and infanticide. But because of one good ruling on civil rights nearly 60 years too late and a potential ruling mandating homosexual "marriages" you find the Court to be a paragon of liberty. A vanguard of checks and balances. But please do try to explain it to a layperson such as myself how I espouse a convoluted position.

Also, 'CONServative'? What is that? What even is that? What are you implying or trying to say?


Hm, it appears I might have given you more credit at one time than you actually deserved. With what you have to say you are only a poorly-positioned echobag for the Conservatives. Which figures.

Any credits I could get from a Hillary Clinton intern would be non-transferable.

[Hal Jordan]

I would like to know when you judgmental politically correct hypocrites will get on board with me and allow plural marriages. If its not the governments business its not the governments business........You with me?

That's their business, not mine or the government's...

[Ravens Fan]

I would prefer marriage to be out of the hands of any form of government, much like Chris and Aly.

But, if it must be under government control, I think the state level would be best. If people are not happy with the way the majority will of their state goes, they can campaign to change peoples minds, or move to a state that falls more in line with their views. I have always felt that is how it should work anyways, if we are interested in really representing the views of our melting pot.

[domer76]

I would prefer marriage to be out of the hands of any form of government, much like Chris and Aly.

But, if it must be under government control, I think the state level would be best. If people are not happy with the way the majority will of their state goes, they can campaign to change peoples minds, or move to a state that falls more in line with their views. I have always felt that is how it should work anyways, if we are interested in really representing the views of our melting pot.
But you see, that's not how this whole thing is going to fall out, is it? It's not going to be a states' rights issue, because that's a fallacy. "If you don't like it, you can move" is the mentality of a gradeschooler. Or, obviously, of a social conservative. Marriage is, and always will be, in the very firm grip of the government. Get used to that idea. And prepare yourself for the inevitable. That gay marriage, like it or not, will soon be the law of the land. Bend over or swallow, whichever your preference, you're gonna have to take it.

[iustitia]

Why is it that the actual gay posters on this forum seem more willing to compromise on marriage regarding federalism than the progressives that try to speak for them?

Ravens Fan is essentially getting told to get over his beliefs because they're stupid, don't matter and he can't do a thing about it. LOL WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY

[iustitia]

Seriously, read these lines bit by bit. How prophetic and apocalyptic statists speak of dissenting views and opinions. Their view of government as perpetual control beyond any individuals ability to change. Hopeless, eternal subjugation. Really, just look at it and consider what is really being said here about government by its biggest sycophants. When you actually analyze what they say you learn not only their desires but the sad reality of the system-


But you see, that's not how this whole thing is going to fall out, is it?

the mentality of a gradeschooler.

is, and always will be, in the very firm grip of the government.

Get used to that idea.

And prepare yourself for the inevitable.

like it or not, will soon be the law of the land.

Bend over or swallow, whichever your preference, you're gonna have to take it.

Fucking creepazoid.

[Cthulhu]

Well! There goes your invite! ;)
Meh. I'll show up to the wedding with tomatoes then.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Ravens Fan]

But you see, that's not how this whole thing is going to fall out, is it? It's not going to be a states' rights issue, because that's a fallacy.

It won't be a state's rights issue because both of the parties are for bigger government. Regardless of the outcome, they still want the Federal government to make all the decisions.


"If you don't like it, you can move" is the mentality of a gradeschooler. Or, obviously, of a social conservative.

Except that I am far from a social conservative. I am gay, I smoke pot, and I want the government out of my personal decisions. The Federal Government has it's place, the state's theirs, and I think it was set up that way for a reason.


Marriage is, and always will be, in the very firm grip of the government. Get used to that idea.

Unless my generation, or those after decide it shouldn't be.


And prepare yourself for the inevitable. That gay marriage, like it or not, will soon be the law of the land. Bend over or swallow, whichever your preference, you're gonna have to take it.

I have no problem with gay marriage, I have a problem with the state even being involved in marriage. And no thanks, you're not my type.

[domer76]

It won't be a state's rights issue because both of the parties are for bigger government. Regardless of the outcome, they still want the Federal government to make all the decisions.



Except that I am far from a social conservative. I am gay, I smoke pot, and I want the government out of my personal decisions. The Federal Government has it's place, the state's theirs, and I think it was set up that way for a reason.



Unless my generation, or those after decide it shouldn't be.



I have no problem with gay marriage, I have a problem with the state even being involved in marriage. And no thanks, you're not my type.

Good luck in trying to unravel everything from tax law to parental rights to end of life decisions to spousal benefit packages.

[Max Rockatansky]

The federal courts have no business imposing same-sex marriage on the states and the American people. This is just another naked grab for raw power by the federal courts.
So you, me and Cthulhu agree; the Feds should eliminate the 1138 rights and benefits given to married couples and get out of the marriage business altogether. Correct, Blackrook?


Or...

*OR*

We could just get the feds out of the marriage business altogether.

Just a thought.

[Chris]

So you, me and Cthulhu agree; the Feds should eliminate the 1138 rights and benefits given to married couples and get out of the marriage business altogether. Correct, Blackrook?


Government doesn't create right, max. And it doesn't do a good job of protecting them.

[Chris]

But you see, that's not how this whole thing is going to fall out, is it? It's not going to be a states' rights issue, because that's a fallacy. "If you don't like it, you can move" is the mentality of a gradeschooler. Or, obviously, of a social conservative. Marriage is, and always will be, in the very firm grip of the government. Get used to that idea. And prepare yourself for the inevitable. That gay marriage, like it or not, will soon be the law of the land. Bend over or swallow, whichever your preference, you're gonna have to take it.



We all know what is, nothing remarkable in knowing that, no one knows the future, nothing remarkable in that either, the question is what ought to be, what system would be better. Your misuse of "fallacy" and your name calling notwithstanding.

[domer76]

Government doesn't create right, max. And it doesn't do a good job of protecting them.
Government giveth rights and government taketh away rights. If you think differently, you are a tad naive.

[Chris]

Government giveth rights and government taketh away rights. If you think differently, you are a tad naive.

Please demonstrate that domer. Cite the Declaration. Skip over the part where we're born with rights. Cite the Constitution. Skip over the part where the people created government. You white-flag waving ad hom is ignored for the fallacy it is.

[domer76]

Seriously, read these lines bit by bit. How prophetic and apocalyptic statists speak of dissenting views and opinions. Their view of government as perpetual control beyond any individuals ability to change. Hopeless, eternal subjugation. Really, just look at it and consider what is really being said here about government by its biggest sycophants. When you actually analyze what they say you learn not only their desires but the sad reality of the system-



Fucking creepazoid.
Jesus Christ, fuck you on your statist bullshit. I don't know what kind of libertarian/anarchist lala land you live in, but try to pull your head out of your ass and get it back into the world of reality.

Nobody gave a flying shit, nor gave it a passing thought about the government recognizing and providing certain benefits for marriage until gays wished to enjoy those same privileges. Then all the idiots came out of the woodwork with their collective panties in a wad and looking for every excuse not to allow someone different from them the same rights associated with marriage.

Well, tough shit. Things have now reached critical mass and there's not a fucking thing you're going to be able to do about it. The state has ALWAYS had its fingers in the issue of marriage and what it entails from the beginning to the end of life. It ain't gonna change no matter what your vision of utopia wishes it to be.

I always shake my head at those who wish the government out of their lives. They are typically the first ones running to mama state for a remedy when they think THEY have been transgressed.

[Chris]

Jesus Christ, fuck you on your statist bullshit. I don't know what kind of libertarian/anarchist lala land you live in, but try to pull your head out of your ass and get it back into the world of reality.

Nobody gave a flying shit, nor gave it a passing thought about the government recognizing and providing certain benefits for marriage until gays wished to enjoy those same privileges. Then all the idiots came out of the woodwork with their collective panties in a wad and looking for every excuse not to allow someone different from them the same rights associated with marriage.

Well, tough shit. Things have now reached critical mass and there's not a fucking thing you're going to be able to do about it. The state has ALWAYS had its fingers in the issue of marriage and what it entails from the beginning to the end of life. It ain't gonna change no matter what your vision of utopia wishes it to be.

I always shake my head at those who wish the government out of their lives. They are typically the first ones running to mama state for a remedy when they think THEY have been transgressed.


Wow, domer, now that was a rational argument!

"Jesus Christ, fuck you ... bullshit ... pull your head out of your ass ... Nobody gave a flying shit ... tough shit ...."

[del]

^

can't argue the points so he argues the adjectives

:rofl:

[domer76]

Please demonstrate that domer. Cite the Declaration. Skip over the part where we're born with rights. Cite the Constitution. Skip over the part where the people created government. You white-flag waving ad hom is ignored for the fallacy it is.
Sorry pal. While the Declaration is a lovely document, it isn't law. The one that is, the Constitution, was written by men and does not mention anything about god given rights. The fact is, whether you like it or not, or recognize the reality or not, the government codifies your rights and has suspended your "unalienable" ones on numerous occasions in our history. That's the 'taketh away' part, in case you missed it. If everyone on this planet had the same rights at birth, ones that government couldn't take away, we'd all be in the same boat, wouldn't we? We're not.

Try again.

[domer76]

Wow, domer, now that was a rational argument!

"Jesus Christ, fuck you ... bullshit ... pull your head out of your ass ... Nobody gave a flying shit ... tough shit ...."
Just trying to help you in pulling your head out of your heiney and into the plane of reality. I guess it got your attention, didn't it? Now, the question is- do you understand it? Reality, that is.

[Chris]

Just trying to help you in pulling your head out of your heiney and into the plane of reality. I guess it got your attention, didn't it? Now, the question is- do you understand it? Reality, that is.

You childish rhetoric got my attention. Learn how to spell hiney, [img]http://i.snag.gy/xCseE.jpg[/img[


But klet me ask you, where's your reality here? You've said nothing about this reality. You've merely offered your beliefs and supported it with fallacious incredulity.

[Chris]

^

can't argue the points so he argues the adjectives

:rofl:

This was the argument with domer:



Government doesn't create right, max. And it doesn't do a good job of protecting them.


Government giveth rights and government taketh away rights. If you think differently, you are a tad naive.


Please demonstrate that domer. Cite the Declaration. Skip over the part where we're born with rights. Cite the Constitution. Skip over the part where the people created government. You white-flag waving ad hom is ignored for the fallacy it is.

Apparently he is unable to demonstrate it.

All he has is adjectives. Hemingway must be turning over in his grave!

[del]

This was the argument with domer:








Apparently he is unable to demonstrate it.

All he has is adjectives. Hemingway must be turning over in his grave!

you misspelled reality

[TrueBlue]

Right except that that isn't a thing and yo know it. Gay marriage has never been a thing until this century. By definition marriage excluded same-sex couples. It wasn't a thing and to suggest that trying to retain its original intent is an attempt "to overpower citizen and human rights" which never existed before is idiotic. Be real, you don't care about human rights or you wouldn't trust an institution like the Court with a historically horrendous record on human rights and civil liberties.



Your conflation of states' rights, conservative control, and whips and chains was clearly an allusion to racial injustices. Don't be a troll.



Nothing you could ever vomit into a post could sting anyone. 'Convoluted' means extremely complex and difficult to follow. Your characterization of the federalist position makes no sense, so I'll assume you didn't know what the word meant. But since I just defined it for you, I'm sure you can give it another shot. Though, if anything, your argument that checks and balances arise from centralizing power and concentrating it into the hands of 9 lawyers that rule for life is pretty convoluted. The court has supported Indian removal, slavery, segregation, forced sterilization, concentration camps, and infanticide. But because of one good ruling on civil rights nearly 60 years too late and a potential ruling mandating homosexual "marriages" you find the Court to be a paragon of liberty. A vanguard of checks and balances. But please do try to explain it to a layperson such as myself how I espouse a convoluted position.

Also, 'CONServative'? What is that? What even is that? What are you implying or trying to say?



Any credits I could get from a Hillary Clinton intern would be non-transferable.
Succinct and to the point. If that's the best you can do with your comeback, Bubba, then I've just proven my case that your thinking is quite convoluted, meaning "twisted" and creating great spin for your own particular self-serving purpose. You have therefore established an image of self-aggrandizement. And as for being a "troll", you sure know yourself quite well looking in the mirror as you do. You have always taken Front Row Center in that department. Case closed.

[Chris]

you misspelled reality

Really?

[Ravens Fan]

Good luck in trying to unravel everything from tax law to parental rights to end of life decisions to spousal benefit packages.

So, no real response to my comments except to tell me it won't be easy? Why should the Federal Government be allowed to have that much control over personal decisions? How are states rights grade school thinking?

[Chris]

You might have to wait till...

http://i.snag.gy/cwnJy.jpg

...for an answer.

[Blackrook]

So you, me and Cthulhu agree; the Feds should eliminate the 1138 rights and benefits given to married couples and get out of the marriage business altogether. Correct, @Blackrook (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=899)?
You don't have any clue what you're talking about. The states have always defined marriage. The federal government has never done this, until now.

[Chris]

You don't have any clue what you're talking about. The states have always defined marriage. The federal government has never done this, until now.

I get what you're implying but actually history was a bit different, as shown in :


1830 – Married women are granted the right to own property in their own name, instead of being owned exclusively by the husband, in Mississippi.
1848 – Married women are granted the right to own property in their own name in New York.
1856 – The platform of the Republican Party refers to polygamy as one of the "twin relics of barbarism" (alongside slavery).[1] At the time, polygamy was a practice of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). (See Mormonism and polygamy.)
1862 – The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act makes bigamy in the territories a felony punishable by a $500 fine or five years in prison.
1873 – In Bradwell v. Illinois the Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law. [2]
...

So we see the states first enacting law, then the Republican Party platform, Congress legislating and the Court adjudicating.

[url=http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/370]A Selective History of Marriage in the United States (]Timeline of civil marriage in the United States[/url) goes back further:


1691: Virginia enacts a law stating that if a white person (bond or free) marries a person of color (Negro, mulatto, or Indian), the couple will be banished from the colony. Banishment means almost certain death in the woods.

1724: Article VIII of the Louisiana Black Code forbids marriages between slaves without the consent of the slave master.

1769: American colonies based their laws on the English common law, which said, “By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law. The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything.”

...

History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts (http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html) goes even further back:


...1. Arranged alliances

Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.

2. Family ties...

...7. State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

8. Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States....


So government's only been involved several hundreds of years.

[Cthulhu]

Government giveth rights and government taketh away rights. If you think differently, you are a tad naive.
You're only half right. The gov takes rights, but gives nothing.

Check the constitution, rights come from our creator.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Cthulhu]

Sorry pal. While the Declaration is a lovely document, it isn't law. The one that is, the Constitution, was written by men and does not mention anything about god given rights. The fact is, whether you like it or not, or recognize the reality or not, the government codifies your rights and has suspended your "unalienable" ones on numerous occasions in our history. That's the 'taketh away' part, in case you missed it. If everyone on this planet had the same rights at birth, ones that government couldn't take away, we'd all be in the same boat, wouldn't we? We're not.

Try again.
False, it is considered part of the constitution, and has been deemed so several times.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Peter1469]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by iustitia http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=957774#post957774)
Seriously, read these lines bit by bit. How prophetic and apocalyptic statists speak of dissenting views and opinions. Their view of government as perpetual control beyond any individuals ability to change. Hopeless, eternal subjugation. Really, just look at it and consider what is really being said here about government by its biggest sycophants. When you actually analyze what they say you learn not only their desires but the sad reality of the system-



Fucking creepazoid.





Jesus Christ, fuck you on your statist bullshit. I don't know what kind of libertarian/anarchist lala land you live in, but try to pull your head out of your ass and get it back into the world of reality.

Nobody gave a flying shit, nor gave it a passing thought about the government recognizing and providing certain benefits for marriage until gays wished to enjoy those same privileges. Then all the idiots came out of the woodwork with their collective panties in a wad and looking for every excuse not to allow someone different from them the same rights associated with marriage.

Well, tough shit. Things have now reached critical mass and there's not a fucking thing you're going to be able to do about it. The state has ALWAYS had its fingers in the issue of marriage and what it entails from the beginning to the end of life. It ain't gonna change no matter what your vision of utopia wishes it to be.

I always shake my head at those who wish the government out of their lives. They are typically the first ones running to mama state for a remedy when they think THEY have been transgressed.

Warning: Please don’t call members names and do try to be civil.

[Peter1469]

^

can't argue the points so he argues the adjectives

:rofl:

In litigation we say: if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side argue the law. If you have neither, pound on the table a lot (meaning more emotionally driven argument meant to distract).

[Chris]

Government doesn't create right, max. And it doesn't do a good job of protecting them.


Government giveth rights and government taketh away rights. If you think differently, you are a tad naive.


Please demonstrate that domer. Cite the Declaration. Skip over the part where we're born with rights. Cite the Constitution. Skip over the part where the people created government. You white-flag waving ad hom is ignored for the fallacy it is.


Sorry pal. While the Declaration is a lovely document, it isn't law. The one that is, the Constitution, was written by men and does not mention anything about god given rights. The fact is, whether you like it or not, or recognize the reality or not, the government codifies your rights and has suspended your "unalienable" ones on numerous occasions in our history. That's the 'taketh away' part, in case you missed it. If everyone on this planet had the same rights at birth, ones that government couldn't take away, we'd all be in the same boat, wouldn't we? We're not.

Try again.


The Declaration appeals to man's natural law. True, the Constitution is man's posited law, and doesn't mention God, nor did I. Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't grant rights. Government doesn't give rights. It's supposed to protect them, and when it does a lousy job, it is our right to alter or abolish it:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The take it away part? The challenge to you has been to demonstrate where "Government giveth rights."

Try again.

[domer76]

This was the argument with domer:








Apparently he is unable to demonstrate it.

All he has is adjectives. Hemingway must be turning over in his grave!

By giving you the hard facts of reality, I demonstrated it just fine.That you failed to comprehend is on your shoulders, not mine.

You cite the Declaration as if it were law. It's not. Civics 101.

[Cthulhu]

By giving you the hard facts of reality, I demonstrated it just fine.That you failed to comprehend is on your shoulders, not mine.

You cite the Declaration as if it were law. It's not. Civics 101.
False.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[domer76]

So, no real response to my comments except to tell me it won't be easy? Why should the Federal Government be allowed to have that much control over personal decisions? How are states rights grade school thinking?
I've been married for 39 years and all the privileges and benefits that are recognized by the state are hardly what I consider control over personal decisions. Just the opposite. They offer the force of law behind those personal decisions. They protect those personal decisions.

And I never said unraveling all those laws would be difficult. I indicated it will never happen. That's the reality of it.

States' rights? No such thing. Kinda like Santa Claus. Code words for those who are comfortable with discrimination.

[domer76]

You don't have any clue what you're talking about. The states have always defined marriage. The federal government has never done this, until now.
I know. Isn't it great that redneck sonsabitches in some backward state can't walk all over people anymore because they're a little different?

[domer76]

You're only half right. The gov takes rights, but gives nothing.

Check the constitution, rights come from our creator.
Better reread the Constitution. It has not one word about a creator.

[domer76]

False, it is considered part of the constitution, and has been deemed so several times.
Yeah, sure it is. It wasn't even written in the same decade as the Constitution. Nor was it ratified bu the states.

[domer76]

In litigation we say: if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side argue the law. If you have neither, pound on the table a lot (meaning more emotionally driven argument meant to distract).
You are correct. I cited both facts and the law. The emotion part was just tossed in as icing on the cake!

[Chris]

You are correct. I cited both facts and the law. The emotion part was just tossed in as icing on the cake!


More like all icing and no cake, domer.

So where's the Constitution grant rights again? Speaking of facts and law.

[domer76]

The Declaration appeals to man's natural law. True, the Constitution is man's posited law, and doesn't mention God, nor did I. Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't grant rights. Government doesn't give rights. It's supposed to protect them, and when it does a lousy job, it is our right to alter or abolish it:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The take it away part? The challenge to you has been to demonstrate where "Government giveth rights."

Try again.

Why do you keep confusing the Declaration with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? I hate to break this to you, but the BOR was not sent down from on high by your creator. He/she could give a shit about you carrying guns, quartering soldiers or right to a jury trial. Those were written by a handful of men.

The government is supposed to protect the rights that it granted in the first place. Not the ones from your god.

[Mac-7]

The rightwing war on marriage equality?

Equal rights for sicko perverts is more accurate.

[Chris]

Why do you keep confusing the Declaration with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? I hate to break this to you, but the BOR was not sent down from on high by your creator. He/she could give a shit about you carrying guns, quartering soldiers or right to a jury trial. Those were written by a handful of men.

The government is supposed to protect the rights that it granted in the first place. Not the ones from your god.



Uh, domer, I am not confusing the two documents, one, the Declaration, concerns natural law, and the other, the Constitution, concerns positive law. That's a clear distinction, not a conflations. I think you're confused.

OK, let's focus on the BoR.

Please cite one amendment among the BoR that grants anyone rights.

I'll wait. Good luck. Remember facts and law.

[Howey]

Equal rights for sicko perverts is more accurate.

Who's taking away your rights, Mac-7?

[Howey]

Uh, domer, I am not confusing the two documents, one, the Declaration, concerns natural law, and the other, the Constitution, concerns positive law. That's a clear distinction, not a conflations. I think you're confused.

OK, let's focus on the BoR.

Please cite one amendment among the BoR that grants anyone rights.

I'll wait. Good luck. Remember facts and law.


It's right (hah!) there in the name.

Bill of RIGHTS

der der!

[Howey]

Constitutional literalists amuse me. I guess Chris thinks the Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee any rights because the word isn't in the body of it?

Here's your list.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

First Amendment [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)] (see explanation)
Second Amendment [Right to Bear Arms (1791)] (see explanation)
Third Amendment [Quartering of Troops (1791)] (see explanation)
Fourth Amendment [Search and Seizure (1791)] (see explanation)
Fifth Amendment [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)] (see explanation)
Sixth Amendment [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)] (see explanation)
Seventh Amendment [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)] (see explanation)
Eighth Amendment [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)] (see explanation)
Ninth Amendment [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)] (see explanation)
Tenth Amendment [Rights Reserved to States or People (1791)] (see explanation)

[Chris]

Constitutional literalists amuse me. I guess Chris thinks the Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee any rights because the word isn't in the body of it?

Here's your list.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

First Amendment [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)] (see explanation)
Second Amendment [Right to Bear Arms (1791)] (see explanation)
Third Amendment [Quartering of Troops (1791)] (see explanation)
Fourth Amendment [Search and Seizure (1791)] (see explanation)
Fifth Amendment [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)] (see explanation)
Sixth Amendment [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)] (see explanation)
Seventh Amendment [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)] (see explanation)
Eighth Amendment [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)] (see explanation)
Ninth Amendment [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)] (see explanation)
Tenth Amendment [Rights Reserved to States or People (1791)] (see explanation)



Cite the language that says government is granting rights.

Here's amendment one: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It does not say the people are granted rights. It says Congress is prohibited from violating pre-existing rights. "Congress shall make no law...."

Generally, the body of the Constitution enumerates powers granted government by the people. The BoR enumerates prohibitions by the people against government action.

[Chris]

It's right (hah!) there in the name.

Bill of RIGHTS

der der!


Oh, Lord! Howey, you can do better than that. Look at the document we happen to call the BoR. It doesn't say "Bill of Right":

http://i.snag.gy/GuRjt.jpg

[Chris]

Who's taking away your rights, Mac-7?


No one is taking away anyone's rights in letting gays marry.

[Cthulhu]

Better reread the Constitution. It has not one word about a creator.
Fact, not the constitution. But the Declaration - considered a part of the constitution.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[del]

Fact, not the constitution. But the Declaration - considered a part of the constitution.

by whom?

[Chris]

by whom?

The Declaration gives moral justification for the legal Constitution.

[Howey]

Oh, Lord! Howey, you can do better than that. Look at the document we happen to call the BoR. It doesn't say "Bill of Right":

http://i.snag.gy/GuRjt.jpg

*sigh*

You're not very smart, are you? I gave you plenty of opportunities to correct yourself. You couldn't, trying to "one-up" me. Sorry, you just aren't smart enough to take me on.

Here's the complete wording. (MODS PLEASE DO NOT DELETE BUT HE PROBABLY WON'T READ IT ANYHOW)

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution. The 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the amendments is on display in the Rotunda in the National Archives Museum. Ten of the proposed 12 amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15, 1791. The ratified Articles (Articles 3–12) constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, or the U.S. Bill of Rights. In 1992, 203 years after it was proposed, Article 2 was ratified as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. Article 1 was never ratified.

Transcription of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the fifth... No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth... 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.

ATTEST,

Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives

John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate

John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate

Amendments 11-27

Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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.

Amendments 11-27

Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.

[Howey]

No one is taking away anyone's rights in letting gays marry.

http://i.imgur.com/hpZlaqJ.jpg

[Mac-7]

Who's taking away your rights, @Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014)?

The sicko perverts are the homosexuals demanding equal rights.

[Common Sense]

The sicko perverts are the homosexuals demanding equal rights.

Oh just come out of the closet already...

[Howey]

The sicko perverts are the homosexuals demanding equal rights.

http://i.imgur.com/hpZlaqJ.jpg

[Chris]

*sigh*

You're not very smart, are you? I gave you plenty of opportunities to correct yourself. You couldn't, trying to "one-up" me. Sorry, you just aren't smart enough to take me on.

Here's the complete wording. (MODS PLEASE DO NOT DELETE BUT HE PROBABLY WON'T READ IT ANYHOW)

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution. The 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the amendments is on display in the Rotunda in the National Archives Museum. Ten of the proposed 12 amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15, 1791. The ratified Articles (Articles 3–12) constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, or the U.S. Bill of Rights. In 1992, 203 years after it was proposed, Article 2 was ratified as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. Article 1 was never ratified.

Transcription of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the fifth... No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth... 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.

ATTEST,

Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives

John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate

John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate

Amendments 11-27

Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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.

Amendments 11-27

Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.



No, I don't consider myself very smart. But I can read.

In your citation you make the mistake of including a preface recently written to the BoR.

The actually BoR doesn't begin until the lines:


Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

Again, here is an image of the document:

http://i.snag.gy/MD0UU.jpg

Now read each line you highlighted. Each one states government, namely Congress, shall not infringe on those rights of the people. It does not say Congress grants those rights, it says Congress cannot violate them.


The 9th is telling: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Where did those other right come from?


All these right were recognized as such long before "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[Chris]

http://i.imgur.com/hpZlaqJ.jpg

Playing basketball, howey?

[Mac-7]

Oh just come out of the closet already...

Closets are for gays.

I know that true marriage is only between a man and a woman.

[Common Sense]

Closets are for gays.

I know that true marriage is only between a man and a woman.

I dunno...the one's I hear protesting so much about what strangers do, tend to be the one's you hear getting arrested in public bathrooms.

[Cthulhu]

by whom?
Good question, with a convoluted answer to boot - http://candst.tripod.com/doisussc.htm

As Chris said, while not law, it justifies the existence of said constitution. One predicated upon the other it would seem.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[domer76]

More like all icing and no cake, domer.


So where's the Constitution grant rights again? Speaking of facts and law.

That little thing added to the Constitution called the Bill of Rights. You know, those things we refer to as CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? Those rights were conceived and penned by just ordinary dudes, not you creator. Your creator, most likely anyway, could give a shit about your right to carry your popgun.

[Chris]

That little thing added to the Constitution called the Bill of Rights. You know, those things we refer to as CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? Those rights were conceived and penned by just ordinary dudes, not you creator. Your creator, most likely anyway, could give a shit about your right to carry your popgun.

Then cite the specific passages from the BoR that grant rights, domer. Note, howey has tried and failed. And he posted the BoR in its entirety and then some.

And, domer, I'm an atheist, so your inflammatory trolling means nothing.

[Mac-7]

I dunno...the one's I hear protesting so much about what strangers do, tend to be the one's you hear getting arrested in public bathrooms.

When government is harassing Christian ministers, teachers and gays are promoting perversion to children and private businesses are forced to provide services to homosexuals it's gone far beyond two sickos doing disgusting things in their private bedroom.

[Howey]

When government is harassing Christian ministers, teachers and gays are promoting perversion to children and private businesses are forced to provide services to homosexuals it's gone far beyond two sickos doing disgusting things in their private bedroom.

Are you peeking in their windows watching them "doing disgusting things in their private bedroom"?

[Chris]

When government is harassing Christian ministers, teachers and gays are promoting perversion to children and private businesses are forced to provide services to homosexuals it's gone far beyond two sickos doing disgusting things in their private bedroom.


Note well who even you admit is doing the harassing.

[Howey]

Then cite the specific passages from the BoR that grant rights, domer. Note, howey has tried and failed. And he posted the BoR in its entirety and then some.

And, domer, I'm an atheist, so your inflammatory trolling means nothing.

No, I succeeded. You're just a stubborn child who won't admit defeat.

http://i.imgur.com/C9iaiNk.jpg

[Chris]

No, I succeeded. You're just a stubborn child who won't admit defeat.

http://i.imgur.com/C9iaiNk.jpg

Why are you going for the ass, these are the feet:

http://i.snag.gy/trTMV.jpg

Howey, I don't care that gays marry, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Common Sense]

When government is harassing Christian ministers, teachers and gays are promoting perversion to children and private businesses are forced to provide services to homosexuals it's gone far beyond two sickos doing disgusting things in their private bedroom.

Yes, Christians are so oppressed.

[Mac-7]

Note well who even you admit is doing the harassing.

Yes government on behalf of homosexuals.

[Chris]

Yes government on behalf of homosexuals.

The government you vote for, lol.

[domer76]

The rightwing war on marriage equality?

Equal rights for sicko perverts is more accurate.
Yep, despite what you would prefer, sicko perverts have rights. Here's another shocker, even rightwing assholes have rights, too. Lucky for you, huh?

[PolWatch]

The government you vote for, lol.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/school/student-head-explodes-smiley-emoticon.gif

[Mac-7]

The government you vote for, lol.

Sure, not this government, but I'm not an anarchist so I hope we can elect better governments in the future.

[Mac-7]

Yep, despite what you would prefer, sicko perverts have rights. Here's another shocker, even rightwing $#@!s have rights, too. Lucky for you, huh?

Thats what the pedophiles and beastiality libs will say when its there turn in line.

[Peter1469]

Thats what the pedophiles and beastiality libs will say when its there turn in line.

Something much less that 3%. Impressive that something of such a small part of the population attracts your glorious notice.

[Chris]

Sure, not this government, but I'm not an anarchist so I hope we can elect better governments in the future.

Sorry, this is the government you vote for and the one you get.


Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

H. L. Mencken

[PolWatch]

Something much less that 3%. Impressive that something of such a small part of the population attracts your glorious notice.

how does a measly 3% of voters cause the elections to swing to dems? I thought the majority of Americans overwhelmingly supported the repub party...at least according to some here they do....if 3% can cause the repubs to lose, doesn't look like much of a majority to me....

[Peter1469]

how does a measly 3% of voters cause the elections to swing to dems? I thought the majority of Americans overwhelmingly supported the repub party...at least according to some here they do....if 3% can cause the repubs to lose, doesn't look like much of a majority to me....

He only justifies his mindless obedience to the status quo.

[Howey]

Thats what the pedophiles and beastiality libs will say when its there turn in line.
One would think you'd know better by now than to calm someone a paedophile. How many forums have you been banned from for that?

[Chris]

Good question, with a convoluted answer to boot - http://candst.tripod.com/doisussc.htm

As Chris said, while not law, it justifies the existence of said constitution. One predicated upon the other it would seem.



I like where that link goes:


In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901), the Court stated:



The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."

[domer76]

Uh, domer, I am not confusing the two documents, one, the Declaration, concerns natural law, and the other, the Constitution, concerns positive law. That's a clear distinction, not a conflations. I think you're confused.

OK, let's focus on the BoR.

Please cite one amendment among the BoR that grants anyone rights.

I'll wait. Good luck. Remember facts and law.
You guys spout on and on about your right to bear arms. I doubt your creator gave much of a shit about that one, do you? You think that's a natural one?

[Chris]

You guys spout on and on about your right to bear arms. I doubt your creator gave much of a shit about that one, do you? You think that's a natural one?

What's a matter, sober, can't find where the BoR grants rights?

[domer76]

Fact, not the constitution. But the Declaration - considered a part of the constitution.

The Declaration was written by good old Tom Jefferson in a couple days in July 1776. It was that document that basically told Great Britain to fuck off and why. The Constitution wasn't even drafted until 1787 and made no mention of the Declaration. Nor a god. Nor unalienable rights.

Where in the hell do you guys come up with these notions?

[domer76]

Then cite the specific passages from the BoR that grant rights, domer. Note, howey has tried and failed. And he posted the BoR in its entirety and then some.

And, domer, I'm an atheist, so your inflammatory trolling means nothing.

Chris, my boy, we've tried, and obviously failed, at pointing out the obvious to you. Howey placed it in as about a large a font as these threads would allow and you still didn't get it. Today is my Friday after a very long and tiring week. I just don't possess the energy to continue giving you rudimentary civics lessons. You're just gonna have to re-enroll in a basic US Government class to educate yourself. I hope your teacher has patience.

[Cthulhu]

The Declaration was written by good old Tom Jefferson in a couple days in July 1776. It was that document that basically told Great Britain to $#@! off and why. The Constitution wasn't even drafted until 1787 and made no mention of the Constitution. Nor a god. Nor unalienable rights.

Where in the hell do you guys come up with these notions?
Did you bother to read the link?


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[domer76]

Thats what the pedophiles and beastiality libs will say when its there turn in line.

They do? They agree that right wing assholes have rights? Obviously, they are more inclusive of you than you of them!

But back to your post. How would you know what they say, Mac? I've never spoken with a pedophile or anyone into bestiality. Never gone to one of their sites, either. Apparently, you have. Perhaps you should hang with a better crowd.

[domer76]

Did you bother to read the link?

You mean the one you provided re: the Supreme Court that states:

"There is not a single case that was "specifically decided on the Declaration of Independence or its provisions." No decision has turned or can turn on the Declaration of Independence itself."

That link?

[Chris]

Chris, my boy, we've tried, and obviously failed, at pointing out the obvious to you. Howey placed it in as about a large a font as these threads would allow and you still didn't get it. Today is my Friday after a very long and tiring week. I just don't possess the energy to continue giving you rudimentary civics lessons. You're just gonna have to re-enroll in a basic US Government class to educate yourself. I hope your teacher has patience.


So you continue to hide behind silly ad hom fallacies the fact you cannot demonstrate your claim government grants rights. What howey demonstrated was the BoR is a set of prohibitions against government violating existing rights. Your failure is pathetic.

[Chris]

Did you bother to read the link?


He doesn't seem capable of reading he BoR with comprehension so don't expect him to read court pronouncements.

[Chris]

The Declaration was written by good old Tom Jefferson in a couple days in July 1776. It was that document that basically told Great Britain to fuck off and why. The Constitution wasn't even drafted until 1787 and made no mention of the Declaration. Nor a god. Nor unalienable rights.

Where in the hell do you guys come up with these notions?



The question is where did you come up with the notion government creates rights. Fourteen pages now and you can't demonstrate it.

[Cthulhu]

The question is where did you come up with the notion government creates rights. Fourteen pages now and you can't demonstrate it.
Slight disagreement here.

They can create arbitrary and man made rights.

But natural and unalienable rights are beyond their ken.


Sent from my evil cell phone.

[Mr. P]

Slight disagreement here.

They can create arbitrary and man made rights.

But natural and unalienable rights are beyond their ken.

Like the right to abortion and gay marriage? No, wait. It is the courts who make rights now.

[Max Rockatansky]

Like the right to abortion and gay marriage? No, wait. It is the courts who make rights now.
Is marriage a court/government-given right or an unalienable right, Mr. P?

[Chris]

Slight disagreement here.

They can create arbitrary and man made rights.

But natural and unalienable rights are beyond their ken.


We agree, they can, like FDR's new bill of rights. But these are not rights as responsibilities in society as natural rights are conceived but more properly called, I think, entitlements society, the collective, the state, somehow owes the individual.

Here, compare:


Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is declared government is prohibited from violating the freedoms enumerated. Note in each case these are recognized as existing rights, and not all of them, for amendment 9 reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

An enumeration is not a creation or granting. And the language is clear in each amendment that government is prohibited from violating these rights.


FDR recognized those natural rights: "This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty."

But then went on: "We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence." And lists what society, through the state, owes each inidividual:


Among these are:


The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.



All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Note clearly he is declaring the state must implement these new rights.

But they are not rights, they are entitlements. It's not a matter of people being free to pursue happiness but giving people happiness.

[Chris]

Here Andrew Napolitano is criticizing Bush, the Patriot Act, and Gen. Michael Hayden: A Worthless Piece of Paper (http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/12/has-our-constitution-become-a-worthless):


President George W. Bush was fond of saying that "9/11 changed everything." He used that one-liner often as a purported moral basis to justify the radical restructuring of federal law and the federal assault on personal liberties over which he presided. He cast aside his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution; he rejected his oath to enforce all federal laws faithfully; and he moved the government decidedly in the direction of secret laws, secret procedures, and secret courts.

...Our rights come from within us—whether you believe we are the highest progression of biological forces or the intended creations of an Almighty God—they do not come from the government.

This is not an academic argument. If our rights come from within us, the government cannot take them away, whether by executive fiat, popular legislation, or judicial ruling, unless we individually have waived them. If our rights come from the government, then they are not rights, but permission slips.

...Last week, we learned how deep the disrespect for the Constitution runs in the government and how tortured is the logic that underlies it. In a little-noted speech at Washington and Lee Law School, Gen. Michael Hayden, the former director of both the CIA and the NSA, told us. In a remarkable public confession, he revealed that somehow he received from some source he did not name the authority to reinterpret the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy so as to obliterate it. He argued that the line between privacy and unbridled government surveillance is a flexible and movable one, and that he—as the head of the NSA—could move it.

This is an astounding audacity by a former high-ranking government official who swore numerous times to uphold the Constitution. He has claimed powers for himself that are nowhere in the Constitution or federal statues, powers that no president or Congress has claimed, powers that no Supreme Court decision has articulated, powers that are antithetical to the plain meaning and supremacy of the Constitution, powers that any non-secret judge anywhere would deny him.

If the terms and meaning of the Constitution could be changed by the secret whims of those in the executive branch into whose hands they have been reposed for safekeeping, of what value are they? No value. In such a world, our Constitution has become a worthless piece of paper.