Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes DOMA « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
« #30 : July 10, 2013, 01:17:07 PM »

In the DOMA case, it suggested that the federal government was bound by the 14th amendment not to be able to define marriage on the basis of sexual orientation, yet avoided holding states to the same constitutional threshold despite the fact that the 14th amendment was specifically written to protect individual rights against discriminatory state laws.


It's not as cut and dried as you are making it out. Actually , you are opening a whole new can of worms , and it's called the  "incorporation debate" :

"The Bill of Rights was originally written to apply only to the actions of the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment was the first to contain prohibitions on the actions of states.
Soon after its ratification, the Supreme Court held in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) that the Fourteenth Amendment should be understood to apply only to the plight of former slaves and assuring their equal treatment under law. As time went on, however, the amendment was read more broadly and the doctrine of incorporation emerged."
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/amendments/fourteenth-amendment-general/incorporation/

I think SCOTUS might have opened that can of worms on the DOMA ruling. It was decided on the grounds of the 14th amendment, which I stated and your article reiterated, was written to address state law.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17847
Offline
« #31 : July 10, 2013, 05:14:03 PM »

Oh boy ... Why was the 14th originally to address STATE law and why has that changed? What's the PURPOSE of the 14th?

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
« #32 : July 10, 2013, 05:23:36 PM »

Oh boy ... Why was the 14th originally to address STATE law and why has that changed? What's the PURPOSE of the 14th?

Vince, unless you have a pertinent point to make, then I'm ignoring your posts. I'm not going to play these games with you. You have something to say, then say it. Otherwise, kick rocks.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17847
Offline
« #33 : July 10, 2013, 05:32:46 PM »

I don't care if you ignore me. I posted a comment that, in sum, is that your comment makes no sense. It's the silly kind of stuff people raise when they haven't actually thought about things because they're angry about a result. Style over substance

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
« #34 : July 10, 2013, 05:49:36 PM »

I don't care if you ignore me. I posted a comment that, in sum, is that your comment makes no sense. It's the silly kind of stuff people raise when they haven't actually thought about things because they're angry about a result. Style over substance

Well Vince, how about this. I say your comment makes no since, and is neither style nor substance. So there. We appear to be at an impasse.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17847
Offline
« #35 : July 10, 2013, 06:12:02 PM »

I don't care if you ignore me. I posted a comment that, in sum, is that your comment makes no sense. It's the silly kind of stuff people raise when they haven't actually thought about things because they're angry about a result. Style over substance

Well Vince, how about this. I say your comment makes no since, and is neither style nor substance. So there. We appear to be at an impasse.


Which is where I always hope to be with you, no big deal

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
« #36 : July 10, 2013, 07:06:47 PM »

Let me try this from another angle to avoid allowing you to take this discussion into la la land. Here is Judge Robert's opinion on the case.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

There are two specific points made to justify the decision.

1. State voting law changes fall under the protection of the 10th amendment, which states that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the State, are reserved to the State respectively, or to the people".

2. There is a “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” among the states that the Voting Rights Act violates by only subjecting southern states to comply with preclearance mandates.

As to the first point, the Constitution is pretty straight forward. It says that powers not granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are reserved for the states. Problem with the decision, however, is that overseeing that the right to vote is not denied or abridged is explicitly granted to Congress by the 14th and 15th amendments. Because this power is indeed granted to Congress by the Constitution, then Congress is not violating the Constitution by enacting laws that use this power.

As to the second point, there is no "principle of equal sovereignty" expressed in the Constitution, as noted by that Stanford professor that you know nothing about yet chose to characterize as a partisan (who just so happened to be a retired appellate court judge appointed to the position by George W. Bush, who was also on the short-list of candidates for the SC seat that was eventually given to Samuel Alito). Ruth Bader-Ginsberg's dissent touched upon this as well. The Court decided to deny Congress a power granted to them by the Constitution by citing that it violated a principle that isn't even in the Constitution.

Care to talk about the opinion, or are you happy with just trying to constantly change the subject?
« : July 10, 2013, 07:09:30 PM CBWx2 »

  Page: 1 2 3
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes DOMA « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools