Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Gay and Lesbian Rights Gay and Lesbian Political Rights Forum - For topics and discussions about LGBT


Thanks Tree138Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 6th, 2016, 09:08 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
You are aware that after the ratification of the First Amendment several states maintained state sanctioned religion? Hmmmm?


I think this character has ODed on the Kool-Aid.

Here are a few examples covering a century before twentieth century judicial activism started destroying the Constitution.

Madison tried to slip this language into the Bill of Rights:
Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
This was summarily rejected by the Congress.

Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)
Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 US 252 - Supreme Court 1888
But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States. It was so held by this court in the case of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553.
Thanks from caconservative and excalibur
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 6th, 2016, 09:21 PM   #32
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 27,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Completely ignores the point being made...
It says "CONGRESS" shall make no law.
That's a FEDERAL constitution talking about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONGRESS.
JimmyB was trying to make an ignorant claim "Only the parties in the Sixth Circuit's ruling are bound by the ruling, and that is not even constitutionally correct. No where in the Article III or Article VI can is the power for the Supreme Court to rule on a state law or state constitutional amendment regarding marriage."

To draw you a map, the first amendment doesn't say that the STATE legislatures can't make such a law...
In fact, I can give you examples of where they DID make such laws after the first amendment was in effect.
But of course, JimmyB ignores that as he clings to anybody who will bolster his claim. Even when you obviously don't have a clue as to what you're butting into the middle of...

I'll ask you the same question I asked him. You too can avoid it if you want.
Do you contest that from JimmyB's comments, we would have to conclude that the federal constitution does not require states to even protect the freedom of religion?



I can't hear you over the sound of laughter in recognizing that nobody cares about your ignorant claims which no judge is putting into effect anywhere in this great nation...

At the end of the figurative day, Moore's arguments will be tossed to the curb and all you'll have is your righteous indignation and faux arguments...
One error in your otherwise impeccable analysis of Jimmy. He and excalibur really care about his ignorant claims.
Thanks from Hollywood
RNG is offline  
Old January 6th, 2016, 10:45 PM   #33
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
The Canadian, who has zero clue about Constitutional fact and history, sides yet again with those of similar persuasion.


Thanks from Jimmyb and caconservative

Last edited by excalibur; January 6th, 2016 at 10:50 PM.
excalibur is offline  
Old January 7th, 2016, 05:34 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 22,643
I realize the Jimmyb knows more about everything than anybody else.

However, I've read about eight articles on this news story - and so far, every one of them (right wing, left wing, no wing) have stated that almost all law scholars say that the Alabama Justice's order is not going to stand up.

... not being the Constitutional expert and know everything about everything that Jimmyb is, I'll now slip back into the woodwork and just watch.

*eating popcorn*
Thanks from foundit66, RNG, Camelot and 1 others
tristanrobin is offline  
Old January 7th, 2016, 06:10 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 15,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Enlighten eveyone regarding substantive due process and when it was created, then explain how the court legitimately used a due process doctrine that did not exist in 1866 under the guise that the 39th Congress miraculously predicted the doctrine.

Enlighten eveyone as to why the 39th Congress only referenced procedural due process in their debates and explanation of the due process clause.

Then enlighten everyone regarding the author of the equal protection clause, John Bingham, stating that equal protection applied to judicial proceedings, not laws. And you may want to elaborate on Bingham's use of the Magna Carta's equal protection clause being limited to judical proceedings as the model.
Enlighten everyone as to why we should give more credence to the opinion of an anonymous internet hack with delusions of pingeonhood over that of 5 Supreme Court justices (and dozens of lower court judges) who have spent years learning, studying and practicing law.
Thanks from Camelot and Lyzza
Nwolfe35 is online now  
Old January 7th, 2016, 06:55 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 6,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
So are you admitting that you likewise think that the federal first amendment does not apply to the state legislatures?

Do you think that the state legislatures are free to "make laws" respecting an establishment of religion?

JB refuses to give a straight up honest answer to his position on the question.
How about you?

This isn't even the tough round.
Next up is admitting that JB's position (and possibly yours if you actually agree with what you were "Thanking") negates Loving v Virginia and would dictate that the state governments CAN have laws against interracial marriage.
In another thread, quite some time ago, JimmyB stated the US constitution only applies at the federal level. You do NOT have any constitutional protections, first amendment or other wise, at the state or local level, unless your state has those protections in it's constitution.

So yes according to JB, the federal government can't establish a religion, or shut down the news media, but your state is free to do so. Like wise the feds can't take your guns, but your state can. If you're not being arrested by the FBI or some other federal agent, you do NOT have the right to remain silent, nor do they need a warrant to search your property. Unless of course your state has these specific protections listed in it's constitution.
Thanks from Hollywood
BubbaJones is online now  
Old January 7th, 2016, 07:04 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Enlighten everyone as to why we should give more credence to the opinion of an anonymous internet hack with delusions of pingeonhood over that of 5 Supreme Court justices (and dozens of lower court judges) who have spent years learning, studying and practicing law.
I am going to go with using this post as an example: you have not nor will you attempt to make an argument on the merits of my post. Your only argument is to bleat about another five Supreme Court justices blah, blah, blah.

Anytime you want to write out a rebuttal on the merits of my post based on your knowledge, knock your lights out.

For anyone who is under the impression that Supreme Court justices know more about the Constitution, law, or history than everyone, if they did, all rulings would be 9-0. They are appointed based on their ideology, their record that supports that ideology, and their likleyhood of being confirmed.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 7th, 2016, 07:09 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
I realize the Jimmyb knows more about everything than anybody else.

However, I've read about eight articles on this news story - and so far, every one of them (right wing, left wing, no wing) have stated that almost all law scholars say that the Alabama Justice's order is not going to stand up.

... not being the Constitutional expert and know everything about everything that Jimmyb is, I'll now slip back into the woodwork and just watch.

*eating popcorn*
I am going to have to go all semantics on you. I didn't state that it would stand up, only that he was right. I don't know who you have read, but the majority of constitutional experts state that Moore is correct, but his ruling will not stand because that is what our system has morphed into.

Last edited by Jimmyb; January 7th, 2016 at 08:44 AM.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 7th, 2016, 07:20 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
In another thread, quite some time ago, JimmyB stated the US constitution only applies at the federal level. You do NOT have any constitutional protections, first amendment or other wise, at the state or local level, unless your state has those protections in it's constitution.

So yes according to JB, the federal government can't establish a religion, or shut down the news media, but your state is free to do so. Like wise the feds can't take your guns, but your state can. If you're not being arrested by the FBI or some other federal agent, you do NOT have the right to remain silent, nor do they need a warrant to search your property. Unless of course your state has these specific protections listed in it's constitution.
This is a re-post to demonstrate that my statement is according to history. I listed a few examples starting with Madison wanting to apply rights of conscious to the states via the Bill of Rights. You can also reconsile that with my statements regarding the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses because of her right of conscious, the feds involvement based on the 1st Congress' rejection of that doctrine applying to the states, and pointing out where federal court jurisdiction over the clerk or Kentucky is in the Constitution.

Article II of the Articles of Confederation was the basis for the 9th and 10th Amendments and the mind-set of the delegates:
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Here are a few examples covering a century before twentieth century judicial activism started destroying the Constitution.

Madison tried to slip this language into the Bill of Rights:
Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
This was summarily rejected by the Congress.

Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)
Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 US 252 - Supreme Court 1888
But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States. It was so held by this court in the case of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553.
Note that the Supreme Court rulings are first generation rulings and twenty years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

Last edited by Jimmyb; January 7th, 2016 at 08:44 AM.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old January 7th, 2016, 07:23 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
The Canadian, who has zero clue about Constitutional fact and history, sides yet again with those of similar persuasion.


You left out his Ph.D. from Wikipedia.
Jimmyb is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Tags
alabama, blocking, chief, issues, justice, licenses, marriage, order, samesex



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Judge Roy Moore is the Chief Justice of the state of Alabama intangible child Current Events 11 February 16th, 2015 06:23 PM
Mississippi KKK Chapter Backs Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore In Anti-Gay Marriage Fi LongWinded Current Events 38 February 14th, 2015 07:22 PM
Alabama's Anti Sharia Law Bill Shoots Down Judges Anti Marriage Equality Order skews13 Current Events 0 February 12th, 2015 01:14 PM
Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict The White House The White House 0 May 14th, 2014 08:20 AM
Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation The White House The White House 0 March 6th, 2014 06:22 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.