Consolidated Gay Issue Thread


#5801

And that’s why women got the vote in 1868. :rofl:


#5802

[quote=“Fantasy_Chaser, post:5791, topic:33143”]
You might want to check your own most basic of facts. He said the Equal Rights Amendment, not the 14th. The former was in the 1970s. I remember it being talked about.
[/quote] Because there is NO SUCH AMENDMENT in the Constitution as the ‘Equal Rights Amendment’ The closest there is to it IS the 14th Amendment… There was a ‘Equal Rights Amendment’ proposed, but it was NEVER RATIFIED.


#5803

Have you READ the equal protection clause of the 14th, Jazz??? WHERE does it say that it “isn’t limited to race and color?” It quite plainly and clearly DOES say “race and color”. It does NOT say anything about sex, sexual preference or whatever perversion strikes your fancy.


#5804

And what is the actual wording as it appears in the 14th Amendment? Is it not “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Does that not mean whatever a State’s laws are, no person may be denied the equal protection of those laws? Surely those words were not meant to forbid the states to make distinctions in law based upon sex. However, it seems crystal clear, when reviewing the Congressional debates of the 39th Congress that they were intended to forbid distinctions in law based upon race and color.

Why are you so eager to cast aside the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is stated as follows?

***The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.***— numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

Seems to me Jefferson had you in mind when writing the following:

“On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”–Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.***_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


#5805

Your uniformed opinion is noted once again.

Annotation 18 - Article II

Judges .–Article III, Sec. 1, specifically provides judges with ‘‘good behavior’’ tenure, but the Constitution nowhere expressly vests the power to remove upon bad behavior; it has been assumed that judges are made subject to the impeachment power through being labeled ‘‘civil officers.’’ 755 The records in the Convention make this a plausible though not necessary interpretation. 756 And, in fact, twelve of the fifteen impeachments reaching trial in the Senate have been directed at federal judges. 757 So settled apparently is the interpretation that the major arguments, scholarly and political, have concerned the question whether judges, as well as others, are subject to impeachment for conduct which does not constitute an indictable offense and the question whether impeachment is the exclusive removal device with regard to judges. 758

Also see: History of the Federal Judiciary

Impeachments of Federal Judges
John Pickering, U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 2, 1803, on charges of mental instability and intoxication on the bench; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office on March 12, 1804.

Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805.

James H. Peck, U.S. District Court for the District of Missouri.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on April 24, 1830, on charges of abuse of the contempt power; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on January 31, 1831.

West H. Humphreys, U.S. District Court for the Middle, Eastern, and Western Districts of Tennessee.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 6, 1862, on charges of refusing to hold court and waging war against the U.S. government; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, June 26, 1862.

Mark W. Delahay, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, February 28, 1873, on charges of intoxication on the bench; Resigned from office, December 12, 1873, before opening of trial in the U.S. Senate.

Charles Swayne, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, December 13, 1904, on charges of abuse of contempt power and other misuses of office; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate February 27, 1905.

Robert W. Archbald, U.S. Commerce Court.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, July 11, 1912, on charges of improper business relationship with litigants; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, January 13, 1913.

George W. English, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, April 1, 1926, on charges of abuse of power; Resigned from office November 4, 1926; Senate Court of Impeachment adjourned to December 13, 1926, when, on request of the House manager, impeachment proceedings were dismissed.

Harold Louderback, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, February 24, 1933, on charges of favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on May 24, 1933.

Halsted L. Ritter, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, March 2, 1936, on charges of favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers and practicing law while sitting as a judge; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, April 17, 1936.

Harry E. Claiborne, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, July 22, 1986, on charges of income tax evasion and of remaining on the bench following criminal conviction; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, October 9, 1986.

Alcee L. Hastings, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, August 3, 1988, on charges of perjury and conspiring to solicit a bribe; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, October 20, 1989.

Walter L. Nixon, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 10, 1989, on charges of perjury before a federal grand jury; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, November 3, 1989.

Samuel B. Kent, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, June 19, 2009, on charges of sexual assault, obstructing and impeding an official proceeding, and making false and misleading statements; Resigned from office, June 30, 2009. On July 20, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives agreed to a resolution not to pursue further the articles of impeachment, and on July 22, 2009, the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, dismissed the articles.

G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, March 11, 2010, on charges of accepting bribes and making false statements under penalty of perjury; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, December 8, 2010.


JWK


When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation’s White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Islamic terrorist activities begin in our southern Border States or cities like NewYork City?***


#5806

Note that only ONE of the examples you listed was a Supreme Court judge and he was convicted of a crime. So I ask you again, what crime did Kennedy commit?


#5807

If the 14th actually justified all of the miraculous “benefits” that you and the high court suppose, WHY was the ERA even proposed?


#5808

[quote=“Pappadave, post:5803, topic:33143”]
Have you READ the equal protection clause of the 14th, Jazz??? WHERE does it say that it “isn’t limited to race and color?” It quite plainly and clearly DOES say “race and color”. It does NOT say anything about sex, sexual preference or whatever perversion strikes your fancy.
[/quote] Actually Dave, it doesn’t say ANYTHING about race and/or color ANYWHERE in the text of the 14th Amendment, the closest it comes is mentioning public debt in regards to the emancipation of slaves (which there were some white slaves at the time, so that’s not exactly a comment about race and/or color) in Section IV. Here, see for yourself.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" So please, tell us where the text makes any comments about race and color. Because the text PLAINLY does say, however, that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” so tell me, is marriage a privilege? Does it grant immunities? If so then explain HOW banning SSM was in accordance with the TEXT of the 14th Amendment. It goes on to say, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” so tell me, are homosexuals persons? Were they convicted of a crime (due process of the law) that allows the state to deny them the liberty of getting married? Again, in accordance with the TEXT of the 14th Amendment. Finally section one says, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” so tell me, how are homosexuals given equal protection under the law when they are told that they can’t have the same legal protections (such as having their partner listed on their death certificate as their spouse or filing jointly and thereby generally paying less than filing separately) as heterosexuals? Again, please answer based on the TEXT of the Amendment, which makes absolutely NO STATEMENT in regards to race or color.


#5809

[quote=“old_dog, post:5807, topic:33143”]
If the 14th actually justified all of the miraculous “benefits” that you and the high court suppose, WHY was the ERA even proposed?
[/quote] Same reason the 15th was passed, because people insist on restricting the rights (such as with SSM) of others… SHOULD the 14th Amendment have solved the issue by text alone? YES, it SHOULD have, but human nature says otherwise. Look at how many states STILL have it in their laws/on their constitution requiring people to be Christian to vote, testify in court, and hold public office…


#5810

Just can’t admit that you blew it, can you? Old Dog specified the Equal Rights Amendment, which, although never ratified, was SO NAMED in common discussion. You’re spinning like a top.

On edit: I see where you QUOTED Old Dog as saying that IT WAS NEVER RATIFIED.

So how could you have possibly have failed to understand that he WASN’T talking about the 14th Amendment, unless you were IGNORANT of E.R.A. (in which case you should tread more carefully, lest your foot turn into an own-mouth-homing missile)?


#5811

The Equal Rights Amendment was given a 7-year limit for ratification; when that limit approached, its supporters whined that the people didn’t understand it, and they needed more time to “explain” it clearly. Illegally, they were given an extra 7 years, but it did the more harm than good. Their problem wasn’t that people didn’t understand it; it was that they understood it all too well. There was a pretence that it was only about equal pay for equal work. That was just the tiniest part of that (and their “definition” of “equal work” was questionable, too). Like homosexual marriage, and all the other special privileges homosexuals have managed to obtain, it was an attempt to undermine the family. Even without the amendment, the “women’s” movement succeeded in a good start at doing so.


#5812

Did you miss that thing about "good behavior’’ ? Of course you did, just like you constantly ignore other things which are posted which debunk your uninformed opinions.

JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices , ***and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ***___Declaration of Independence


#5813

One of the arguments made against the ERA was that it would lead to homosexual marriage being sanctioned by the Court. Hmmm, I wonder how Kennedy has found homosexual marriage in the Constitution when it was specifically rejected by the rejection of the ERA.

JWK


#5814

[quote=“johnwk, post:5812, topic:33143”]
Did you miss that thing about "good behavior’’ ? Of course you did, just like you constantly ignore other things which are posted which debunk your uninformed opinions.

JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices , ***and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ***___Declaration of Independence

[/quote] Didn’t miss it, just knew that its been interpreted as (meaning the courts and the Congress view the founding fathers INTENT) to mean BREAKING THE LAW. So I ask again, what LAW did Kennedy break?


#5815

[quote=“johnwk, post:5813, topic:33143”]
One of the arguments made against the ERA was that it would lead to homosexual marriage being sanctioned by the Court. Hmmm, I wonder how Kennedy has found homosexual marriage in the Constitution when it was specifically rejected by the rejection of the ERA.

JWK
[/quote] The TEXT of the 14th Amendment… Are you EVER going to answer the questions I asked or are you going to ‘constantly ignore other things which are posted which debunk your uninformed opinions’?


#5816

There is no obligation to interpret the 14th amendment in accord with originalist intent with respect to * social or cultural * questions. Times change. The community changes. That’s life.


#5817

Can you enlighten us poor, ignorant social conservatives as to what the Constitution has to do with “social or cultural questions?” Those are issues that the Constitution explicitly leaves to the States to address. You Statists always seem to forget that simple fact.


#5818

I was responding to johnwk’s suggestion that the 14th amendment be interpreted in accordance with originalist intent, when it’s patently obvious that social attitudes have changed since the 1860s. The application of originalism make little sense when applied to social or cultural issues, because larger forces cause attitudes to change over time. The law today recognizes that the guarantee of equal protection extends to both racial and sexual minorities


#5819

Since words mean nothing and can be interpreted in any way other than the original intent, I guess that your liberal friends should be able to trash the country in record time.


#5820

…and please explain what “changing social attitudes” have got to do with the LAW! We have thousands, if not millions, of people who think that living off of the labors of others is their “right.” We’ve got millions believing that because they might be “inconvenient,” babies should be scalded with strong saline or torn limb from limb in the womb or have their skulls punctured and their brain sucked out–or all of the above. We have millions believing that casting votes for their mothers, fathers or dead neighbors is “OK” if it helps elect their favorite candidate. We’ve got thousands (including some here) who think that disarming good, honest citizens will somehow make them “safer” which may be the stupidest “thought” the left has come up with. (It should be noted that EVERY mass shooting in recent years has taken place in “gun-free” locations with the sole exception of the “Gabby” Gifford shootings.)