Consolidated Gay Issue Thread


#5821

I understand you’re upset but what does any of this have to do with my neighbors’ dignity and respect? Does your denying it to them make better any of the cultural abominations you cite above?


#5822

[quote=“old_dog, post:5800, topic:33143”]
Your post brings to light a very interesting possibility. Since several states rescinded ratification after ratifying and some re-ratified at a later date it gives historical and legal precedence to the ability of States to do so.
[/quote]I strongly question whether ratification of an Amendment is subject to rescission. The text of Article V was rather specific about restricting the amendment process in one respect, and only that respect. See highlight text in quote.

[indent]The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.[/indent]

This implies that the ability to ratify was a one-way street. Same with the ability to add states. There was no provision for secession. Thus the arguments that secession is legitimate is bovine excrement.

[quote=“old_dog, post:5800, topic:33143”]
Some amendments have built in time limits for ratification and some have time limits specified in the Congressional resolution that proposed them (like the ERA). The 14th, 16th and 17th (among others) have no time limit for ratification and presumable recision of ratification. I would think that many States might be willing to take a second look at their ratification of the 16th and 17th amendments. The 22nd amendment had a built in 7 year time limit. Too bad, otherwise BHO could get some of his Blue State buddies to rescind their ratification and run for a 3rd term.
[/quote]There was nothing in the 22nd Amendment that permits any “blue state” to rescind ratification. I do worry that he might put Moochie up to running for President though.


#5823

Who’s “denying” them ANYTHING? If their “dignity and respect” are predicated on their ability to engage in deviant sex, I’d say that they’re “dignity and respect” are misplaced…and their loss is their own fault–not mine. Gays are the ONLY group who self-identify according to what bodily orifice they choose for sexual stimulation. How is that either “dignified” OR “deserving of respect?”


#5824

Hence why the Constitution is silent in regards to society. It left such matters in the prudential judgment of the States and individual persons.


#5825
  1. I can’t quite see how the highlighted part of Article V affects a States right to rescind. Care to elaborate?

  2. The time limit on ratification of the 22nd was in the Congressional resolution which proposed the amendment, not in the amendment itself.


#5826

[quote=“old_dog, post:5825, topic:33143”]

  1. I can’t quite see how the highlighted part of Article V affects a States right to rescind. Care to elaborate?

  2. The time limit on ratification of the 22nd was in the Congressional resolution which proposed the amendment, not in the amendment itself.
    [/quote]The specificity of the prohibition on an amendment affecting the slave trade and equal state suffrage in the Senate is such that any right to rescind ratification would have been spelled out. If you take the Scalia view of sticking to the actual language first seriously you’d agree with me.


#5827

And that is why our founders included Article V, to accommodate changing times, but only with the consent of the governed as laid out in the amendment process.

Now to your bizarre assertion that there is no obligation for the Court to follow the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

Once again, as is usually the case with you, you offer an opinion with no supportive documentation, and your opinion conflicts with “the rule of law” as practiced in America since its founding. Did you intentionally ignore that part of our Constitution acknowledging an adherence to the rules of the common law?

In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could “cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation.”

It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: “The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties.”

And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:

But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."

This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:

***“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.

And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858) confirms the truth of the matter as follows:

*** "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.***

You may also find a recent Supreme Court decision quite interesting in which the SCOTUS references the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to discover the intent of our Constitution and enforce it. See:UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, (1995).

And this is in harmony with what the Court stated in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


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.***

Also see the following:

***“A constitutional provision is to be construed, as statutes are, to the end that the intent of those drafting and voting for it be realized."***(Mack v Heuck (App) 14 Ohio L Abs 237)

***“No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it.”***Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .

"Where language used in a constitution is capable of two constructions, it must be so construed as to carry into effect the purpose of the constitutional convention.” Ratliff v Beal, 74 Miss.247,20 So 865 .

***"In construing federal constitutional provisions, the United States Supreme Court has regularly looked for the purpose the framers sought to accomplish.”***Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1, 91 L Ed 711,67 S Ct 504, 168 ALR 1392.

"The primary principle underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law." Rasmussen v Baker, 7 Wyo 117, 50 P 819.

I could provide countless other quotes to establish the fact that enforcing the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted is one of the courts primary functions, even our very own Congress is aware it is required to be obedient to the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted although they ignore it today:

***“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which would give the phrase…a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution.”***_____ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967)

And let us not forget what is stated in American Jurisprudence:

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. Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

The irrefutable fact is, when the Court defies both the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent, and imposes its personal sense of justice, fairness or reasonableness as the rule of law, the Court has then engaged in judicial tyranny.

JWK


“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968



#5828

Exactly! And that is confirmed in Federalist No 45:

***“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. ***

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


#5829

The 14th ONLY applied to the recently freed slaves…end of discussion. It had only to do with discrimination amongst and between the races/ethnicities/colors of citizens of the USA. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for the intent of the Founders, you liberals had better be careful. If the 14th can be misconstrued to cover EVERYBODY, in essence violating the rights of 85% of the country in support of 1.8% of the country, then the FIRST amendment protections of free speech can be “interpreted” to to mean “only in newsprint” and certainly not be extended to radio, TV, or the internet because those forms of communication weren’t even an idea, let alone a reality back in the day.

Conversely, liberals have NO PROBLEM citing that multi-round magazines and grenade launchers couldn’t have been foreseen for their argument to limit our right to self-protection and their lame efforts to abolish the SECOND. Fact of the matter was that the common man was armed to the same “level” as the standing infantry.

The 14th also does NOT cover “anchor babies” of illegals. They are not here under the authority (jurisdiction) of the US government and therefore, don’t qualify.

Lastly, the 10th states, quite emphatically that ANY POWER not expressly given to the FEDS is reserved to the STATES. SCotUS has been violating that for decades.


#5830

btw - the DoI was cited concerning “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”. Yes, PURSUIT of Happiness, not the attainment thereof.


#5831

.
We are told that state laws have been adopted to give “privileges” [a state marriage license] in a manner that does not give equal access to all citizens. But the argument is groundless because under the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment no citizens have been denied “equal access” to a state’s marriage license, so long as they meet the restrictions adopted which apply to all citizens without regard to race or color.

Those who support same sex “marriage” refuse to follow the constitutional path to achieve their goal which is amending a state constitution, or adopting an amendment to our federal Constitution forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex.

Of course, that was tried with the equal rights amendment which the people rejected, and one of the reasons it was rejected was because it would lead to the states being forced to accept same sex “marriages”.

Unfortunately a majority on our Supreme Court has decided to defy both the text and legislative intent of our Constitution and have engaged in judicial tyranny in its same sex marriage case opinion.

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)


#5832

How can there be “judicial tyranny” when no one’s rights have been abridged? The SCOTUS decision, on equal protection grounds, extends to same sex couples benefits and privileges already granted by the state, but doesn’t take away any rights and priviliges already enjoyed by opposite sex couples.

So where’s the “tyanny”? Who’s being harmed?


#5833

When the Supreme Court decides to exercise the powers delegated to Congress by defying the text and legislative intent of our Constitution and impose its whims and fancies as the rule of law, that my friend is the very definition of tyranny!

JWK


The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47



#5834

That’s nuts. Since when has Congress had the power to construe the equal protection clause of the Constitution?

And you avoided my question. Where is the tyranny when no one, and I mean absolutely no one, has had their rights infringed or limited as the result of the Court’s ruling?


#5835

I answered your question by quoting Madison.

Are you suggesting the American People do not have an expectation, or right, that the text and legislative intent of the Constitution will be adhered to?

JWK


#5836

Of what relevance is Madison to the 14th amendment, enacted decades after his demise?

And why shouldn’t gay Americans have the same expectation of the law’s equal protection as straight Americans?


#5837

I do not understand this sexual orientation BS. There is only one sexual orientation. Anything else is deviancy. You want me to believe that people are born gay then provide evidence. IF God makes people gay then he is testing them and so far they are failing miserably by my estimation. This is about as stupid as separating people into races. That in itself is prejudice.


#5838

Did you forget the question you asked? You did ask, “How can there be “judicial tyranny” when no one’s rights have been abridged?”

The quote from Madison helps to define the meaning of tyranny as expressed by one of our nation’s founding fathers.

Are you suggesting the American People do not have an expectation, or “right”, that the text and legislative intent of the Constitution will be adhered to?

JWK


#5839

They should expect the equal protections of any laws passed by a state, just as any citizen of that state should expect the equal protection of any law passed by the state. In fact, whatever restrictions a state adopts when granting the privilege of a marriage license, it must apply equally to all citizens.

Keep in mind the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent was to forbid the states to make distinctions based upon race and color but was not adopted to forbid the states to make distinctions in law based upon age or gender. To prove the point, long after the 14th Amendment was adopted, the 19th Amendment was ratified to forbid distinctions in law based upon sex with regard to the voting privilege. And with regard to age and voting, the 26th Amendment was later adopted which declares “The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.” But this amendment does not forbid or interfere with a state refusing to grant, a drivers license based upon age.

Additionally, there was an attempt to forbid the states to make distinctions in law based upon sex by the Equal Rights Amendment, but it was defeated, and one of the reasons it was defeated was because it might compel the States to accept same sex marriages.

The fact is, until the American people adopt a federal amendment forbidding the states to make distinctions in law based upon sex when granting a marriage license, the States are free to decide this question as each sees fit. And this is confirmed by the 10th Amendment.
*
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.*

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)


#5840

As I’ve told you hundreds of times before, Jazz, NO STATE’S MARRIAGE laws “discriminate” against gays. They may “marry” any consenting adult of the opposite sex that’ll have them…just like “straights.” That being the case, just HOW are they not experiencing the law’s "equal protection?"
If you want to “marry” someone, you must both meet the qualifications that constitute “marriage”…that is, two people of the opposite sex, not closely related, both consenting adults, or with the permission of an adult parent or guardian if close to, but not past, the age of consent.