Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: The US constitution

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,062

    The US constitution

    Does an act of congress trump the words written in the US constitution?


    Does a state constitution or state law trump the words written in the US constitution?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Every time one of the Republican presidential candidates speak all I hear is the sound of the marching boots of the Brown shirts.

    "Saying I can't get married because it violates your religion is like me saying you can't eat donuts because it violates my diet!" -------anonymous

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew S View Post
    Does an act of congress trump the words written in the US constitution?


    Does a state constitution or state law trump the words written in the US constitution?
    No and No.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    No and No.
    Then explain DOMA please?


    The state of Iowa issues one marriage license how can the other states or the federal government recognise some of Iowas marriage licenses but not all?

    14 amendment
    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.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Every time one of the Republican presidential candidates speak all I hear is the sound of the marching boots of the Brown shirts.

    "Saying I can't get married because it violates your religion is like me saying you can't eat donuts because it violates my diet!" -------anonymous

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew S View Post
    Then explain DOMA please?
    For one, states never needed to recognize other states marriages anyway as this is a way to circumvent a state law which is traditionally been disallowed. This is always been the original meaning of Article 4 Section 1. So DOMA was worthless there. As for the other part which sets the standard for federal government, I'm not sure it violates the constitution since it is only for federal purposes.

    The state of Iowa issues one marriage license how can the other states or the federal government recognise some of Iowas marriage licenses but not all?
    See above

    The 14th amendment has nothing to do with this.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    For one, states never needed to recognize other states marriages anyway as this is a way to circumvent a state law which is traditionally been disallowed. This is always been the original meaning of Article 4 Section 1. So DOMA was worthless there. As for the other part which sets the standard for federal government, I'm not sure it violates the constitution since it is only for federal purposes.

    See above

    The 14th amendment has nothing to do with this.
    Iowa issues one marriage license for everyone. How is it that the other states and the federal government get to pick and choose? Either a state recognises all marriage licenses from another state or it does not recognise any from that state. How is one Iowa marriage license different from another? The 14th has everything to do with this equal protection under the law. If the federal government recognises Iowa marriage licenses then it must recognise all Iowa marriage licenses.

    How is DOMA not a violation of equal protection?

    The words in the constitution are very clear and in plain english. As one who worships the literalicy of the constitution, as you do and have preached in the past, I thought you would agree with me.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Every time one of the Republican presidential candidates speak all I hear is the sound of the marching boots of the Brown shirts.

    "Saying I can't get married because it violates your religion is like me saying you can't eat donuts because it violates my diet!" -------anonymous

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    Sorry, if you believe in the constitution you shouldn't believe the federal government should be involved in marriage at all.

    The founding fathers never would have considered that the government should be involved in licensing relationships, and it was largely introduced to try and stop the increasing trend of interracial marriages.

    The constitution isn't about the equal application of government overreach.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way whether directly or indirectly participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    Sorry, if you believe in the constitution you shouldn't believe the federal government should be involved in marriage at all.

    The founding fathers never would have considered that the government should be involved in licensing relationships, and it was largely introduced to try and stop the increasing trend of interracial marriages.

    The constitution isn't about the equal application of government overreach.
    What was has nothing to do with what is and the way things currently are. How ever I have the same license that everyone else who gets married in Iowa why does Michigan and the federal government get to pick and choose between people with the same piece of paper? The laws for the same contract should apply equally to all.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Every time one of the Republican presidential candidates speak all I hear is the sound of the marching boots of the Brown shirts.

    "Saying I can't get married because it violates your religion is like me saying you can't eat donuts because it violates my diet!" -------anonymous

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    If the constitutionality of a law "has nothing to do with the way things are" then don't bring up the constitution in your argument, it just makes you a hypocrite and a phony. The increased application of unconstitutional law does not improve it.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way whether directly or indirectly participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    If the constitutionality of a law "has nothing to do with the way things are" then don't bring up the constitution in your argument, it just makes you a hypocrite and a phony. The increased application of unconstitutional law does not improve it.
    However it says what it says. why do you avoid the question? Oh that's right!!!!!! I forgot you don't believe gay people should be able to marry in the first place.


    If couple A and couple B get a marriage licences from the state of Iowa then the Federal government and the other states can not under the federal constitution say that couple A's license is valid but couple B's is not valid. The make up of the couples is irrelevant.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Every time one of the Republican presidential candidates speak all I hear is the sound of the marching boots of the Brown shirts.

    "Saying I can't get married because it violates your religion is like me saying you can't eat donuts because it violates my diet!" -------anonymous

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    Correction: Under the constitution the federal government cannot license ANYONE's relationship, gay or straight, to claim otherwise is to expose yourself as a hypocrite.

    Equal protection under the law means exactly that, not one set of laws for people in state-sanctioned relationships, and another for singles and everyone else. The only approach that is constitutional is for government to get out of marriage, and the only approach that is equitable is for the government to get out of marriage.

    Why don't you just admit this and move on? Of course, it's because you love big government more than you care about peoples' rights, you would rather rub it in the face of the Christians than attain actual equality.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way whether directly or indirectly participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew S View Post
    Iowa issues one marriage license for everyone. How is it that the other states and the federal government get to pick and choose? Either a state recognises all marriage licenses from another state or it does not recognise any from that state. How is one Iowa marriage license different from another?
    They don't have to recognize licenses that go against their own law. Basically it prevents circumventing the law.

    The 14th has everything to do with this equal protection under the law. If the federal government recognizes Iowa marriage licenses then it must recognize all Iowa marriage licenses.
    First off, states honoring other states licenses would be Article 4 Section 1...not the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. In fact, you might say it violates equal protection to validate gay Iowa marriages in Illinois but not validate a gay marriage in Illinois. With that said I still think that misses the point of the equal protection clause. So in either instance your argument fails.

    How is DOMA not a violation of equal protection?
    Because equal protection of the laws means something different than what you think it means. You always forgot "of the laws". You can't give someone 15 years in jail for stealing because they are gay and 5 years because they are straight.

    The words in the constitution are very clear and in plain english. As one who worships the literalicy of the constitution, as you do and have preached in the past, I thought you would agree with me.
    For the millionth time, I don't worship the "literalicy" (sic) of the constitution. I support the original meaning which is the only rational manner to interpret a constitution of laws.

    Historical Meaning Behind 'Equal Protection of the Laws'

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    They don't have to recognize licenses that go against their own law. Basically it prevents circumventing the law.
    No It means that couple A and couple B have the same license they have the same license reguardless of who makes up couple a or b.



    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    First off, states honoring other states licenses would be Article 4 Section 1...not the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. In fact, you might say it violates equal protection to validate gay Iowa marriages in Illinois but not validate a gay marriage in Illinois. With that said I still think that misses the point of the equal protection clause. So in either instance your argument fails.

    It is the same license it is the same piece of paper. If the state of michigan is going to recognise any licenses from Iowa they must recognise all or none period.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Because equal protection of the laws means something different than what you think it means. You always forgot "of the laws". You can't give someone 15 years in jail for stealing because they are gay and 5 years because they are straight.

    It is the same license it is the same piece of paper. If the state of michigan is going to recognise any licenses from Iowa they must recognise all or none period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    For the millionth time, I don't worship the "literalicy" (sic) of the constitution. I support the original meaning which is the only rational manner to interpret a constitution of laws.
    So now the constitution doesn't mean what it says when it is not convient for you.
    It is the same license it is the same piece of paper. If the state of michigan is going to recognise any licenses from Iowa they must recognise all or none period.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Every time one of the Republican presidential candidates speak all I hear is the sound of the marching boots of the Brown shirts.

    "Saying I can't get married because it violates your religion is like me saying you can't eat donuts because it violates my diet!" -------anonymous

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    6,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    Correction: Under the constitution the federal government cannot license ANYONE's relationship, gay or straight, to claim otherwise is to expose yourself as a hypocrite.
    Never said they issued them but they do recognise a marriage license issued by a state.
    It is the same license it is the same piece of paper. If the state of michigan is going to recognise any licenses from Iowa they must recognise all or none period.


    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    Equal protection under the law means exactly that, not one set of laws for people in state-sanctioned relationships, and another for singles and everyone else. The only approach that is constitutional is for government to get out of marriage, and the only approach that is equitable is for the government to get out of marriage.
    It is the same license it is the same piece of paper. If the state of michigan is going to recognise any licenses from Iowa they must recognise all or none period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    Why don't you just admit this and move on? Of course, it's because you love big government more than you care about peoples' rights, you would rather rub it in the face of the Christians than attain actual equality.
    It is the same license it is the same piece of paper. If the state of michigan is going to recognise any licenses from Iowa they must recognise all or none period.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Every time one of the Republican presidential candidates speak all I hear is the sound of the marching boots of the Brown shirts.

    "Saying I can't get married because it violates your religion is like me saying you can't eat donuts because it violates my diet!" -------anonymous

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew S View Post
    No It means that couple A and couple B have the same license they have the same license reguardless of who makes up couple a or b.
    This has never in our history been the case. Even contract law (which is basically what a marriage is) can be voided in another state.

    It is the same license it is the same piece of paper. If the state of michigan is going to recognise any licenses from Iowa they must recognise all or none period.
    You can say it all you want but it still isn't true and the law is clear on that. You haven't shown otherwise.

    So now the constitution doesn't mean what it says when it is not convient for you.
    Oh, it means what it says...you just don't know what it says.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    205
    Steve would be right. Marriage is just a contract. In none of the states is there a right to marry. The privileges or immunities clause therefore doesn't apply. Neither would the 14th Amendment, since there is no federal right to marry, either.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •