Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:14:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1731 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
| |
I know you’re a big states’ rights guy.
|
Where’d you get that? I’m more concerned with whether it’s constitutional for
the federal government to do something than whether the states should or should
not be the final authority. If the federal government wants to pass an
ammendment that relegates authority over marriage to itself, that’s legal. If
they want to pass a law stating that one state cannot impose its own definition
of marriage upon another state, that also appears to be legal. If they want to
pass a law stating the federal definition of marriage...that’s not legal. I
have no general objection to the idea of reducing states’ rights, as long as
it’s done in a constitutionally legal manner.
| |
But one of the things that these sections of the constitution do is spell
out limitations on the federal and state governments.
|
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.
Seems pretty clear that the states are given as much freedom as they are denied.
The federal government is (supposed to be) limited solely to the powers laid out
for it by the constitution, and the states have powers handed specifically to
them. After that, it’s up for grabs, and from what I can see, the states have
first dibs. If they choose not to act upon that, that’s their choice.
| |
The supreme court has supported that the rights granted by common law are
rights for Americans, though the application of and participation in the UCC
(which augments and formalizes the common law) is somewhat weird.
|
I believe that would be where “common law marriage” comes in, would it not?
Common law marriage is a mere formality, not a binding contract issued by the
state. States don’t have to recognize common law marriage as state-defined
marriage (and that’s what this whole guff is about, isn’t it?) unless you sign
the contract under their terms. They can’t prohibit you from saying you’re
married. They can’t prohibit you from feeling married. They can prohibit you
from gaining the legal advantages and status associated with being
state-married.
| |
In any case, I think it’s pretty clear to everyone (but you?) that the ninth
amendment is saying that Americans citizens (not states) have a bunch of
other rights that were not enumerated in the first eight amendments.
|
And the tenth amendment says the states also have a bunch of other rights that
were not enumerated in the first eight amendments, not just the people.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
