Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:45:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2683 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
Wrong. Any law that violates the constitution is invalid. The government has
no right what so ever to declare gay marriage illegal. I would argue they
have no right to be involved with marriage at all.
|
Wrong, yourself. The Federal government has no right to make a law
declaring same-sex marriage illegal. They can always make a constitutional
amendment. Also, state governments don’t need to be given specific permission
to do something as long as it is not forbidden to them or specifically given
over to either the federal government or general populace (and the 9th Amendment
does not specifically mention same-sex marriage, so it preclude state rights).
Same-sex marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution, so the 10th
Amendment bumps it down to the states and/or people. If a state declares it
illegal, it’s illegal. If they declare it to be legal, it’s legal in general
for the state, though the wording might allow local goverments to forbid it in
their jurisdiction. If they don’t say anything at all on the matter, it gets
bumped down to the local level until such time as the state decides to say
anything about it. Only if no government level makes a law for or against it
does it fall to the individual people to decide for themselves, like the
decision to post or not post No Trespassing signs on your property.
And state governments have every right to be involved on the legal side of
marriage for the purpose of dealing with such things as divorce settlements,
child custody, alimony, prenups, and inheritence.
| |
Wrong again. It is the judical branch’s right and responsibility to strike
down any law which is unconstitutional.
|
Until such time as the Judiciary does strike it down, you can be prosecuted and
sentanced under that law. And they are not allowed to strike it down until
someone brings a case before them that involves that law (and even then they
often toss it back in your face for legal technicalities without ruling on the
issue at hand). If you give in and accept the jury’s decision in regards to
guilt/punishment, you’ll be expected to serve your sentance until such time as
it is ruled unconstitutional. You might also still be expected to state that
you were arrested when applying for a job, though you can probably get away with
saying that you were not convicted.
| |
It took me a while to find, but I remembered this old post which you might
want to read.
|
What about it? It’s not saying anything that I don’t already acknowledge,
though you might want to reread that first paragraph in regards to your previous
statement about the state governments having no jurisdiction over marriage.
Well, actually, that last bit isn’t exactly true. He seems to have forgotten
that democracies, republics, and democratic republics are all based on the same
ideal of putting power in the hands of the public (they just do it through
slightly different mean), and the US combines elements of democracy,
republicanism (not to be confused with the platforms of Democrats and
Republicans), bureaucracy (appointed officials), and socialism (gov’t controlled
utilities and such).
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
