To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 25107
25106  |  25108
Subject: 
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:14:31 GMT
Viewed: 
2827 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
   If a state declares it illegal, it’s illegal.

Unless the state declares something illegal that it is unconstitutional to so declare. For example, if a particular state prevented the right of free assembly or free association, that would be unconstitutional. The supremes might not rule on it on the first try, until someone brought a properly construed test case that they could not decide more narrowly, but lets not confuse defacto with dejure.

You ripped that sentance totally out of context, and by doing so totally failed to add anything new or even contradictory to my original statement as a whole. Let’s look at the key points of the original text:

  
   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 [doesn’t] preclude state rights).

I accidentally left a word out previously (it’s added in brackets), but it pretty much covers the idea that states have to avoid making laws under the two basic situations where it would be unconstitutional for them to do so: 1) where they are specifically forbidden to make such laws, and 2) where such rights have already been assigned to either the federal government or the general populace, and not to them. Free speech is protected under the 1st Amendment, and as such, is disqualified from state jurisdiction.

  
   Same-sex marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution, so the 10th Amendment bumps it down to the states and/or people.

In the discussion at hand, same-sex marriage is the topic, and there’s no mention of marriage anywhere in the US constitution. Therefore, it’s neither prohibited to the states, nor assigned to either the federal government or the general populace. Therefore, it drops down to state jurisdiction by default, until such time as a US constitutional amendment says otherwise.

  
   If a state declares it illegal, it’s illegal.

And this line is implied, by context, as reading “If a state declares [same-sex marriage] illegal, it’s illegal,” and it’s already been established that marriage rights, in general, are not specifically assigned in the US constitution. Therefore, the only constitutionality problems states could have in declaring it legal or illegal is whether or not their individual constitutions declare one way or the other. The US doesn’t outlaw polygamy, but Utah can’t make a law to allow it because their own constitution prohibits it.

  
  
   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,

Or a jury nullfies it.

Technically, the jury qualifies as part of the “Judiciary”, so that falls under the same category.

  
   you can be prosecuted and sentanced under that law.

Defacto, yes. It still may be unconstitutional though.

Doesn’t mean it’s necessarily constitutional or un, just that it may not yet have been found so.

It doesn’t help you much if you’ve plea-bargained yourself into a sentance. Your options for appealling the result will be much more limited, and the jury doesn’t get a say. I think your only chance at that point is that the presiding judge feels that it’s a stinky enough law to refuse to accept your plea-bargain. Either way, there has to be an active case in the system for a law to be struck down for being unconstitutional.



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
 
(...) I'm not convinced that the enjoyment value of the .debate group is added to when you make statements such as that one, which some may perceive as unnecessarily combative. I suggest you temper your words. I'm comfortable with the extraction I (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
 
(...) Unless the state declares something illegal that it is unconstitutional to so declare. For example, if a particular state prevented the right of free assembly or free association, that would be unconstitutional. The supremes might not rule on (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR