Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:56:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3066 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 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.
You have an exasperating habit of picking at irrelevent details when debating,
and to my eye, the wording of your post suggests that you were doing it once
again (though you didn't pounce on my grammar error, which is a bit surprising).
When I say that if it's not unconstitutional for a state to pass a certain law,
if you reply to that saying "except when it's unconstitutional", it's entirely
redundant, unless you are pointing out specific grounds to show how it is
unconstitutional after all. Which you didn't.
> I'm comfortable with the extraction I did and with the analysis I performed.
Once again, I assert that your post, as presented, merely echoed my own. It
reminds me of that episode of Futurama where two politicians are debating
against each other using exactly the same platform ("Your $0.03 tax goes too
far!" "And your $0.03 tax doesn't go too far enough!"). It's funny in a comedy
show, but ever so much less so in real life.
> I hold that a thing doesn't have to be explicitly mentioned by name in order
> for it to be covered or treatable.
It still has to tie into something that is mentioned.
> For example there are no explicit mentions of telephones in the
> constitution, yet there have been rulings about the constitutionality of
> wiretapping, the constitutionality of regulations on telephone companies and
> a host of other topics related to telephones. Ditto a large number of other
> things, and concepts (privacy for example, there's no explicit privacy
> right, only a mention of search and seizure, a mention of secure in their
> effects and so forth) not mentioned in the constitution explicitly.
Likewise the USPS gets to use airplanes to ship mail under the law that permits
them to set up "roads" for postal purposes. Yes, I realize that laws, as
written, are sometimes bent so you can follow the intent instead of the letter.
> I hold that marriage is a type of association and a type of contract and
> therefore need not be explicitly mentioned in order to be a protected
> activity that people can engage or not engage in, as they choose. Finding
> otherwise, in my view, is unconstitutional, barring an amendment that
> explicitly modifies it.
I've stated before that you are free to call yourself married, you are free to
feel that you are married, and you are even free to negotiate your own civil
contract to say that you are married (that's where palimony comes from). But
that doesn't mean the state has to recognize it as Marriage. Marriage is a
confused battleground because it's coming from two directions. From the one
side it's a social/religous concept that says any two people (often specified to
be man/woman) can bind themselves together for the purposes of maintaining an
exclusive relationship with each other. From the other side it's a
state-granted title that gives you various political and economic advantages and
disadvantages. They have every right to specify conditions for state-recognized
marriage. If the state wants to define it as a man/woman pairing {[for the
purposes of assigning rights and duties to the married couple]}, they have every
right to do so. Just as how you can call yourself a business, but it doesn't
mean anything in the eyes of the state (except perhaps a legal violation by
operating without a license and such) until you submit to the conditions
outlined for a specific class of business and declare yourself to be one. Or
would you likewise assert that the laws governing various business classes are
unconstitutional because it's fully within your rights to set up a business
contract according to your own terms?
> See above, it is, in my view, a class of activity already covered by various
> provisions of the Bill of Rights. The intent of the FFs, after all, was to
> preserve most freedom of action at the individual citizen level, not to give
> states all powers not explicitly enumerated to individuals or the federal
> goverment.
That may have been the intent, but it's set up as a descending heirarchy, from
federal, to state, to local, to individual. Your rights as an individual are
protected only by what is specifically mentioned (or at least inferred) by the
US constitution. And {state-recognized marriage} is bestowed as a perq, not
imposed as a restriction, so it's exempt by virtue of the fact that it's not
prohibited in any way by the US constitution. They can require that you recite
your vows while performing the Chicken Dance under a blue moon that falls on a
Tuesday in order to qualify for state-recognized marriage if they feel like it,
because state-recognized marriage isn't just a contract between you and your
spouse. It's a 3-way contract between you, your spouse, and the state. And as
a party to the contract, they get to impose terms and conditions as well.
> Not to my satisfaction it hasn't been so established. I think you're
> asserting things that aren't necessarily true.
Read the previous paragraph, and it should help clear things up for you.
> I've already addressed how the constitution applies to marriage upthread and
> it wasn't challenged except by John, and not very effectively by him at that.
I'm through with doing your research for you. I tried that on the NASA/FAA/OCST
bit, and while my findings were quite the opposite of your own, you neglected to
provide any examples to the contrary. If you're the person who's replying, it's
your responsibility to either restate, link to, or at the very least provide
reasonable directions on how to access any information that you want to be
considered as part of your current arguement. You chose not to even mention it
when first replying to me, much less give any indication of where to look for
it.
> > > > 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.
>
> I would invite you to read that bit again.
I read it correctly the first time. I'll remind you that I didn't say anything
about it being constitutional or not. I just said that as long as a law against
it is on the books, it's illegal. And that holds true until such time as the
law is struck from the books (at which point it's retroactively declared to be
not-illegal). It's entirely possible that a flagrantly unconstitutional law
might be left alone by the Judiciary (consider how long the House Unamerican
committee was given free reign).
> Yes, for it to be struck. No, for it to be unconstitutional.
>
> The point I think I've failed to make clearly here is that in my view it
> isn't the striking down that makes a previously constitutional thing now un.
> That's merely the recognition of the fact, not the fact itself. The sky is
> blue most mornings even before I open my eyes and look at it and it's not
> the act of my looking that makes it blue.
Again, I was speaking solely to the legality of the action according to the
specific law, not the constitutionality of that law. Until it's struck from the
books, it is Law, and it can (and probably will) be enforced. You just have to
hope that the first time it hits the court system it will get struck down for
being unconstitutional, and the individual who first stumbles over it (by
accident or intent) isn't unduly punished beyond what's already had to happen to
get it that far (such as having to sit in jail until the case is dismissed).
The danger is that the Judiciary will decide that it is, indeed, constitutional
(which is part of why I don't advocate breaking laws specifically to prove them
to be unconstitutional).
> More specifically it isn't red until just before I glance upwards either.
Sometimes it is. There's even an old sailor's ditty that mentions it. For the
sake of your point, however, let's pretend you said green instead of red, since
that's the one color that I've never seen the sky change to (rainbows don't
count).
> You can say that something is defacto constitutional prior to being struck if
> you like, I suppose, but if it is struck, it never really WAS constitutional.
I could (1st Amendment, after all), but I didn't.
> This breaks down a bit in that the supremes aren't perfect.
This breaks down a lot in that noone is perfect.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
