Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:52:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2792 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> I think you need to get over your notion that I'm out to persecute you or
> whatever paranoid notion it is you hold.
Dude, you've flat out told me to stay out of discussions where I've had more
authority to participate than you, or where the only person who really had
authority to answer was known to be incommunicado at that time. You may not be
seeing yourself as having intent to persecute me (or anyone else, for that
matter), but your behavior exhibits it nonetheless, and I may the only person
who's confronted you on it, but I guarantee that I'm not the only person who
feels that way.
> I don't see the detail as irrelevant in this case.
I don't either, now that I know what you attempted to say. It would have been
much more helpful if you'd said, "But this is unconstitutional," instead of,
"Except when it's unconstitutional." I'd already covered the latter part in a
previous sentance, and I don't see that there was any point in simply restating
it without at least explaining why you were doing so. Now I know.
> Now that I know that you scored in the top 1/2 percent on your year's
> version of the SAT (meaing you did almost as well on the SAT as I did back
> when I took it), I'm assuming your spelling and grammatical errors are
> deliberately introduced for humorous effect, even when I myself don't get
> the joke,
No, I very rarely do such things, and when I do it's usually followed by some
form of smiley to emphasize the fact. I can know how exactly a word is spelled,
and I can be thinking exactly how it should be typed while typing it, but
sometimes I hit the wrong keys anyways (usually I've already hit the backspace
key before I've consciously registered the typo). I've even had problems
writing the lower-case "q" and "g" by hand.
> rather than unknown defects that make your arguments somewhat less polished
> (the most that an error does, it does not refute the argument per se, and I
> have never ever asserted otherwise) or make you look less learned.
"When making assertions about grammar it's best to avoid slipups, it
dilutes your argument..."
That is your exact wording from the first time you pounced on my grammar,
preceded immediately by your claim that I was wrong about a different grammar
issue, that the point wasn't debatable, and that my error was, in large part,
justification for stating your opinion as to either the grammar issue or the
debatability thereof (it's not entirely clear which you meant, on that last
point).
> Since you didn't get the humor in my spotting and noting your errors,
I did not.
> (remember, if you will, that one of my early taglines was "I never make
> misteaks"...
I don't remember ever having read that before, but I don't read every post.
> but took them as serious attacks, there's no humor there to be had so why
> bother?
I don't mind having my typos corrected. I do mind having them dismissively
corrected. But it would probably be best if we continued this part of the
discussion in person, rather than in a public forum. Emotional intent is too
easy to misread in text-based discourse.
> If that was what I was asserting, you'd be correct. But my assertion was
> centered around the hierarchy of rights here. The people's rights are
> primary. State constitutions trump state laws, and federal constitutions
> trump federal laws, state constitutions and state laws.
Individual freedom is intended to be sacred, but the way the US constitution has
to be set up to enforce that, it trumps everything, and individual freedom is
only sacrosanct within the areas prohibited to any governmental level under the
US constitution. Marriage as a 1:1 contract is one of those areas.
State-recognized marriage is not. There are same-sex couples who draft up their
own "marriage" contracts, but for all that it may be designed to give the
partners the same legal responsibilities to each other that a Married couple
has, it is not recognized as Marriage by the state. They don't get any
tax-breaks associated with being Married, they don't get to file a joint tax
return, they may be judged as two single people when applying for adoption, etc.
> Specifically, if a prohibition on polygamy is in fact Federally
> unconstitutional then the Utah prohibition in their constitution is null and
> void.
Now, that one would be a bit tricky to argue, since Utah was required to build
it into their constitution as a requirement for statehood.
> See this post: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=24352 ... Marriage
> does so tie into enumerated rights.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Denying same-sex state-recognized
marriages is not the same as denying gay people the right to get married in a
state-recognized marriage. Yes, it's largely pointless to allow it, but a gay
man has every legal right to get married to a lesbian. It's been ruled that you
can't discriminate against the individual for their own sexual orientation, but
as yet that has only been applied to the individual, not the couple. When the
US constitution is amended to reflect a change in that regard, or when the US
Supreme Court judges that it should be read as such in its present form, then it
will be unconstitutional for any state to restrict state recognized marriage to
man/woman pairings. Until then, the individual's right to associate as he/she
pleases does not automatically convey the states' requirement to acknowledge
that association against their respective wills.
> And this is where the State (state or feds) cannot discriminate, to select
> some relationships as better than others. For to do so violates the equal
> protection clause.
As I read it, they're just not allowed to prohibit same-sex relationships.
They're not required to endorse them.
> Not relevant to the argument at hand. If you want to debate it, start a new
> thread.
It was merely a parallel example.
> No, in fact the hierarchy goes the other way, the rights of the individual
> are paramount and only where explicit powers are given is it different. Do
> you dispute the writings in the Federalist Papers that deal with this point?
Of course not. I'm just looking at the mechanics of how government heirarchy
works rather than the ideals they are intended to support. Any amendment to the
US constitution immediately trumps anything that contradicts it because it is
the ultimate binding legal document. There are only two ways to grant rights to
the People. There either has to be a document saying, with authority, that we
can; or there has to be no document saying, with authority, that we can't. The
9th Amendment says that if we aren't told that "we can't", then it should be
assumed that "we can", but the 10th Amendment says that if the US constitution
doesn't address that particular matter, the state constitutions can. And if the
state constitutions say that "we can't", they trump the 9th Amendment unless it
can be proven that the US constitution prohibits them from doing so.
> > Your rights as an individual are protected only by what is specifically
> > mentioned (or at least inferred) by the US constitution.
>
> No again, The rights of the individual are not limited to those mentioned or
> inferred. The 9th specifically addresses this point.
But the 9th Amendment doesn't prevent those unmentioned rights from being taken
away at the state level by the 10th Amendment. It just means you can't be
arrested for doing something that has not been defined as a crime. Your rights
to free religion, free speech, free press, etc. are protected from revokation at
the state level by the Bill of Rights. Your right to own a car is not.
> And therefore cannot impose any particular requirements or else it's
> discriminatory. All this is plowed ground as far as I am concerned.
It's illegal to discriminate against the individual for their chosen
relationships, but I have not yet seen any evidence that prohibits the
government from discriminating against the relationships themselves. They can't
prohibit you from freely choosing your own interpersonal relationships, but they
are not required to participate in them, which is what a state-issued marriage
license involves. The freedom of religion afforded by the 1st Amendment
likewise doesn't require the states to allow clerical officials to give you your
state-issued marriage certificate. They can't prevent you from having a church
ceremony for religious purposes if you want one, but they can require that you
also participate in a seperate state ceremony if you want to receive your
state-issued marriage license. They wisely choose not to, but they have every
right to step into that minefield if they feel like doing so.
> No, they do not, constitutionally, get to impose terms and conditions. They
> may be defacto doing so but that doesn't make it constitutional.
They are not, constitutionally, prohibited from doing so, either. At least not
in a general sense. They can't generally prohibit Buddhists from getting a
state-issued marriage license, but they do have to meet the same requirements
that any other individual has to meet. As long as an individual state has
defined state-recognized Marriage in terms of a one-man/one-woman relationship,
it's not discriminatory for them to prohibit same-sex unions from qualifying for
the same legal benefits/burdens as a mixed-sex union.
> In this case, though, it was in a post in the most recent large gay marriage
> thread but one, rather than this thread, which I misremembered, I thought it
> was this one.
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=24352
I don't believe I ever read any part of that thread before now, but your
statement falls apart when you get to the DoM Amendment, which only shows that
it's unconstitutional for the federal government to prohibit same-sex marriages,
but not that it is for the state governments to do so. Amendments are the only
way that the federal government can constitutionally revoke powers directly
given to the states by portions of the US constitution, or powers that they have
freely assumed under the 10th Amendment.
> Since I thought it was in this very tree, it seemed reasonable to me that no
> more specific reference was necessary because I was assuming that you were
> conversant with what was said by others in this tree.
My entry into this thread was actually on the subject of the Judeo-Christian
foundation, or lack thereof, of the US constitution.
> But it wasn't. It was in a previous tree (as it happens, not much over a
> month old, but a lot does go on here). Sorry. Perhaps my memory isn't as
> good as yours as to what was where.
I don't remember saying that it wasn't in this tree. In fact, I completely
misunderstood the intent of your post because I wasn't even aware that you
assumed my having read that post as a prereq to figuring out what you were
trying to say.
> Ok, then it's unconstitutional all along. Another exasperating habit, you're
> just messing around instead of addressing the point.
Your "point" falsely asserted that I claimed a law was constitutional until
declared otherwise. My counterpoint was just that I had said no such thing, and
that your arguement fell flat for lack of opposition.
> This discussion breaks down a lot in that no one is as perfect as you, I
> guess.
>
> Or thinks they are and wants everyone to know, anyway, or thinks they have so
> much vital trivia to share on every topic imaginable,. (two more exasperating
> habits)
Pot, kettle, black, Larry. Pot, kettle, black. Actually, that's not entirely
true. I've only posted in a small fraction of o-t.d threads.
> I'll tell you what, though, if you lay off the personal attacks agaist me,
> drop the chip on your shoulder that you seem to carry around which prevents
> you from actually internalising what I say or admitting that my points are
> valid when they are, and in general behave more civilly and stop baiting me,
> this will be the last I'll speak of your many exasperating habits.
Hey, my first behavioral advice to you was that you stop giving yours to me.
I'm not the one looking for a fight, but I'm not going to be bullied by someone
who is.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
