Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT."
Joel Send a noteboard - 19/10/2012 03:12:11 PM
For my money, any constitutionally protected right places the burden of proof on the federal government to show the nations highest law is not violated by inferior ones
^Not according to the rational that allowed the SCOTUS to uphold Obamacare. In it Roberts aserts that it is the duty of the court to uphold a law if it is possible under any interpretation. I don"t agree with him, but I am not a SC Justice.
Robamacare violates no constitutionally guaranteed right, not even the right to equal protection under the law, because the uninsured tax penalty is identical for everyone. In fact, the Constitutions Taxing and Spending Clause authorizes that or any other unfirom tax Congress passes and the president signs.
DOMA (and homosexual marriage) is not an equal protections issue, no matter how many people try to claim it is. A hetrosexual and a homosexual have the exact same marriage privledge (it is not a "right" anyways). That is the definition of equal rights.
Whether marriage is a right is irrelevant to the Equal Protection Clause, because all marriage or any other laws must apply equally to everyone. Further, laws allowing some groups yet forbidding others to marry the consenting adult of their choice, with all pursuant rights and privileges, is the definition of unequal protection. Windsor illustrates that nicely: A widow was forced to pay >$300,000 "inheritance" tax on her wifes assets, yet no widow pays any tax on her HUSBANDS assets.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 19/10/2012 at 03:12:25 PM
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
1054 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
- 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
629 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
676 Views
Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause?
- 18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM
746 Views
I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But...
- 18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM
759 Views
I asked her about pending cases taking on Section 2. "None that I know of," she answered. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 12:46:21 AM
278 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
704 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
699 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
- 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
596 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
- 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
672 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
- 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
754 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
- 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
775 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
- 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
297 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
- 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
824 Views
Not really
- 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
741 Views
Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT."
- 19/10/2012 03:12:11 PM
712 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon...
- 19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM
655 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM*
- 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM
302 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
293 Views
provide for us a legal reason why marrying a corporation should be recognized by the US gov't
- 19/10/2012 08:09:08 PM
728 Views
The argument above was that there was no jsutification it should not, thus it should be allowed.
- 19/10/2012 10:57:16 PM
738 Views
you are only offering your own emotional take on a legal decision there is no logic in your posts
- 19/10/2012 11:12:17 PM
651 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
310 Views
saying you should be able to marry a spoon or corporation is not logical reasoning. try again *NM*
- 22/10/2012 06:19:29 PM
286 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
278 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
294 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
- 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
661 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
- 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
627 Views
Ah yes, the fuck you argument... the height of all intelectual persuits... and you call ME emotional
- 23/10/2012 06:47:21 PM
704 Views
i see -- it's ok to be insulting as long as the "f-bomb" is not used. got it.
- 23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM
778 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
302 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
- 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
629 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
- 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
589 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
- 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
608 Views
No, I am not, try reading everything I have written on the subject before jumping to conclusions.
- 22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM
760 Views
It was only a matter of time.
- 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
661 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
- 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
829 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
- 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
743 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
- 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
709 Views
There is no right being denied...
- 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
674 Views
that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM
744 Views
Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM
799 Views
nobody is arguing the legal right to marry, they are arguing about the legal rights marriage gives
- 19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM
651 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
- 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
672 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
- 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
571 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
- 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
697 Views