He said basically that 'freedom of religion' means the government can't take away that liberty, and he said the supreme court has no power compared to the constitution.
Then he brought out this REALLY boring guy, who actually was using slaves and nazi's as examples. Frankly anyone who has to use nazi's to prove their point is of severely limited mental scope, in my opinion. But whatever.
Then he (alex) went on about alcohol which really didn't have much to do with polygamy. He blah-blah'ed some more about how he was right. He seemed upset that oprah had a crayon. And that's pretty much the end.
My last line got cut off so I'll copy it for ya
So what did we prove? That the consitution allows for the limiting of liberties as long as it's done in all due process. Hooray.
This was basically the point around which his argument falls apart. He says the 5th amendment protects the freedom of religion party, but he actually ignores part of what it says.
Near the end it says "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; " And he always focuses on the liberty part without focusing on the 'due process' part. However if you read the whole line, it indicates that people can't be deprived of liberties without due process of law. If there is due process though, liberties can be taken away. That's why you have to have a trial before throwing a criminal in prison. Without the trial, prisons would be unconstitutional.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by Blurr I'll sum it up for ya methane. He said basically that 'freedom of religion' means the government can't take away that liberty, and he said the supreme court has no power compared to the constitution. Supreme Court are below the Constitution. They are human therefore they can break the law just like We The People can break the law of the Constitution. Then he brought out this REALLY boring guy, who actually was using slaves and nazi's as examples. Frankly anyone who has to use nazi's to prove their point is of severely limited mental scope, in my opinion. But whatever. Prove that using the word Nazi means little brain power. Then he (alex) went on about alcohol which really didn't have much to do with polygamy. Marriage does not hurt anybody but then you say Polygamists have a high probability of molestation. Alcohol hurts nobody but has a high probability for rape, murder,...ect for anyone who gets drunk. Alcohol is legal and Polygamy marriage isn't. It makes no sense. He blah-blah'ed some more about how he was right. He seemed upset that oprah had a crayon. And that's pretty much the end. I was joking about Oprah. You mentioned crayons when I used color before. My last line got cut off so I'll copy it for ya So what did we prove? That the consitution allows for the limiting of liberties as long as it's done in all due process. Hooray. That's BS.
This was basically the point around which his argument falls apart. He says the 5th amendment protects the freedom of religion party, but he actually ignores part of what it says. I didn't ignore it. Near the end it says "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; " Polygamy marriage does not infringe on YOUR or ANYBODY elses liberty! Therefore due process of law has nothing it can do. And he always focuses on the liberty part without focusing on the 'due process' part. However if you read the whole line, it indicates that people can't be deprived of liberties without due process of law. If there is due process though, liberties can be taken away. In that case our government could get the Supreme court to completely ignore the Constitution and interpret however they want, then use due process of law and before you know it we are under a fascist government. That's why you have to have a trial before throwing a criminal in prison. Without the trial, prisons would be unconstitutional.
"Ah exactly! Too bad this is where your argument falls apart. Polygamy would be a liberty. Liberty cannot be deprived without due process of law. This means, as long as they went through the proper legal processes, they can take away any liberty they deem necessary. Including polygamy. Hooray." You missed a few key words in the definition.
Due process of law is a legal concept that ensures the government will RESPECT ALL of a person's legal RIGHTS instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. The government must respect ALL Amendments. They can't take it away, unless you infringed on those amendments which Polygamy marriage does not. It does not infringe on YOUR liberty, YOUR life, or YOUR property or ANYBODY elses.
I also say you say something like "But the woman doesn't have the same privileges as the wife". You must understand the government does not gives us privileges. We did not create the government so they could control us and give us privileges. We have rights.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Article VI clause 2 This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are “the supreme law of the land”. Also included are treaties made “under the Authority of the United States”. Since all government power is explicitly limited by the Constitution, the President does not have the authority to entertain or sign, and the Senate does not have the authority to ratify, any treaty which purports to supercede to the Constitution. All of the laws and treaties of the United States must carry out or put into effect all Constitutional guarantees without conflict, or they are NOT considered part of the supreme law. Anything which does not conform to the general principles of the Constitution are “contrary” to the Constitution, and therefore they are “notwithstanding”. They are NOT law, even if they happen to be written on fancy paper with important seals and signatures. It doesn’t matter. Perhaps the best summary of this idea is the famous Supreme Court decision of Marbury .vs. Madison where the court ruled that any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.
A lesser known court case states: 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it… No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
Think about it. Imagine that Congress announces that the First Amendment has been repealed, and your freedom of speech and freedom of religion are now privileges granted and regulated by the government. Would you sit quietly and keep your ideas to yourself? Would you stop going to church or practicing your religion in other ways? I certainly hope not!
My rights do not come from a piece of paper! My rights are un-a-LEIN-able, meaning that no one can put leins or conditions on them. If our own government decides to burn the Constitution and shred the Bill of Rights, it wouldn’t have any affect on my individual rights.
Government does not grant rights but rather acknowledges them, they exist independently of government as part of who and what we are; as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the only legitimate function of government is to secure them.
THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT GIVE US OUR RIGHTS, THEREFORE THEY CANNOT TAKE THEM AWAY.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Sorry, I'm not really involved in this subject one way or another.
But I AM a criminal justice major, and that hoop-lay of a post you just made there on the constitution?
PROVED NOTHING to your case. You simply discussed the constitution. The constitution is the framework, the foundation for law in the United States. It's not the building itself. The constitution gives the authority to Congress to make laws. To the executive branch to execute them. And to the Supreme Court to interpret them. By the constitution, once the Supreme Court interprets a law to mean a certain thing - that's it, end of story. That's why they are referred to as "The supreme law of the land". Congress can make as many laws as it wants, but the Supreme Court can (and does) knock them down over and over.
So the other poster is incorrect. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this subject. It's the law of the land. Period.
I also have about 15 years of public speaking and teaching under my belt. One thing you need to learn mate? Is brevity. You will lose your target audience with posts that long, at best.
Sorry, I'm not really involved in this subject one way or another.
But I AM a criminal justice major, and that hoop-lay of a post you just made there on the constitution?
PROVED NOTHING to your case. You simply discussed the constitution. The constitution is the framework, the foundation for law in the United States. And it's very important to understand it when discussing this subject. It's not the building itself. The constitution gives the authority to Congress to make laws. We The People give the authority for Congress to make the laws within the with limits of the Constitution. Those limits are the Amendments. To the executive branch to execute them.
And to the Supreme Court to interpret them. Show me where in the Constitution it says interpret. Anyways it won't matter because those interpretations cannot infringe on the amendments.
Congress shall make NO F*CKING LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.
So how does the SUPREME F*CKING COURT INTERPRET A LAW THAT CONGRESS SHALL NOT MAKE?
By the constitution, once the Supreme Court interprets a law to mean a certain thing - that's it, end of story. That's why they are referred to as "The supreme law of the land". The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution....you idi...
Congress can make as many laws as it wants, but the Supreme Court can (and does) knock them down over and over.
So the other poster is incorrect. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this subject. It's the law of the land. Period.
I also have about 15 years of public speaking and teaching under my belt. One thing you need to learn mate? Is brevity. You will lose your target audience with posts that long, at best. I had to put everything I could in one post; otherwise if I made 2 posts for Blurr then the first post would be forgotten.
So basically the Supreme Court can take away all our rights, and everything that our forefathers fought for?
Could the Supreme Court just say "Hmm i'm going to interpret the 2nd amendment so that people are allowed to keep and bare their arms...we may not chop them off."
Interpretation ftw! Now the Constitution is the friggen Bible.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
But see Alex, that's where your whole argument falls apart.
It's unconstitutional to lock someone in a prison right? Yet there are prisons full of criminals who have had a number of their liberties taken away.
To quote YOU "Due process of law is a legal concept that ensures the government will RESPECT ALL of a person's legal RIGHTS instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property."
EXACTLY! See, as long as they go through the proper legal processes, making sure they respect all of the persons rights, they can take some of those rights away if they feel it's better for the country. That's why that clause is in there (about due process) because there has to be conditions under which the government can take away someone's rights. That's the whole point. You can't just dismiss it and say "That's BS". No, that's not an argument. That's an opinion that you don't like how the constitution works. The fact is that these powers of the Supreme Court were built in to the constitution exactly for cases like these.
"I also say you say something like "But the woman doesn't have the same privileges as the wife". You must understand the government does not gives us privileges. We did not create the government so they could control us and give us privileges. We have rights." Actually, the government does get to say who gets the right of legal status in the country. They get to say who gets the privileges of tax benefits, etc, etc.
"This Constitution, AND the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Don't you get it? They are specifically within their power to do all this stuff. You don't seem to understand that the Constitution specifically states that there are conditions under which one's liberties can be taken away. You are arguing that anyone put in prison is going against the constitution. The consitution was made with situations where ones liberties could be taken away if it benefitted the country.
"So basically the Supreme Court can take away all our rights, and everything that our forefathers fought for?" If they go through all due process, yes. I'm sure in every single polygamy case in the last 150 years, the whole constitution argument has been brought up. Also, since it is still illegal, then it appears that in every polygamy case before the court, in the last 150 years, the laws deemed to be within the constitution . Judges don't get elected without knowing what they're talking about. It says in the constitution that the laws they make are the supreme law of the land. It says that they are allowed to take away liberties if it's deemed necessary. It's all outlined in the consitution you're just ignoring those parts.
That being said, I'm off for vacation for a few days, have fun.
Oh and I'll leave you with some food for thought. The middle east is full of legal polygamy. The middle east is also an example of a society that severely opresses women. In Iran a 13 year old girl was executed because she stabbed a guy when him and his friends were trying to rape her and her younger (!!!) cousin. Do you want to take a step towards that level of opression for women?
Edit: you added so here's some updates.
"So how does the SUPREME F*CKING COURT INTERPRET A LAW THAT CONGRESS SHALL NOT MAKE?"Because the Supreme Court was making its own laws or interpreting the laws of the constitution.
" By the constitution, once the Supreme Court interprets a law to mean a certain thing - that's it, end of story. That's why they are referred to as "The supreme law of the land". The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution....you idi... " Now now, no name calling. You agree that the laws made by the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land. Namely because of "This Constitution, AND the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by Blurr But see Alex, that's where your whole argument falls apart. It's unconstitutional to lock someone in a prison right? Yet there are prisons full of criminals who have had a number of their liberties taken away. To quote YOU "Due process of law is a legal concept that ensures the government will RESPECT ALL of a person's legal RIGHTS instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property." EXACTLY! See, as long as they go through the proper legal processes, making sure they respect all of the persons rights. EXACTLY! They must respect our first and fifth Amendment!
they can take some of those rights away if they feel it's better for the country. Where is "if they feel it's better for the country" in the Constitution? If they happened to be Christians or Muslims then we would be probably be in a theocracy, correct?
We are a nation of Constitutional laws created by We The People (We are The Creator), not a nation of morals and feelings. If that was the case then we would be a democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic. That's why that clause is in there (about due process) because there has to be conditions under which the government can take away someone's rights. That's the whole point. You can't just dismiss it and say "That's BS". No, that's not an argument. That's an opinion that you don't like how the constitution works. The fact is that these powers of the Supreme Court were built in to the constitution exactly for cases like these. "I also say you say something like "But the woman doesn't have the same privileges as the wife". You must understand the government does not gives us privileges. We did not create the government so they could control us and give us privileges. We have rights." Actually, the government does get to say who gets the right of legal status in the country. They get to say who gets the privileges of tax benefits, etc, etc. Lets not get into taxes, because that's a whole different debate. "This Constitution, AND the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." This means that the Constitution itself is a law which it is the duty of the courts (State as well as National) to uphold and enforce as they do all other laws. A law of Congress to be one of the supreme laws must be "made in pursuance thereof" and not in conflict with the Constitution. When not made in pursuance thereof it is of course unconstitutional and of no effect, a nullity, therefore null and void. So when you say "AND the Laws of the United States" you forget that those laws had to be in line with the Constitution as well. You simply can't have "The Constitution AND laws that contradict it". Don't you get it? They are specifically within their power to do all this stuff. You don't seem to understand that the Constitution specifically states that there are conditions under which one's liberties can be taken away. Uhhh. We have something called unalienable rights. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect. You are arguing that anyone put in prison is going against the constitution. The consitution was made with situations where ones liberties could be taken away if it benefitted the country. NO I HAVEN'T, YOU SIMPLY HAVEN'T BEEN LISTENING TO ME!!!!!!! EVERYONE HAS THESE RIGHTS, BUT IF I SMACK YOU AND PUSH YOU DOWN THE STAIRS, THEN I INFRINGED ON YOUR RIGHTS AND NOW I MUST GO THROUGH DUE PROCESS OF LAW!!!!!!!! Is marriage smacking you and pushing you down the stairs? Are these people walking down the aisle smacking you? Are they physically hurting you, by walking down the aisle and saying "I do"? Because if so, I want the power of polygamy to have those paranormal powers too! I would marry 10 woman just to make smack you sooo hard. I would marry 10 woman because according to you, it is infringing on your rights...imagine if I infringed on your rights x10!? "So basically the Supreme Court can take away all our rights, and everything that our forefathers fought for?" If they go through all due process, yes. No because they must respect all our rights throughout due process!!!! If you see the Constitution you will see that at the beginning they list the Bill of Rights at the beginning. Why? Because that's the MOST important part and everything after simply SUPPORTS it. The government is about serving the PEOPLE INDIVIDUALLY. They MUST TREAT A POLYGAMIST WITH EQUAL TREATMENT BECAUSE THEY SERVE UNDER THE POLYGAMIST...or just call him/her a US Citizen. We The People (Polygamists are included) wrote those amendments so the government was limited from infringing them. Why would Polygamists allow their rights to be infringed upon by their government? They wouldn't. I'm sure in every single polygamy case in the last 150 years, the whole constitution argument has been brought up. Also, since it is still illegal, then it appears that in every polygamy case before the court, in the last 150 years, the laws deemed to be within the constitution . We The People are sovereign citizens. We can defy the government because we created them, heck we can abolish them if we want and put a new government in place, with a new or revised Constitution. George Washington said it even could possibly get bloody! You should be very familiar with this concept of "creator" and "created"; you're a Christian. So who has more power, God "the Creator", or you "the Created" in your religion?
We can't simply comply with all their laws or else very quickly it will turn tyrannical. Our forefathers knew this. The only reason we created the government for was to step in if someone was infringing on another person's rights. Then the government steps in and solves the problem peacefully. The government went too far by banning polygamist weddings therefore the Polygamists, being sovereign, can say "No!", defy them, and continue practicing their religion/belief/choice...whatever. We The People can't just say "government DO NOT cross this line,...ok DO NOT cross THIS line,...uhhh don't cross THIS line now....ect"; soon you're backed into a corner and shipped off to concentration camps.
We live in a Constitutional Republic. That means no matter how many people want to ban Polygamy, they simply can't. The government must step in and say "No! You cannot infringe on their (the minority's) rights!". They aren't doing that therefore that government is breaking the Constitution. We The People aren't doing anything wrong.
Judges don't get elected without knowing what they're talking about. Presidents do. ...That's if they actually got "elected". It says in the constitution that the laws they make are the supreme law of the land. Where does it say that "judges create the law and it is supreme"? It says that they are allowed to take away liberties if it's deemed necessary. Government is there to protect liberties. That's their purpose. If someone infringes another persons liberties then the government steps in and protects the victims liberties. It's all outlined in the consitution you're just ignoring those parts. You're ignoring parts. That being said, I'm off for vacation for a few days, have fun. Yay. Oh and I'll leave you with some food for thought. The middle east is full of legal polygamy. The middle east is also an example of a society that severely opresses women. In Iran a 13 year old girl was executed because she stabbed a guy when him and his friends were trying to rape her and her younger (!!!) cousin. Do you want to take a step towards that level of opression for women? uhh no?
"So how does the SUPREME F*CKING COURT INTERPRET A LAW THAT CONGRESS SHALL NOT MAKE?"Because the Supreme Court was making its own laws or interpreting the laws of the constitution. Supreme Court is of the the JUDICIAL branch, not the LEGISLATIVE branch.
" By the constitution, once the Supreme Court interprets a law to mean a certain thing - that's it, end of story. That's why they are referred to as "The supreme law of the land". The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution....you idi... " Now now, no name calling. You agree that the laws made by the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land. Namely because of "This Constitution, AND the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." When a case arises in a State court and involves a question of the Constitution, or of an act of Congress, or of a treaty, it is the duty of the court to follow and enforce the National law; for the Constitution explicitly and emphatically requires that "the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Should a State law, for example, deny "the equal protection of the laws" by favoring one class of citizens as against another; or should a State pass an ex post facto law, or tax exports, or interfere with commerce among the States, or take private property for public use without compensation, or do any other of many things forbidden by the Constitution which have been done: and should the Supreme Court of the State uphold such a law in a case brought by a citizen claiming to be wronged, then "the judicial power of the United States" would "extend" to such a case and it would be the duty of the Supreme Court of the Nation to reverse the ruling of the tribunal of the State and to declare the law of the State to be void and inoperative because of conflict with "the supreme law of the land.", not their interpretation. (Constitutional laws only)
Supreme Court: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
“A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the state’s moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review.” —Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. What's that Blurr? huh....huh? Judges don't get elected without knowing what they're talking about?
Lawrence vs Texas implies: Only people entitled to decide whether an intimate relationship is meaningful enough to deserve legal protection are the parties to that relationship themselves. - Lawrence vs Texas.
" By the constitution, once the Supreme Court interprets a law to mean a certain thing - that's it, end of story. That's why they are referred to as "The supreme law of the land". The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution....you idi... " Now now, no name calling. You agree that the laws made by the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land. Namely because of "This Constitution, AND the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." When a case arises in a State court and involves a question of the Constitution, or of an act of Congress, or of a treaty, it is the duty of the court to follow and enforce the National law; for the Constitution explicitly and emphatically requires that "the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Should a State law, for example, deny "the equal protection of the laws" by favoring one class of citizens as against another; or should a State pass an ex post facto law, or tax exports, or interfere with commerce among the States, or take private property for public use without compensation, or do any other of many things forbidden by the Constitution which have been done: and should the Supreme Court of the State uphold such a law in a case brought by a citizen claiming to be wronged, then "the judicial power of the United States" would "extend" to such a case and it would be the duty of the Supreme Court of the Nation to reverse the ruling of the tribunal of the State and to declare the law of the State to be void and inoperative because of conflict with "the supreme law of the land.", not their interpretation. (Constitutional laws only)
Supreme Court: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
“A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the state’s moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review.” —Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. What's that Blurr? huh....huh? Judges don't get elected without knowing what they're talking about?
Lawrence vs Texas implies: Only people entitled to decide whether an intimate relationship is meaningful enough to deserve legal protection are the parties to that relationship themselves. - Lawrence vs Texas.
" By the constitution, once the Supreme Court interprets a law to mean a certain thing - that's it, end of story. That's why they are referred to as "The supreme law of the land". The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution....you idi... " Now now, no name calling. You agree that the laws made by the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land. Namely because of "This Constitution, AND the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." When a case arises in a State court and involves a question of the Constitution, or of an act of Congress, or of a treaty, it is the duty of the court to follow and enforce the National law; for the Constitution explicitly and emphatically requires that "the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Should a State law, for example, deny "the equal protection of the laws" by favoring one class of citizens as against another; or should a State pass an ex post facto law, or tax exports, or interfere with commerce among the States, or take private property for public use without compensation, or do any other of many things forbidden by the Constitution which have been done: and should the Supreme Court of the State uphold such a law in a case brought by a citizen claiming to be wronged, then "the judicial power of the United States" would "extend" to such a case and it would be the duty of the Supreme Court of the Nation to reverse the ruling of the tribunal of the State and to declare the law of the State to be void and inoperative because of conflict with "the supreme law of the land.", not their interpretation. (Constitutional laws only)
Supreme Court: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
“A law branding one class of persons as criminal solely based on the state’s moral disapproval of that class and the conduct associated with that class runs contrary to the values of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, under any standard of review.” —Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. What's that Blurr? huh....huh? Judges don't get elected without knowing what they're talking about?
Lawrence vs Texas implies: Only people entitled to decide whether an intimate relationship is meaningful enough to deserve legal protection are the parties to that relationship themselves. - Lawrence vs Texas.
In the end, Blurr, you simply don't understand America's history, our government, liberty, nor our sovereignty.
Also you ignore a large part of my argument which is the Constitution Class. It does not mention Polygamy anywhere but it does explain in greater detail and depth what i'm trying to tell you (which in the end would answer whether Polygamists are infringing on anything). If I were to try and explain everything then I would have to write a book. The Constitution class is 7 hours and it's the based off the book this Constitution expert wrote. I know 7 hours is long but the Constitution is a very complex document. It has A LOT of history that needs to be known in order to correctly perceive the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
You sound like you support marriage licenses, but did you know marriage licenses are racist? For a long time interracial marriages were illegal (I bet you would support that back in the day, because lawmakers are always right?) until after the civil war. Then the only way to get married as a black person to a white person was to get a marriage license, because blacks weren't given "rights", they were given "privileges". We really just didn't want interracial marriages. They had to ask and be granted a license in order to marry white people. White people had "rights" and so they could marry white people and black people, but the black person had to get a license first. Here is Constitution Class number 2 out of 7: It explains what i'm telling you much better; it's all at the beginning. Although it's easier to understand if you watch absolute beginning which is part 1, but I guess that is asking too much.
So stop using this BS excuse about politicians deciding only "two people can get a marriage license and so that must be righteous because our country is influenced by Christians!"....It looks bad for Christians. Still it is a BS excuse because racism is illegal, therefore licenses have no place, not that they did ever before.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
- The Constitution created the Supreme Court to be in charge of the legal system
- The Supreme Court is filled with people chosen by a government official (the President I think).
- The official who chooses supreme court judges is elected by the people (or elected by groups elected by the people, I dunno the whole US voting process, I don't really need to).
- The Supreme Court has conditions under which it can revoke your liberties.
- The Supreme Court has outlawed polygamy.
- Polygamy doesn't work in practice, becuase it eventually leads to the opression of women and children.
- Polygamy causes conflict with non-polygamist societies around it.
- Polygamy has been deemed by the society at large to be incompatible with the rest of american society.
- People who are anti-polygamy are elected, and thus given the power (see above).
- These elected officials use the power given to them (by "..the majority, who presumably are people who are not interested in [polygamy], and the like..." who have "... set forth the conditions under which government shall have the power to use it's force.") "... to protect peaceful, law-abiding people from the [polygamy] of the small minority of [polygamists] in society. This is one major reason that government is called into existence by the people."
- In 150 years of cases, the Supreme Court's rulings on polygamy have not been found to be 'unconstitutional'.
Most importantly, polygamy was outlawed by the people who founded the US. Kudos to them, and here's for another 150 years of polygamy being illegal.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by Blurr Lets look at the facts: - The Constitution created the Supreme Court to be in charge of the legal system The Judicial Branch was created to interpret laws approved by the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. The Supreme Court is not in charge of the legal system. If anyone is in charge it's the President. He is the one with the duty of enforcing federal laws.
- The Supreme Court is filled with people chosen by a government official (the President I think). - The official who chooses supreme court judges is elected by the people (or elected by groups elected by the people, I dunno the whole US voting process, I don't really need to). - The Supreme Court has conditions under which it can revoke your liberties. The Supreme Court can not revoke liberties.
- The Supreme Court has outlawed polygamy. The Supreme Court cannot outlaw anything. They can only interpret the laws on the books and judge cases accordingly. If a law is misinterpreted by the Supreme Court then it is the Legislative Branch's job to rewrite it more clearly. The Supreme Court has no part in the legislative process outside of judging if a law is constitutional or not.
- Polygamy doesn't work in practice, becuase it eventually leads to the opression of women and children. How does it lead to the oppression of women and children. Explain each situation seperately (women then children). I'm curious how polygamy would oppress them.
- Polygamy causes conflict with non-polygamist societies around it. OMG!!! We don't want people acting different. If anyone acts different than their neighbors they're just great big trouble makers. Conformity is king, right?
- Polygamy has been deemed by the society at large to be incompatible with the rest of american society. American society can deem something wrong all it wants. That doesn't mean that peoples civil rights should be taken away. That would be a democracy where that would happen, but we live in a representative republic where each and every person has been promised their individual rights and freedoms.
- People who are anti-polygamy are elected, and thus given the power (see above). They're given the power to work within the parameters set forth by the Constitution. They can't do anything outside of that. As much as they may dislike something someone is doing, if they are withing their constitutional rights then no elected official can do jack.
- These elected officials use the power given to them (by "..the majority, who presumably are people who are not interested in [polygamy], and the like..." who have "... set forth the conditions under which government shall have the power to use it's force.") "... to protect peaceful, law-abiding people from the [polygamy] of the small minority of [polygamists] in society. This is one major reason that government is called into existence by the people." What kind of threat are polygamists to law abiding people? Tell me how a polygamist is a threat to you and your family?
- In 150 years of cases, the Supreme Court's rulings on polygamy have not been found to be 'unconstitutional'. The Supreme Court once said that owning slaves was constitutional too. Times change when people realize they are acting against peoples rights. Most importantly, polygamy was outlawed by the people who founded the US. Kudos to them, and here's for another 150 years of polygamy being illegal. Again, times change. The Constitution was setup to evolve a nation along principled lines of freedom.
I wonder sometimes why people get so uptight about other people doing what they want.
It makes me think that maybe there is a little jealousy behind that uptightness. Like maybe you see people doing something you want to do, but can't. So you go and get your other jealous friends and petition the government to make people act like you.
Originally posted by reavo I wonder sometimes why people get so uptight about other people doing what they want. It makes me think that maybe there is a little jealousy behind that uptightness. Like maybe you see people doing something you want to do, but can't. So you go and get your other jealous friends and petition the government to make people act like you.
See. There are people who think being who you want to be is a crime. So I say... SUCK IT BUSHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All rights have limits. Just because I say that my religion says I should murder people doesn't mean the constitution protects my "religious belief" in murder. Marriage can and has been regulated.
The stuff that goes on in some polygamist families, i.e. Domestic Violence, molestation, incest, etc., it's really too bad. I read somewhere that some genetic disease that is normally present in like .000002 percent of the population is present in 40% of a single polygamist family because they have inbred so bad.
Originally posted by reavo Originally posted by Blurr Lets look at the facts: - The Constitution created the Supreme Court to be in charge of the legal system The Judicial Branch was created to interpret laws approved by the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. The Supreme Court is not in charge of the legal system. If anyone is in charge it's the President. He is the one with the duty of enforcing federal laws. And the president picks the people on the supreme court.
- The Supreme Court is filled with people chosen by a government official (the President I think). - The official who chooses supreme court judges is elected by the people (or elected by groups elected by the people, I dunno the whole US voting process, I don't really need to). - The Supreme Court has conditions under which it can revoke your liberties. The Supreme Court can not revoke liberties. Of course they can, otherwise they would not be able to put anyone in jail.
- The Supreme Court has outlawed polygamy. The Supreme Court cannot outlaw anything. They can only interpret the laws on the books and judge cases accordingly. If a law is misinterpreted by the Supreme Court then it is the Legislative Branch's job to rewrite it more clearly. The Supreme Court has no part in the legislative process outside of judging if a law is constitutional or not. And they have interpreted the laws as being against polygamy. In 150 years, the laws haven't needed to be rewritten. The Supreme Court has judged that it is constitutional.
- Polygamy doesn't work in practice, becuase it eventually leads to the opression of women and children. How does it lead to the oppression of women and children. Explain each situation seperately (women then children). I'm curious how polygamy would oppress them. Women are treated as slaves, expected to be at their husbands beck and call for sex or anything else he wants. They are taken out of school if they are allowed to go there at all, so their education is stunted. They are basically brainwashed by being told "If you don't act like a slave, god will kill you". Young children (especially girls) are treated the same way. Preteen girls are married off without their consent to 40+ year old men (who already have 5 wives), and expected to perform sexually for them.
- Polygamy causes conflict with non-polygamist societies around it. OMG!!! We don't want people acting different. If anyone acts different than their neighbors they're just great big trouble makers. Conformity is king, right? If my neighbours interfere with my way of life, I have a right to defend that way of life.
- Polygamy has been deemed by the society at large to be incompatible with the rest of american society. American society can deem something wrong all it wants. That doesn't mean that peoples civil rights should be taken away. That would be a democracy where that would happen, but we live in a representative republic where each and every person has been promised their individual rights and freedoms. Promised their rights and freedoms as long as it's within the confines of the law.
- People who are anti-polygamy are elected, and thus given the power (see above). They're given the power to work within the parameters set forth by the Constitution. They can't do anything outside of that. As much as they may dislike something someone is doing, if they are withing their constitutional rights then no elected official can do jack. And it has been rules that polygamy is not within the constitutional rights. By the supreme court which is made to make these rulings.
- These elected officials use the power given to them (by "..the majority, who presumably are people who are not interested in [polygamy], and the like..." who have "... set forth the conditions under which government shall have the power to use it's force.") "... to protect peaceful, law-abiding people from the [polygamy] of the small minority of [polygamists] in society. This is one major reason that government is called into existence by the people." What kind of threat are polygamists to law abiding people? Tell me how a polygamist is a threat to you and your family? Well, I don't know about you, but knowing that 13 year old girls are turned into sex slaves doesn't let me live peacefully next to them.
- In 150 years of cases, the Supreme Court's rulings on polygamy have not been found to be 'unconstitutional'. The Supreme Court once said that owning slaves was constitutional too. Times change when people realize they are acting against peoples rights. Polygamy causes types of slavery. No slavery, no polygamy. How hard is that to understand? Most importantly, polygamy was outlawed by the people who founded the US. Kudos to them, and here's for another 150 years of polygamy being illegal. Again, times change. The Constitution was setup to evolve a nation along principled lines of freedom.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by reavo I wonder sometimes why people get so uptight about other people doing what they want. It makes me think that maybe there is a little jealousy behind that uptightness. Like maybe you see people doing something you want to do, but can't. So you go and get your other jealous friends and petition the government to make people act like you.
Actually, my primary problem is that they are trying to use religion to go around the law. They are trying to say that the law of the land doesn't matter because they suddenly say their religion goes against it.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by abbaba All rights have limits. Just because I say that my religion says I should murder people doesn't mean the constitution protects my "religious belief" in murder. Marriage can and has been regulated. The stuff that goes on in some polygamist families, i.e. Domestic Violence, molestation, incest, etc., it's really too bad. I read somewhere that some genetic disease that is normally present in like .000002 percent of the population is present in 40% of a single polygamist family because they have inbred so bad.
Very good points. Some people say that all the molestation and stuff that happen in polygamist families can happen anywhere. Yet they don't understand the fact that there are so many more cases of these things in polygamist societies, and there are so much fewer polygamist families than anywhere else. It just goes to show that polygamist societies have an incredibly higher chance of being part of these things.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
The Supreme Court cannot outlaw anything. They can only interpret the laws on the books and judge cases accordingly. If a law is misinterpreted by the Supreme Court then it is the Legislative Branch's job to rewrite it more clearly. The Supreme Court has no part in the legislative process outside of judging if a law is constitutional or not.
They can strike down the law as un-constitutional. That falls within their powers. Congress can, has, and does make laws that the constitution does not grant them to make, or does not fall within the spirit of certain constitutional laws. It is up to the Supreme Count acts, as Original and Apellete (though in this case the later) to decide on the constituionality of those laws. Marbudy v. Madison (1803) established this more certainly, although other papers refer to this power as designed by the framers of the Constitution.
Originally posted by abbaba All rights have limits. Just because I say that my religion says I should murder people doesn't mean the constitution protects my "religious belief" in murder. Marriage can and has been regulated. The stuff that goes on in some polygamist families, i.e. Domestic Violence, molestation, incest, etc., it's really too bad. I read somewhere that some genetic disease that is normally present in like .000002 percent of the population is present in 40% of a single polygamist family because they have inbred so bad.
You listed things that you say go on in polygamist families. I can counter that by saying that they also go on in normal families as well. The things you listed are also infringement on others Constitutional rights. Therefore, they are illegal. If you can find a polygamist family that doesn't have those things going on inside their family then you have found a case where there is no direct correlation between the polygamists and the crimes you've outlined. Therefore, you are punishing people for crimes they have not nor intend to commit. This is a violation of their rights.
And as far as that genetic disease thing goes, I would have to see the reports on that from a reliable unbiased source. Because I know that people can marry their cousins and there is no greater chance of a birth defect being present in their offspring.
Originally posted by porgie Originally posted by abbaba All rights have limits. Just because I say that my religion says I should murder people doesn't mean the constitution protects my "religious belief" in murder. Marriage can and has been regulated. The stuff that goes on in some polygamist families, i.e. Domestic Violence, molestation, incest, etc., it's really too bad. I read somewhere that some genetic disease that is normally present in like .000002 percent of the population is present in 40% of a single polygamist family because they have inbred so bad.
You listed things that you say go on in polygamist families. I can counter that by saying that they also go on in normal families as well. The things you listed are also infringement on others Constitutional rights. Therefore, they are illegal. If you can find a polygamist family that doesn't have those things going on inside their family then you have found a case where there is no direct correlation between the polygamists and the crimes you've outlined. Therefore, you are punishing people for crimes they have not nor intend to commit. This is a violation of their rights.
And as far as that genetic disease thing goes, I would have to see the reports on that from a reliable unbiased source. Because I know that people can marry their cousins and there is no greater chance of a birth defect being present in their offspring.
That's just it though porgie. These things do go on in normal families, but the major difference is they are far far more likely to occur in polygamist families. The environment set up by polygamy eventually leads to the slavery of one gender and power-mongering amongst the other. The laws can be made to prevent people from committing crimes they do not intend to commit. That's called prevention.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by Blurr Originally posted by porgie Originally posted by abbaba All rights have limits. Just because I say that my religion says I should murder people doesn't mean the constitution protects my "religious belief" in murder. Marriage can and has been regulated. The stuff that goes on in some polygamist families, i.e. Domestic Violence, molestation, incest, etc., it's really too bad. I read somewhere that some genetic disease that is normally present in like .000002 percent of the population is present in 40% of a single polygamist family because they have inbred so bad.
You listed things that you say go on in polygamist families. I can counter that by saying that they also go on in normal families as well. The things you listed are also infringement on others Constitutional rights. Therefore, they are illegal. If you can find a polygamist family that doesn't have those things going on inside their family then you have found a case where there is no direct correlation between the polygamists and the crimes you've outlined. Therefore, you are punishing people for crimes they have not nor intend to commit. This is a violation of their rights.
And as far as that genetic disease thing goes, I would have to see the reports on that from a reliable unbiased source. Because I know that people can marry their cousins and there is no greater chance of a birth defect being present in their offspring.
That's just it though porgie. These things do go on in normal families, but the major difference is they are far far more likely to occur in polygamist families. The environment set up by polygamy eventually leads to the slavery of one gender and power-mongering amongst the other. The laws can be made to prevent people from committing crimes they do not intend to commit. That's called prevention.
So who decides where you draw the line on this prevention?
There is more domestic violence that occurs in black homes than in white homes. Are you going to say that blacks can't marry anymore? You can take this and apply it to all kinds of situations. I may not like the way my neighbor is teaching his children to worship. I think that maybe him teaching them to follow a nature based religion is going to cause them problems in the future. Should I petition my government to force them to follow a montheistic form of religion? After all, there is a better chance they'll fit in and have a happier life, right?
The kids who were protesting are showing you that you can have happy healthy development in polygamist families. They even feel they are blessed. Are you going to take that away from them by force using your government? What's good for them is good for them. Who are you to go tell them it's not and force your lifestyle on another group of people?
I ask a simple question. How are these people violating your rights by doing what they want to do? And if they are happy the way they are and you are wanting to force your lifestyle on them, then who's violating who's rights?
Originally posted by porgie So who decides where you draw the line on this prevention? There is more domestic violence that occurs in black homes than in white homes. Are you going to say that blacks can't marry anymore? You can take this and apply it to all kinds of situations. I may not like the way my neighbor is teaching his children to worship.
The problem with this association is that There are many factors affecting this.... Anyways You should also know that Black and Hispanic people are much more likely to report Domestic Abuse then other races/ethicities. Add that to the overall lower Social-status....
Sorry i butt in again didn't I... Please continue
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by porgie So who decides where you draw the line on this prevention? There is more domestic violence that occurs in black homes than in white homes. Are you going to say that blacks can't marry anymore? You can take this and apply it to all kinds of situations. I may not like the way my neighbor is teaching his children to worship.
The problem with this association is that There are many factors affecting this.... Anyways You should also know that Black and Hispanic people are much more likely to report Domestic Abuse then other races/ethicities. Add that to the overall lower Social-status....
Sorry i butt in again didn't I... Please continue
You missed the whole point of my argument. My point was where do you draw the line? And when does that line stop being erased and redrawn further into violating peoples rights to make their own decisions.
If you don't believe it is happening then just look at how many rights people had and how much freer they were in the late 1700's and early 1800's compared to now. Our government has grown bigger and bigger and promised more and more to everyone. And people have recipricated by learning that they can use the government to impose their will on others.
You missed the whole point of my argument. My point was where do you draw the line? And when does that line stop being erased and redrawn further into violating peoples rights to make their own decisions. If you don't believe it is happening then just look at how many rights people had and how much freer they were in the late 1700's and early 1800's compared to now. Our government has grown bigger and bigger and promised more and more to everyone. And people have recipricated by learning that they can use the government to impose their will on others. Is that following American ideals?
I'm sorry... I understood your point fine... I was just commenting on your example... But you didn't even need examples.... From the time you said... where would it stop... Everyone got the point...
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Comments
I'll sum it up for ya methane.
He said basically that 'freedom of religion' means the government can't take away that liberty, and he said the supreme court has no power compared to the constitution.
Then he brought out this REALLY boring guy, who actually was using slaves and nazi's as examples. Frankly anyone who has to use nazi's to prove their point is of severely limited mental scope, in my opinion. But whatever.
Then he (alex) went on about alcohol which really didn't have much to do with polygamy.
He blah-blah'ed some more about how he was right. He seemed upset that oprah had a crayon. And that's pretty much the end.
My last line got cut off so I'll copy it for ya
So what did we prove? That the consitution allows for the limiting of liberties as long as it's done in all due process. Hooray.
This was basically the point around which his argument falls apart. He says the 5th amendment protects the freedom of religion party, but he actually ignores part of what it says.
Near the end it says "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; " And he always focuses on the liberty part without focusing on the 'due process' part. However if you read the whole line, it indicates that people can't be deprived of liberties without due process of law. If there is due process though, liberties can be taken away. That's why you have to have a trial before throwing a criminal in prison. Without the trial, prisons would be unconstitutional.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are “the supreme law of the land”. Also included are treaties made “under the Authority of the United States”. Since all government power is explicitly limited by the Constitution, the President does not have the authority to entertain or sign, and the Senate does not have the authority to ratify, any treaty which purports to supercede to the Constitution. All of the laws and treaties of the United States must carry out or put into effect all Constitutional guarantees without conflict, or they are NOT considered part of the supreme law. Anything which does not conform to the general principles of the Constitution are “contrary” to the Constitution, and therefore they are “notwithstanding”. They are NOT law, even if they happen to be written on fancy paper with important seals and signatures. It doesn’t matter. Perhaps the best summary of this idea is the famous Supreme Court decision of Marbury .vs. Madison where the court ruled that any law repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.
A lesser known court case states:
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it… No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
Think about it. Imagine that Congress announces that the First Amendment has been repealed, and your freedom of speech and freedom of religion are now privileges granted and regulated by the government. Would you sit quietly and keep your ideas to yourself? Would you stop going to church or practicing your religion in other ways? I certainly hope not!
My rights do not come from a piece of paper! My rights are un-a-LEIN-able, meaning that no one can put leins or conditions on them. If our own government decides to burn the Constitution and shred the Bill of Rights, it wouldn’t have any affect on my individual rights.
Government does not grant rights but rather acknowledges them, they exist independently of government as part of who and what we are; as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the only legitimate function of government is to secure them.
THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT GIVE US OUR RIGHTS, THEREFORE THEY CANNOT TAKE THEM AWAY.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Sorry, I'm not really involved in this subject one way or another.
But I AM a criminal justice major, and that hoop-lay of a post you just made there on the constitution?
PROVED NOTHING to your case. You simply discussed the constitution. The constitution is the framework, the foundation for law in the United States. It's not the building itself. The constitution gives the authority to Congress to make laws. To the executive branch to execute them. And to the Supreme Court to interpret them. By the constitution, once the Supreme Court interprets a law to mean a certain thing - that's it, end of story. That's why they are referred to as "The supreme law of the land". Congress can make as many laws as it wants, but the Supreme Court can (and does) knock them down over and over.
So the other poster is incorrect. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this subject. It's the law of the land. Period.
I also have about 15 years of public speaking and teaching under my belt. One thing you need to learn mate? Is brevity. You will lose your target audience with posts that long, at best.
Could the Supreme Court just say "Hmm i'm going to interpret the 2nd amendment so that people are allowed to keep and bare their arms...we may not chop them off."
Interpretation ftw! Now the Constitution is the friggen Bible.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
But see Alex, that's where your whole argument falls apart.
It's unconstitutional to lock someone in a prison right? Yet there are prisons full of criminals who have had a number of their liberties taken away.
To quote YOU "Due process of law is a legal concept that ensures the government will RESPECT ALL of a person's legal RIGHTS instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property."
EXACTLY!
See, as long as they go through the proper legal processes, making sure they respect all of the persons rights, they can take some of those rights away if they feel it's better for the country. That's why that clause is in there (about due process) because there has to be conditions under which the government can take away someone's rights. That's the whole point. You can't just dismiss it and say "That's BS". No, that's not an argument. That's an opinion that you don't like how the constitution works. The fact is that these powers of the Supreme Court were built in to the constitution exactly for cases like these.
"I also say you say something like "But the woman doesn't have the same privileges as the wife". You must understand the government does not gives us privileges. We did not create the government so they could control us and give us privileges. We have rights."
Actually, the government does get to say who gets the right of legal status in the country. They get to say who gets the privileges of tax benefits, etc, etc.
"This Constitution, AND the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Don't you get it? They are specifically within their power to do all this stuff. You don't seem to understand that the Constitution specifically states that there are conditions under which one's liberties can be taken away. You are arguing that anyone put in prison is going against the constitution. The consitution was made with situations where ones liberties could be taken away if it benefitted the country.
"So basically the Supreme Court can take away all our rights, and everything that our forefathers fought for?" If they go through all due process, yes. I'm sure in every single polygamy case in the last 150 years, the whole constitution argument has been brought up. Also, since it is still illegal, then it appears that in every polygamy case before the court, in the last 150 years, the laws deemed to be within the constitution . Judges don't get elected without knowing what they're talking about. It says in the constitution that the laws they make are the supreme law of the land. It says that they are allowed to take away liberties if it's deemed necessary. It's all outlined in the consitution you're just ignoring those parts.
That being said, I'm off for vacation for a few days, have fun.
Oh and I'll leave you with some food for thought. The middle east is full of legal polygamy. The middle east is also an example of a society that severely opresses women. In Iran a 13 year old girl was executed because she stabbed a guy when him and his friends were trying to rape her and her younger (!!!) cousin. Do you want to take a step towards that level of opression for women?
Edit: you added so here's some updates.
"So how does the SUPREME F*CKING COURT INTERPRET A LAW THAT CONGRESS SHALL NOT MAKE?" Because the Supreme Court was making its own laws or interpreting the laws of the constitution.
" By the constitution, once the Supreme Court interprets a law to mean a certain thing - that's it, end of story. That's why they are referred to as "The supreme law of the land".
The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution....you idi... "
Now now, no name calling. You agree that the laws made by the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land. Namely because of "This Constitution, AND the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
No bitchers.
Also you ignore a large part of my argument which is the Constitution Class. It does not mention Polygamy anywhere but it does explain in greater detail and depth what i'm trying to tell you (which in the end would answer whether Polygamists are infringing on anything). If I were to try and explain everything then I would have to write a book. The Constitution class is 7 hours and it's the based off the book this Constitution expert wrote. I know 7 hours is long but the Constitution is a very complex document. It has A LOT of history that needs to be known in order to correctly perceive the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
You sound like you support marriage licenses, but did you know marriage licenses are racist? For a long time interracial marriages were illegal (I bet you would support that back in the day, because lawmakers are always right?) until after the civil war. Then the only way to get married as a black person to a white person was to get a marriage license, because blacks weren't given "rights", they were given "privileges". We really just didn't want interracial marriages. They had to ask and be granted a license in order to marry white people. White people had "rights" and so they could marry white people and black people, but the black person had to get a license first. Here is Constitution Class number 2 out of 7: It explains what i'm telling you much better; it's all at the beginning. Although it's easier to understand if you watch absolute beginning which is part 1, but I guess that is asking too much.
So stop using this BS excuse about politicians deciding only "two people can get a marriage license and so that must be righteous because our country is influenced by Christians!"....It looks bad for Christians. Still it is a BS excuse because racism is illegal, therefore licenses have no place, not that they did ever before.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
these threads are awesome, they keep going and going
-virtual tourist
want your game back?
Lets look at the facts:
- The Constitution created the Supreme Court to be in charge of the legal system
- The Supreme Court is filled with people chosen by a government official (the President I think).
- The official who chooses supreme court judges is elected by the people (or elected by groups elected by the people, I dunno the whole US voting process, I don't really need to).
- The Supreme Court has conditions under which it can revoke your liberties.
- The Supreme Court has outlawed polygamy.
- Polygamy doesn't work in practice, becuase it eventually leads to the opression of women and children.
- Polygamy causes conflict with non-polygamist societies around it.
- Polygamy has been deemed by the society at large to be incompatible with the rest of american society.
- People who are anti-polygamy are elected, and thus given the power (see above).
- These elected officials use the power given to them (by "..the majority, who presumably are people who are not interested in [polygamy], and the like..." who have "... set forth the conditions under which government shall have the power to use it's force.") "... to protect peaceful, law-abiding people from the [polygamy] of the small minority of [polygamists] in society. This is one major reason that government is called into existence by the people."
- In 150 years of cases, the Supreme Court's rulings on polygamy have not been found to be 'unconstitutional'.
Most importantly, polygamy was outlawed by the people who founded the US. Kudos to them, and here's for another 150 years of polygamy being illegal.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
I wonder sometimes why people get so uptight about other people doing what they want.
It makes me think that maybe there is a little jealousy behind that uptightness. Like maybe you see people doing something you want to do, but can't. So you go and get your other jealous friends and petition the government to make people act like you.
All rights have limits. Just because I say that my religion says I should murder people doesn't mean the constitution protects my "religious belief" in murder. Marriage can and has been regulated.
The stuff that goes on in some polygamist families, i.e. Domestic Violence, molestation, incest, etc., it's really too bad. I read somewhere that some genetic disease that is normally present in like .000002 percent of the population is present in 40% of a single polygamist family because they have inbred so bad.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Actually, my primary problem is that they are trying to use religion to go around the law. They are trying to say that the law of the land doesn't matter because they suddenly say their religion goes against it.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Supreme Court cannot outlaw anything. They can only interpret the laws
on the books and judge cases accordingly. If a law is misinterpreted
by the Supreme Court then it is the Legislative Branch's job to rewrite
it more clearly. The Supreme Court has no part in the legislative
process outside of judging if a law is constitutional or not.
They can strike down the law as un-constitutional. That falls within their powers. Congress can, has, and does make laws that the constitution does not grant them to make, or does not fall within the spirit of certain constitutional laws. It is up to the Supreme Count acts, as Original and Apellete (though in this case the later) to decide on the constituionality of those laws. Marbudy v. Madison (1803) established this more certainly, although other papers refer to this power as designed by the framers of the Constitution.
You listed things that you say go on in polygamist families. I can counter that by saying that they also go on in normal families as well. The things you listed are also infringement on others Constitutional rights. Therefore, they are illegal. If you can find a polygamist family that doesn't have those things going on inside their family then you have found a case where there is no direct correlation between the polygamists and the crimes you've outlined. Therefore, you are punishing people for crimes they have not nor intend to commit. This is a violation of their rights.
And as far as that genetic disease thing goes, I would have to see the reports on that from a reliable unbiased source. Because I know that people can marry their cousins and there is no greater chance of a birth defect being present in their offspring.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
You listed things that you say go on in polygamist families. I can counter that by saying that they also go on in normal families as well. The things you listed are also infringement on others Constitutional rights. Therefore, they are illegal. If you can find a polygamist family that doesn't have those things going on inside their family then you have found a case where there is no direct correlation between the polygamists and the crimes you've outlined. Therefore, you are punishing people for crimes they have not nor intend to commit. This is a violation of their rights.
And as far as that genetic disease thing goes, I would have to see the reports on that from a reliable unbiased source. Because I know that people can marry their cousins and there is no greater chance of a birth defect being present in their offspring.
That's just it though porgie. These things do go on in normal families, but the major difference is they are far far more likely to occur in polygamist families. The environment set up by polygamy eventually leads to the slavery of one gender and power-mongering amongst the other. The laws can be made to prevent people from committing crimes they do not intend to commit. That's called prevention.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
You listed things that you say go on in polygamist families. I can counter that by saying that they also go on in normal families as well. The things you listed are also infringement on others Constitutional rights. Therefore, they are illegal. If you can find a polygamist family that doesn't have those things going on inside their family then you have found a case where there is no direct correlation between the polygamists and the crimes you've outlined. Therefore, you are punishing people for crimes they have not nor intend to commit. This is a violation of their rights.
And as far as that genetic disease thing goes, I would have to see the reports on that from a reliable unbiased source. Because I know that people can marry their cousins and there is no greater chance of a birth defect being present in their offspring.
That's just it though porgie. These things do go on in normal families, but the major difference is they are far far more likely to occur in polygamist families. The environment set up by polygamy eventually leads to the slavery of one gender and power-mongering amongst the other. The laws can be made to prevent people from committing crimes they do not intend to commit. That's called prevention.
So who decides where you draw the line on this prevention?
There is more domestic violence that occurs in black homes than in white homes. Are you going to say that blacks can't marry anymore? You can take this and apply it to all kinds of situations. I may not like the way my neighbor is teaching his children to worship. I think that maybe him teaching them to follow a nature based religion is going to cause them problems in the future. Should I petition my government to force them to follow a montheistic form of religion? After all, there is a better chance they'll fit in and have a happier life, right?
The kids who were protesting are showing you that you can have happy healthy development in polygamist families. They even feel they are blessed. Are you going to take that away from them by force using your government? What's good for them is good for them. Who are you to go tell them it's not and force your lifestyle on another group of people?
I ask a simple question. How are these people violating your rights by doing what they want to do? And if they are happy the way they are and you are wanting to force your lifestyle on them, then who's violating who's rights?
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
The problem with this association is that There are many factors affecting this.... Anyways You should also know that Black and Hispanic people are much more likely to report Domestic Abuse then other races/ethicities. Add that to the overall lower Social-status....
Sorry i butt in again didn't I... Please continue
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
The problem with this association is that There are many factors affecting this.... Anyways You should also know that Black and Hispanic people are much more likely to report Domestic Abuse then other races/ethicities. Add that to the overall lower Social-status....
Sorry i butt in again didn't I... Please continue
You missed the whole point of my argument. My point was where do you draw the line? And when does that line stop being erased and redrawn further into violating peoples rights to make their own decisions.
If you don't believe it is happening then just look at how many rights people had and how much freer they were in the late 1700's and early 1800's compared to now. Our government has grown bigger and bigger and promised more and more to everyone. And people have recipricated by learning that they can use the government to impose their will on others.
Is that following American ideals?
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>