eAmped Free Forum Hosting
login join
Loading
541 views

Constitutional Discussions

Page 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6
< Older (items) 61–80 of 103 Newer >
b-cast superstar - member
117 posts

You can call a sportscar an airplane, but you will find no support for your
flight of fancy here. 


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I

Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of Honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Section 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Section 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time: and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Section 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article III

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article IV

Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Section 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article VI

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
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 notwith-standing.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article VII

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth
In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
George Washington--President and deputy from Virginia
New Hampshire: John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman
Massachusetts: Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King
Connecticut: William Samuel Johnson, Roger Sherman
New York: Alexander Hamilton
New Jersey: William Livingston, David Brearly, William Paterson, Jonathan Dayton
Pennsylvania: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Thomas FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris
Delaware: George Read, Gunning Bedford, Jr., John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jacob Broom
Maryland: James McHenry, Daniel of Saint Thomas Jenifer, Daniel Carroll
Virginia: John Blair, James Madison, Jr.
North Carolina: William Blount, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Hugh Williamson
South Carolina: John Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler
Georgia: William Few, Abraham Baldwin

b-cast fanatic - privileged member
477 posts


Wow, this is certainly a free-range discussion.  Hard to slice through the emotion to find the facts of the matter.  

First off, the U.S. was, is and will forever be a "Western" country, with its roots firmly planted in the kind of thinking that emanated out of Ancient Greece.  For that reason, you are hard pressed to find an instance of marriage as an institution that predates Greece in the Western historical record.  So it is safe to say that all the common and constitutional law that's risen up around marriage starts there.

While homosexuality has been a fact of life since who-knows-when, it is certain that homosexual marriage has not been looked on favorably at any time in Western history.  Legally recognized same-sex unions is a new phenomenon in Western culture(s).  

The issue today is whether or not Western Civilization is ready to include same-sex relationships into the institution of legally recognized marriages.  Three issues arise...first is how to alter an institution that is so well defined and accepted at all points and in all ways throughout the ancient, classical and modern historical record.  Second, is how do you alter the current definition of western traditional 1man/1woman marriage to include another group without opening the door to any or all other groups such as proponents of polygamy.  And lastly, the reasons why marriage became the institution that it is today have not changed. It is very hard to predict what unintended consequences may arise if such a central thread in the Western fabric of life is altered (note I didn't say damaged or cut).


b-cast superstar - member
117 posts

Updated December 11, 2009

Judge Rules Effort to Strip ACORN of Federal Funds Unconstitutional

AP


ACORN claimed in its lawsuit that Congress' decision to cut off its funding was unconstitutional because it punitively targeted an organization

NEW YORK -- The U.S. government's move this fall to cut off funding to ACORN was unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Friday, handing the embattled group a legal victory.
U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon issued the preliminary injunction against the government, saying it's in the public's interest for the organization to continue receiving federal funding.
ACORN claimed in its lawsuit that Congress' decision to cut off its funding was unconstitutional because it punitively targeted an individual organization.
Gershon said in her ruling that ACORN had raised a "fundamental issue of separation of powers. They have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt."
Bill Quigley, the legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of ACORN and two affiliates, said the decision sends a sharp message to Congress that it can't single out an individual or organization without due process.
"It's a resounding victory for ACORN," he said. "I'd be surprised if the government decides to appeal."
ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, describes itself as an advocate for low-income and minority homebuyers and residents in communities served by its offices around the country. Critics say it has violated the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities.
The law that halted ACORN's federal funding took effect Oct. 1 and was extended Oct. 31. It was set to either expire or be extended again on Dec. 18.
ACORN's lawsuit was filed in federal court in Brooklyn and sought reinstatement of the funds. Quigley said millions of dollars in funds should begin to flow again to ACORN next week. The judge said the "public will not suffer harm by allowing the plaintiffs to continue work on contracts duly awarded by federal agencies."
ACORN has been dogged by allegations of voter-registration fraud and embezzlement.
Several of its offices were the subject of an embarrassing hidden-camera sting in which ACORN employees were shown advising a couple posing as a prostitute and her pimp to lie about her profession and launder her earnings. The videos sparked a political uproar, with Republicans trying to use the group's troubles to portray Democrats as corrupt.
The group's lawsuit named the U.S. government, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the director of the Office of Management and Budget and the secretary of the Treasury as defendants.
Justice Department spokeswoman Beverley Lumpkin said the agency was reviewing the decision and declined to comment further.
"Today's ruling is a victory for the constitutional rights for all Americans and for the citizens who work through ACORN to improve their communities and promote responsible lending and homeownership," ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis said in a statement.

b-cast superstar - privileged member
191 posts


Wow, this is certainly a free-range discussion.  Hard to slice through the emotion to find the facts of the matter.  
First off, the U.S. was, is and will forever be a "Western" country, with its roots firmly planted in the kind of thinking that emanated out of Ancient Greece.  For that reason, you are hard pressed to find an instance of marriage as an institution that predates Greece in the Western historical record.  So it is safe to say that all the common and constitutional law that's risen up around marriage starts there.
While homosexuality has been a fact of life since who-knows-when, it is certain that homosexual marriage has not been looked on favorably at any time in Western history.  Legally recognized same-sex unions is a new phenomenon in Western culture(s).  
The issue today is whether or not Western Civilization is ready to include same-sex relationships into the institution of legally recognized marriages.  Three issues arise...first is how to alter an institution that is so well defined and accepted at all points and in all ways throughout the ancient, classical and modern historical record.  Second, is how do you alter the current definition of western traditional 1man/1woman marriage to include another group without opening the door to any or all other groups such as proponents of polygamy.  And lastly, the reasons why marriage became the institution that it is today have not changed. It is very hard to predict what unintended consequences may arise if such a central thread in the Western fabric of life is altered (note I didn't say damaged or cut).

-causeaneffect

A very well thought out and cogent post, thank you causeaneffect.

I perfectly well understand the emotion around the institution of marriage, and the tradition of it being between a man and a woman.  As a firmly hererosexual man who has been married for 23 years, (step)father of 2, and grandfather of 5, I find the entire concept of homosexuality to be personally repugnant.  Having said that however, our own Constitution makes no distinction for our personal wants, desires, or personal prejudices, as it shouldn't, and therefore in it's current state the Constititution demands that the Rights of ALL people be protected equally, and that includes marriage.


SPOILER ALERT!!!!


The ONLY way that I can see for that to be altered would be for We The People, through our elected representatives, to exercise our Article 5 option and ratify a "marriage is between a man and a woman" Amendment at which point the entire issue of homosexual marriage would be rendered moot.  This is the exact same mechanism that was used to address the issue of slavery, as well as due process, equal protection, black and women's ability to vote, poll taxes, and many other issues.
I was hoping that one of you would have been the one to bring Article 5 and the Amendment process up (especially considering the COPIUS hints I dropped all over the place), but sadly it would appear that the need for this thread is greather than I imagined. Since most of you don't know me, allow me to provide my 'bona fides'; I've been studying the Constitution for nearly 40 years, and I am currently a recurring speaker on it to 2 local Civics groups, and have been invited to give presentations on it to several others in order to help them understand why or how the government does what it does, how/what most of what Congress does is completely anathema to the Founders very clear meaning, and what We The People can do about it.

Now, on a personal note,  (V, if this means that you have to Ban me for this, I'll understand), and specifically for you Hydrogia; if you were HALF as smart as you would obviously like for us to think you are, or knew 1/10th as much about the Constitution as you like to think you knew, YOU would have been the one to bring up Article 5 and the Amendment process, but as it is, you've instead chosen to run around for the past 2 days, demonstrating to the entire world how much of a brainless, mouthbreathing inbred drooling moron you really are. You lack the intellectual honesty, or ability to engage me openly and honestly in this thread on the topic, instead preferring to demonstrate how much of a COWARD you are by attempting to dispariage me in the chat feature.  The fact is that all you've done is to totally discredit yourself to anyone who reads what you've written. Do the world a favor, and the next time someone decides to have a SERIOUS discussion on a topic you don't know sh!t about, instead of opening your mouth and proving to everyone how incredibly STUPID you are, just SIT DOWN AND STFU, and you might actually learn something!!! 

b-cast superstar - privileged member
191 posts


Updated December 11, 2009
Judge Rules Effort to Strip ACORN of Federal Funds Unconstitutional
<snip>

-hydrogia

This is a primary example of the problems one encounters with "interpreting" the Constitution.  The Judge in the case relied on Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3 which prevents the use of "Bills of Attainder".  In order to properly determine if the Judge made a proper "interpretation" of the clause we must first understand what Bills of Attainder meant to the FF's when they used those words in the Constitution.  The use of Bills of Attainder in Great Britain, and in her Colonies were sometimes used by the Crown in order to punish a political enemy who had committed no crime, but were nonetheless "inconvenient", so the Crown would declare them "attainted" so that he could seize their lands as punishment for being 'less than supportive' of the Crown.

One one hand, as it applies to this case, Congress's defunding of ACORN could be considered a Bill of Attainder as ACORN has not been adjudicated guilty of any crime (yet), and therefore defunding them without the benefit of trial could be construed as "punishment".

On the other, given that Congress has the sole Constitutional authority to spend (but only in compliance with those specifically enumerated things in Article 1 Section 8), and since no private individual or entity is entitled to government funding, since the funding of ACORN was unconstitutional on it's face to begin with, defunding them was actually a correction of their previous unconstitutional activities, and therefore does not qualify as a Bill of Attainder.

My own opinion is that of the latter, that Congress didn't have the Constitutional authority under Article 1 Section 8 to grant them money from the public treasury in the first place, and therefore defunding them was the only proper thing to do.  Would that Congress would find the intestinal fortitude to defund all of the other patently unconstitutional agencies, bureaus, departments, and organizations that presently chew up nearly 70% of our federal budget!

b-cast superstar - privileged member
205 posts

"Would that Congress would find the intestinal fortitude to defund all of the other patently unconstitutional agencies, bureaus, departments, and organizations that presently chew up nearly 70% of our federal budget!"

AMEN!  This should be part of the platform in the next presidential election.

__________________
”All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” - Thomas Jefferson
b-cast fanatic - privileged member
477 posts

Two good first steps toward fiscal responsibility;

a] all bills address a single issue (budget, defense, education)
b] president has line item veto power on all spending bills

b-cast superstar - privileged member
191 posts

Two good first steps toward fiscal responsibility;
a] all bills address a single issue (budget, defense, education)

-causeaneffect


If only!


b] president has line item veto power on all spending bills

-causeaneffect


SCOTUS already overturned that as unconstitutional, so an Amendment would be necessary to do that.  Frankly, if I were President, I would inform Congress that ANY Bill they sent to me that had any provisions for more than one purpose would be vetoed, and ANY Bill they sent me that was larger than 50 pages would likewise be vetoed.  Under the Constitution, POTUS only has 10 days to sign, veto, or not sign (in which case it becomes law without his signature) a Bill, and there's NO WAY that anybody can wade through over 2,000 pages and fully comprehend everything in it in 10 days, therefore ANY President that signs such a Bill is admitting that he HASN'T read it, DOESN'T understand it, and has abrogated his responsibility to the nation, which to me IS an impeachable offense.
b-cast superstar - member
117 posts


Here is the argument as I understand it. The Founders did not anticipate the
re-defintion of marriage that has been foisted on society by a small radical minority.
In this way, all moralizing aside, two great pillars of the Constitution come into direct conflict. Freedom of Religion and  Equal Protection 
What would the Founders have made of this conflict?
I suggest strongly they would have had difficulty finding any conflict at all.
Would not the arcane new definition of marriage, the moral issues,
the framework and sensibilities that tied the structure together and other concerns 
overwhelm them?  What possible Constitutional basis would they ever consider to
be in the realm of "same sex Marriage", so to speak?
And they would be shocked.

   

b-cast superstar - privileged member
191 posts

Here is the argument as I understand it. The Founders did not anticipate the
re-defintion of marriage that has been foisted on society by a small radical minority.
In this way, all moralizing aside, two great pillars of the Constitution come into direct conflict. Freedom of Religion and  Equal Protection 
What would the Founders have made of this conflict?
I suggest strongly they would have had difficulty finding any conflict at all.
Would not the arcane new definition of marriage, the moral issues,
the framework and sensibilities that tied the structure together and other concerns 
overwhelm them?  What possible Constitutional basis would they ever consider to
be in the realm of "same sex Marriage", so to speak?
And they would be shocked.

-hydrogia


They would be no more "shocked" by same sex marriage as they would by universal suffrage.  The fact that we allow anyone over the age of 18 to vote, regardless of education, career, income, or contribution to the country would cause them far more angst than 2 poofters getting married.

As to your "conflict", how does allowing homosexuals to marry come into conflict with YOUR Right to practice YOUR religion as YOU see fit. 

b-cast fanatic - privileged member
477 posts


I don't think same sex marriage falls into the same basket as universal suffrage.  

The voting rights of women were on the mind of some of the Founding Fathers.  Such radical thoughts were inspired by the admiration some people had of the way Iroquois society was structured.  As far as "African American" voting rights are concerned, while suffrage wasn't on the minds of the Founding Fathers, doing away with slavery was and it's not too much of stretch to think that the Founders would think about citizenship and voting rights as logical extensions of abolition.

With respect to homosexuality and same sex marriages, the Founders were well aware of the former as learned men, it's fair to say that the latter would be considered anathema to their world and religious views, and would probably fall into the realm of ridiculous thought along with giving men the right to bear children. 

All that said, my guess is if we could join Sherman in the Way Back Machine and visit Ben, TJ and the boys, if we asked the gang about same sex marriage they would probably take a deep breath and tell us its a 10th Amendment thing because never in a million years would they ever imagine such a topic coming up in polite company let alone on the floor of the House or Senate, unless it was in the form of a law outlawing what they considered aberrant behavior that was detrimental to the common weal (their words, not mine ;-)

b-cast superstar - privileged member
191 posts


I don't think same sex marriage falls into the same basket as universal suffrage.  
The voting rights of women were on the mind of some of the Founding Fathers.  Such radical thoughts were inspired by the admiration some people had of the way Iroquois society was structured.  As far as "African American" voting rights are concerned, while suffrage wasn't on the minds of the Founding Fathers, doing away with slavery was and it's not too much of stretch to think that the Founders would think about citizenship and voting rights as logical extensions of abolition.
With respect to homosexuality and same sex marriages, the Founders were well aware of the former as learned men, it's fair to say that the latter would be considered anathema to their world and religious views, and would probably fall into the realm of ridiculous thought along with giving men the right to bear children. 
All that said, my guess is if we could join Sherman in the Way Back Machine and visit Ben, TJ and the boys, if we asked the gang about same sex marriage they would probably take a deep breath and tell us its a 10th Amendment thing because never in a million years would they ever imagine such a topic coming up in polite company let alone on the floor of the House or Senate, unless it was in the form of a law outlawing what they considered aberrant behavior that was detrimental to the common weal (their words, not mine ;-)

-causeaneffect


While I have no doubt that the concept of homosexual marriage would have shocked the FF's, you need to remember that I'm not basing my argument on what the FF's would or would not have said about it, or even what the Constitution that they ratified said about it, but based solely on the fact of the 14th Amendment, which came about 67 years AFTER the Constitution was ratified by the 13 American states, and given that the 14th Amendment is the law of the land (unless or until such time as a new Amendment countermands it), we must abide by it whether we like it or not.  The 14th Amendment (along with the 18th) is a primary example of what happens when people rush to make Amendments rather than giving them long careful contemplation as to as many of the possible unforseen 'interpretations' as can be made of it.  Don't forget, it's that same 14th Amendment that gave us "anchor babies" because of the less than precise verbiage used in it, and it really doesn't matter whether we know what they "intended" when they wrote it (as we all know, the road to Hell is paved with "good intentions"), the only thing that does matter when it comes to law is the specific verbiage in the pertanant document, and as such, unless or until another Amendment to the Constitution is passed which specifically defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, the 14th must be taken at face value and therefore we cannot deny homosexuals the same rights, liberties, privileges and immunities, or equal protection of the laws that all other Americans enjoy based solely on their sexual preferences.

One point of clarity on the question of suffrage.  The 15th Amendment guaranteed that race could not be used as a means of disqualifying someone's privilege of voting 50 years before the same was extended to women, so while some of the FF's might have considered suffrage for women, it not only wasn't a "popular" cause, it was one that was treated with contempt and scorn.  Also, while many of the FF's, like Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin for instance, opposed slavery, it was never their intention to allow Blacks to become citizens, much less to vote, but rather to send them back to Africa as expeditiously as possible and rid our nation of the 'stain' of "that peculiar institution", and the obvious reminders thereof.

b-cast superstar - member
117 posts

First of all, same sex marriage remains an oxymoronic non-starter, like dry-water.
Putting aside the strident calls to reinvent this word, we can proceed, barely
O3 shooter, you bring the conflict into direct view and then dismiss it.
No church would be allowed, under equal protection, to refrain from performing same sex marriages. It is not my religious belief that matters. It is the usurpation of marriage to
impose a tyranny of thought by fiat and force of law that is directly aimed at religious and social practice of all human history, most urgently and purposefully at the work of the Founders of this country, who would not be amused.

b-cast superstar - privileged member
191 posts

First of all, same sex marriage remains an oxymoronic non-starter, like dry-water.
Putting aside the strident calls to reinvent this word, we can proceed, barely
O3 shooter, you bring the conflict into direct view and then dismiss it.
No church would be allowed, under equal protection, to refrain from performing same sex marriages. It is not my religious belief that matters. It is the usurpation of marriage to
impose a tyranny of thought by fiat and force of law that is directly aimed at religious and social practice of all human history.

-hydrogia

I hate to burst your bubble hydrogia, but I've already addressed your point previously.  Any clergy can decide for himself whom he/she will or will not marry in their church.  My own pastor refused to marry my wife and I because we had both been married previously, and he didn't believe in divorce, regardless of the reasons for it, so we had to be married by a JP.  Churches are PRIVATE organizations, and preachers are PRIVATE individuals, and therefore cannot be compelled to marry ANYONE if they choose not to.

Nextly, nobody is reinventing anything, since as I've already shown that Lord Blackstone, decades before the United States was even a nation, acknowledged that as far as the government is concerned, marriage is a defined as a CIVIL CONTRACT, and as such, unless or until such time as you can demonstrate why homosexuals may not engage in ANY contract, you may not disbarr them from entering into the marriage contract. 

The biggest problem you seem to still be totally incapable of comprehending here is that for the purposes of THIS thread, we're having a CONSTITUTIONAL discussion and not a RELIGIOUS one, so unless or until such time as you are prepared to make a CONSTITUTIONAL argument, please limit your PERSONAL and RELIGIOUS objections to another thread.

b-cast superstar - member
117 posts

I leave it to the reasoning of the good reader to determine who is obfuscating and who is raving like an idiot.

B-Cast VIP - founder
1087 posts

I am sorry, but I am locking this thread until I am sure all members are sure of the rules. I apologize and I hope it will be available again soon.

--Veritas

__________________
When did "capitalism" become a bad thing and "socialism" become a good thing?
B-Cast VIP - founder
1087 posts

Thread is open again!

__________________
When did "capitalism" become a bad thing and "socialism" become a good thing?
B-Cast VIP - founder
1087 posts

Ok, I have another question in regards to the Gay marriage thing. When I got married, we had to get a license in the County of the State we were to be wed.That meant my marriage was under  county and state authority.  In a case like that in California and other States where the voters have affirmed they do not want same sex marriage, even to the point of amending their State Constitutions, does the State and voters of that State have a case to be made? I am sure this will lead us back to some familiar Federal Constitution amendments, but we must stop using the same things to tie the hands of States and individual citizens.

__________________
When did "capitalism" become a bad thing and "socialism" become a good thing?
b-cast superstar - privileged member
191 posts

Sorry V, but just as the 18th Amendment took the option of whether or not alcohol sales would be permitted out of the hands of an individual state, the 14th Amendment takes the option of whether or not homosexuals must be extended the same rights and liberties as every other American out of the hands of the states.

As I said before, the only way around this without violating the constitution would be to either pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage, or to repeal the 14th Amendment.

Page 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6
< Older (items) 61–80 of 103 Newer >

Locked Topic


You must be a member to post in this forum

Join Now!