Is Marriage the Government's Business?

Come on councelor, you are still ignoring the 17 enumerated powers and the 9th and 10th amendments. At what point does the minorities trampling of the majorities rights take precedence over individual liberty. You forgot a major portion of the first amendment also, "Congress shall make no law..." Rights are NOT granted through govt. They are granted by our creator and congress shall make no law abridging those unalienable rights, which is something they have been doing for a while to include pieces-of-shyte legislation like the patriot act.

IMO equal protection means that IF CA allowed g&l marriage/civil unions that the couple couldn't be discriminated against for insurance, or other rights afforded to a traditional couple. IF insurance was portable this wouldn't be an issue in other states if the couple moved out of the state they were "joined."

If you liberal/democrats were so big on individual liberties, why hasn't the woman's freedom of choice to become a p4p sex worker been a top issue? Your argument for individual liberty doesn't hold water, when you attack the rights of an individual in the majority. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

First off, the 10th Amendment doesn't do anything. It has no meaning. The Supreme Court has held that it is nothing other than a truism.

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments. . . .

U.S. v. Darby.

Second, the Constitution, including the 10th Amendment was amended by the 14th Amendment. So if there is any inconsistency, the later amendment prevails.

As to your position on natural rights versus positive law, you are on the loosing side of history, and for good reason. Even Jeremy Bentham, many years ago, called you quaint notion "nonsense on stilts." And he was correct.

If you actually have a serious interest in learning about this subject, which I sincerely doubt, you should read up on Wesley Hohfeld's theory of molecular rights.

Also those who espouse status based rights theories such as natural rights, also have to explain what rights we have and which ones we do not, and how we objectively resolve the inevitable disputes about the two categories to have any sustainable theory.

Also, most status based rights theories content that these rights are inviolable and absolute. Which is of course at war with our common sense notions and judgment. Is the right to free speech absolute? Does it encompass the right to speak falsely? Well, in some contexts, such as a poltiical campaign we agree that it does. However, in the courtroom, we send people to prison who knowingly tell lies about material matters. In advertising, people who knowingly tell lies are subject to civil penalties. How do status based rights theorist square the allegedly absolute nature of these "divinely" bestowed rights with the fact that they are seldom, if ever, absolute, and must be weighed and measured by men in varying situations to determine their content.

And minds as great as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Emanuel Kant, and John Nozick have all failed to satisfactorily resolve these issues. Somehow I suspect that you, too, are incapable of this rather prodigious feat.

Even Jeremy Bentham, many years ago, called you quaint notion "nonsense on stilts." Originally Posted by TexTushHog

OMG!

In all my life I never, ever, EVER thought I would see a reference to Jeremy Bentham on a board devoted to this subject.

Kudos Tush. That one sure as hell blind-sided him.

Cheers,
Mazo.

First off, the 10th Amendment doesn't do anything. It has no meaning. The Supreme Court has held that it is nothing other than a truism.

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments. . . .

U.S. v. Darby.

Second, the Constitution, including the 10th Amendment was amended by the 14th Amendment. So if there is any inconsistency, the later amendment prevails.

As to your position on natural rights versus positive law, you are on the loosing side of history, and for good reason. Even Jeremy Bentham, many years ago, called you quaint notion "nonsense on stilts." And he was correct.

If you actually have a serious interest in learning about this subject, which I sincerely doubt, you should read up on Wesley Hohfeld's theory of molecular rights.

Also those who espouse status based rights theories such as natural rights, also have to explain what rights we have and which ones we do not, and how we objectively resolve the inevitable disputes about the two categories to have any sustainable theory.

Also, most status based rights theories content that these rights are inviolable and absolute. Which is of course at war with our common sense notions and judgment. Is the right to free speech absolute? Does it encompass the right to speak falsely? Well, in some contexts, such as a poltiical campaign we agree that it does. However, in the courtroom, we send people to prison who knowingly tell lies about material matters. In advertising, people who knowingly tell lies are subject to civil penalties. How do status based rights theorist square the allegedly absolute nature of these "divinely" bestowed rights with the fact that they are seldom, if ever, absolute, and must be weighed and measured by men in varying situations to determine their content.

And minds as great as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Emanuel Kant, and John Nozick have all failed to satisfactorily resolve these issues. Somehow I suspect that you, too, are incapable of this rather prodigious feat. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

WORD!!!

A plurality supported it and a majority supported it or something stronger. See the most recent Robert Wood Johnson/Stanford University poll. It showed that 40% of Americans wanted health care reform to go further. Only 20% want government out of health care.

So all the fuck ups and hot heads showing up at the Tea Nut rallies get all the attention while those of us what wanted at least an employer mandate, or better yet single payer, are ignored by the right wing corporate media (who of course don't want an employer mandate). Originally Posted by TexTushHog

A plurality will also generally support a free lunch. That is until you give them their share of the bill.

First off, the 10th Amendment doesn't do anything. It has no meaning. The Supreme Court has held that it is nothing other than a truism.

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments. . . .

U.S. v. Darby.

Second, the Constitution, including the 10th Amendment was amended by the 14th Amendment. So if there is any inconsistency, the later amendment prevails.

As to your position on natural rights versus positive law, you are on the loosing side of history, and for good reason. Even Jeremy Bentham, many years ago, called you quaint notion "nonsense on stilts." And he was correct.

If you actually have a serious interest in learning about this subject, which I sincerely doubt, you should read up on Wesley Hohfeld's theory of molecular rights.

Also those who espouse status based rights theories such as natural rights, also have to explain what rights we have and which ones we do not, and how we objectively resolve the inevitable disputes about the two categories to have any sustainable theory.

Also, most status based rights theories content that these rights are inviolable and absolute. Which is of course at war with our common sense notions and judgment. Is the right to free speech absolute? Does it encompass the right to speak falsely? Well, in some contexts, such as a poltiical campaign we agree that it does. However, in the courtroom, we send people to prison who knowingly tell lies about material matters. In advertising, people who knowingly tell lies are subject to civil penalties. How do status based rights theorist square the allegedly absolute nature of these "divinely" bestowed rights with the fact that they are seldom, if ever, absolute, and must be weighed and measured by men in varying situations to determine their content.

And minds as great as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Emanuel Kant, and John Nozick have all failed to satisfactorily resolve these issues. Somehow I suspect that you, too, are incapable of this rather prodigious feat. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941):
The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. Those rights have to be surrendered by the individual and cannot be forced upon an individual, e.g., Citizenship, contract with the Military(UCMJ), et.al.

10th Amenedment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution (again, there are 17 enumerated powers), nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (The people voted against the measure.)


14th Amenedment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; (where is due process in overturning a legal vote.) nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What I find amusing is that the left would have us believe the 250 year old Constitution is antiquated, but they damn sure quote select pieces of it or the philosophers of that day that believed in socialism. Bentham was a social engineer. For those that want an opposing view on Bentham read Hugo Adam Bedau - "Anarchical Fallacies": Bentham's Attack on Human Rights.

Bentham also wrote Panopticon which described "a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example." He believed in control over people though social reformation. He was a social/judicial theorist whose ideas influenced the developement of welfarism. He became the most influential of the utilitarians, through his own work and that of his students. These included his secretary and collaborator on the utilitarian school of philosophy, James Mill; James Mill's son John Stuart Mill; John Austin, legal philosopher; and several political leaders, including Robert Owen, a founder of modern socialism. He is considered the godfather of University College London.


You libs will never comprehend that social engineering does not work.

See below

United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941):
The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. Those rights have to be surrendered by the individual and cannot be forced upon an individual, e.g., Citizenship, contract with the Military(UCMJ), et.al.

10th Amenedment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution (again, there are 17 enumerated powers), Actually, I think you're mixing up your powers. The 17 enumerated powers are those powers granted to Congress in Art. I, Sec. 8. The 10th Amend talks very generally about "powers not delegated to the United States." Obviously, the United State is not Congress. nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (The people voted against the measure.) However, you completely avoid the whole purpose of Art. III, which is to provide for a branch of gov't. that interprets the Constitution, and decides issues of Constitutionality.


14th Amenedment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; (where is due process in overturning a legal vote.) First of all, marriage is not a right under the law, so depriving someone of it doesn't require due process. (I disagree with this, but still, no one has an inherent "right" to marriage.) So, due process is not required. Second, the will of the people may be unconstitutional. Many a referendum has been canceled because a state supreme court has ruled the language of the referendum to be ambiguous. And of course, in this country right now, we could very well have a vote in certain places to ban Muslims from living inside the city limits. We've already had votes to ban the rental or sale of homes to undocumented immigrants. In both cases, such action would be overturned by a judge. But I assume you would say the "will" of the people should rule. Thankfully, the Constitution provides for a process whereby a judge gets to strike down such a law. Apparently you are offended by the fact that one person uses his/her position and knowledge to make the legal determination. But that is the constitutional system our Constitution has provided for. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What I find amusing is that the left would have us believe the 250 year old Constitution is antiquated, but they damn sure quote select pieces of it or the philosophers of that day that believed in socialism. Bentham was a social engineer. For those that want an opposing view on Bentham read Hugo Adam Bedau - "Anarchical Fallacies": Bentham's Attack on Human Rights.

Bentham also wrote Panopticon which described "a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example." He believed in control over people though social reformation. He was a social/judicial theorist whose ideas influenced the developement of welfarism. He became the most influential of the utilitarians, through his own work and that of his students. These included his secretary and collaborator on the utilitarian school of philosophy, James Mill; James Mill's son John Stuart Mill; John Austin, legal philosopher; and several political leaders, including Robert Owen, a founder of modern socialism. He is considered the godfather of University College London.


You libs will never comprehend that social engineering does not work. Just following the Constitution. If you want to do Constitutional interpretation, you should be formally schooled first. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

A plurality supported it and a majority supported it or something stronger. See the most recent Robert Wood Johnson/Stanford University poll. It showed that 40% of Americans wanted health care reform to go further. Only 20% want government out of health care.

So all the fuck ups and hot heads showing up at the Tea Nut rallies get all the attention while those of us what wanted at least an employer mandate, or better yet single payer, are ignored by the right wing corporate media (who of course don't want an employer mandate). Originally Posted by TexTushHog

You're not even very nimble TTH. Obamacare did not have a majority...and frankly I'm sure you know that. So, you try to turn it to people wanting health care reform. Well, hell yes...and they want peace in the middle east too.

One would think you'd be better at this. But I keep forgetting...the truth means nothing to you.

You're not even very nimble TTH. Obamacare did not have a majority...and frankly I'm sure you know that. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Obamacare did have a majority of the votes in Congress, which is of course what matters in our system of government. It won't be the first or last bill that passed Congress (or a legislature) that polls found less than majority support for. Often enough I have been on the side that opposed a bill that passed but accept that this is how our system of governance works.

Obamacare did have a majority of the votes in Congress, which is of course what matters in our system of government. It won't be the first or last bill that passed Congress (or a legislature) that polls found less than majority support for. Often enough I have been on the side that opposed a bill that passed but accept that this is how our system of governance works. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Then I guess you won't complain when the new majority de-funds this piece of shit.

thats what happens when you cram an unpopular program through without any bi-lateral support. The other side has no stake in continuing it.

Then I guess you won't complain when the new majority de-funds this piece of shit.

thats what happens when you cram an unpopular program through without any bi-lateral support. The other side has no stake in continuing it. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I'll complaint, but I won't say it's anti-democratic.

And the degree to which I complain will depend on what it's replaced with. I think it's a piss poor bill because it leave the root of the problem -- insurance companies and for profit medicine -- in place. I'd prefer a strong employer mandate. And I'd prefer a German like single payer system to that. Obviously we're not going to get that any time soon. But eventually, when the Republicans do nothing -- and I'd think that even you will admit that they have no solutions whatsoever to the coverage problem -- enough people are going to be disgusted by the gross unfairness of 50 million (and growing) Americans having no insurance. And another 100 million being under-insured. The social injustice of that can only be ignored for so long.

And the degree to which I complain will depend on what it's replaced with. I think it's a piss poor bill because it leave the root of the problem -- insurance companies and for profit medicine -- in place. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Well maybe the new Congress can get rid of for profit ambulance chasing. That would make just as much sense as getting rid of for profit medicine.

Well maybe the new Congress can get rid of for profit ambulance chasing. That would make just as much sense as getting rid of for profit medicine. Originally Posted by pjorourke

The irony is lost on him.

He believes he should be able to profit, but anyone else...not so much

Sad.

And I'd prefer a German like single payer system to that. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I'd prefer the French combination, but I'll go with German.

Well maybe the new Congress can get rid of for profit ambulance chasing. That would make just as much sense as getting rid of for profit medicine. Originally Posted by pjorourke

The Healthcare that passed Congress was supposed to have tort limitations in it. I didn't read it, but assumed it wouldn't have passed if it wasn't there. Anyone care to weigh in with authority.

And TTH won't care. He's retiring. He's probably already taken his last case.

There is no meaningful tort reform in the POS

Then I guess you won't complain when the new majority de-funds this piece of shit.. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I won't by happy about it but I won't argue that it is anti-democratic and violates how our governance is set up.