Let's get something straight about 'enumerated' vs 'unenumerated' rights

Yep.

 

The scope of the Constitution is the mid 18th, the 19th, the 20th, and the 21st centuries. Its values are ageless. They knew that down the road various factions would not like what the Constitution says, but they purposefully and deliberately allowed no whimsical changes just because some faction might develop different values.

Maybe so, maybe not. Besides, it was the states that watered down what the framers thought of the electoral college. (And now Pelosi and company are wanting to kill it forever.) However, they were absolutely deathly fearful of the House misusing the impeachment clause as Pelosi did twice in one administration. (It is likely the framers would have looked askance at the other two impeachments, also.)

 

It's not in the constitution, but shouldn't an unborn fetus have a right to live? Or do these unenumerated "rights" only begin once it has passed through the birth canal and taken its first breath outside the womb? Such a thin line that causes so much passion and argument on both sides of the issue, and sadly one of the issues that will probably always divide our country.

 

The rub is that SCOTUS is sometimes absolutely wrong. The SCOTUS has been given the authority to determine the constitutionality of things (well, at least by Marshall if not by the framers) but that does not mean nor insure their correctness; they were not granted infallibility. You are correct that as of late same sex couples can get officially married because SCOTUS says they can. Whether the Constitution backs them up and says they can remains (maybe) to be seen.

 

But where are the revered and fundamental checks and balances that are an essential ingredient in the separation of powers (branches)?

 

Good point.

Welcome to PF.

 

So you don't think homosexuals are 100% human ?

Or are heterosexuals a "super" humans, special humans???

Shouldn't homosexuals get huge tax breaks if they don't have full equality?

 

The Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government. Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. The supremacy of the people through their elected representatives is recognized in Article I, which creates a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The positioning of Congress at the beginning of the Constitution affirms its status as the “First Branch” of the federal government.

The Constitution has remained in force because its framers successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments. Its a concise statement of governmental operation.

Have you ever read the preamble. Do you even know what it means? Do you even know what the very first 3 articles of the Constitution state?

The Constitution's first three words—We the People—affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. Thats why its amendments don't have to have the word government in them. ANYONE who has read the constitution (which you are not one of them) knows ANYTHING in the document is governing the government.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

You were saying something about being painted in a corner? If you don't know how to paint, maybe you should learn.

 

A state can probably ban smoking and swimming in the ocean, too. However, constitutionally a state must have a compelling public interest for its laws. No state bans smoking though states and municipalities have some highly restrictive regulations and laws against it in certain circumstances. States can and do ban ocean swimming in certain limited areas and can institute emergency bans and restrictions in certain circumstances. But, the point is the federal government cannot constitutionally ban either except in maybe some highly limited areas they can ban swimming for military justification.

 

Where did my thinking homosexuals are not human come from?? Not from me. Must have come straight out of your behind. In any case the debate is not homosexuals and heterosexuals, it is same sex marriage.

I believe same sex married couples should have some of the same rights a hetero married couple have. I just haven't been through the list. One I already mentioned is hospital visitation rights which should be a no-brainer. The difficulty of many is execution and administration.

 

The Constitution and the Declaration refer to God-given, natural, inalienable rights. These do not include anything and everything a person might want to do.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
So you don't think homosexuals are 100% human ? Or are heterosexuals a "super" humans, special humans???
Shouldn't homosexuals get huge tax breaks if they don't have full equality?

NOT from me... READ MY POST ""So you don't think homosexuals are 100% human ?"""

Do you know what "percent (%) means ???????????????????

So YOU tell ME ""Where did my thinking homosexuals are not human come from?""

Must have come straight out of your behind

Which has to do with equal rights...for ALL AMERICANS...something you seem to be against..

THAT is where you say homosexuals are not fully human...you want to deny them rights YOU have....and all humans should have..

Shouldn't homosexuals get huge tax breaks if they don't have full equality?

 

Your argument is a philosophical one. Science can claim a fetus is a human organism, but so is spermatozoa, so are a lot of organisms moving about inside your body, but do such things deserve the protection by the Bill of Rights? Science claim 'human organism', but it cannot tell us if that organism has personhood status, that can only be done by decree. I don't know the answer, I don't think anyone does, so I say let Roe stand, let the fetus be granted 'personhood' status at the third trimester ( or thereabouts, 'viability' etc ) which I think is reasonable, and let it be a decision between a woman, her doctor, and her family, and their collective conscience, and restore the right to privacy to it's former glory before this court wounded it.

 

When it comes to the DNC there is only ever one side

 

Right or wrong, some folks will feel it's right, the other will feel it's wrong. Where you, perhaps, or others say they are wrong, I say they are right, and vice versa.

Someone has to be the final word on the constitution, and the framers granted that privilege to the Supreme Court. I can't think of a better solution, other than to make the supreme court more balanced than it is. At 6/3, favoring conservatives, there is no longer a swing vote and by that fact it's out of whack with the values of the majority of the electorate. a 5/4 court with one centrist as the swing vote, would be about as fair as it could get, but Republicans will never allow it. It will be up to democrats to correct this injustice, if and when they ever acquired the power and determination to do it.

 

That was removed when Republicans threw the court out of whack by eliminating the swing vote, when they turned the court 6/3 favoring conservatives.

Now they are free to exact their tyranny of the minority on the majority of the electorate whom they oppose, and do it with impunity.

Congratulations.

 

I personally haven't decided on whether I go along with same sex marriage. The nuclear family with a heterosexual married couple has been unquestionably proven to be in society's best interest, hence its legalization. On the other hand I'm not sure if same sex couples hurt society and should not be allowed to marry. In any case, the point is it is none of the Constitution's nor the SCOTUS' business.

That is true, and I agree the supreme court is the logical place. But, like the other two branches, SCOTUS needs some high level checks and balances, and currently and constitutionally it has none. If there is a swing vote on the court, that means one unelected person in a black robe decides the permanent fate of the country. There is no way the framers could have set any such requirements on how supreme court justices are picked. (Same for the congress and the president.) They didn't even set the number. The founders and the vast majority of the framers despised political parties but recognized their inevitability. They certainly weren't going to give them any credence or constitutional authority. While your thought is interesting it is 100% a pipe dream. Why when Democrats get their way it is justice, but when they don't get their way it is injustice??

 

What the hell are you talking about?!? SCOTUS, the 3rd branch of government, has not had checks and balances since day one of the Constitution. It is true that lately conservatives added to the court have watered down the unfettered out of control power and authority of earlier courts, but that ain't checks and balances.

 

No it shouldn't.

 

I don't think marriage, it's legality, should have anything to do with 'what's best for society' if your standard are children.

In fact, marriage's legalization has to do with property rights, transfers upon divorce, wills, who is allowed to visit in hospital stays, custody of children issues, and so forth. That is why the state is involved, and why deprive gays from similar legal protections?

Moreover, Not all heterosexual couples can have children, so are they to be denied marriage? Of course not, then if we allow them to get married, what possible reason disallowing gays to get married? There is no reason, whatsoever.

There are no other bodies to check on SCOTUS, they are all political and that's not gonna happen. The buck stops somewhere, on constitutional issues, and there is only one place, the Supreme Court.

 

"Should" has nothing to do with it. Experience and history has shown it to be true.

That is all a state law can mean. If it doesn't bestow right, privileges, or punishments, it is worthless and moot. This is not the question.I personally think same sex married couples should have some of those rights, and I think it is possible to do without upsetting the marriage fruit basket...... or maybe her I am splitting hairs.

Laws seldom try to cover every base, nook and cranny. Properly, laws should cover the average or norm. If they banned non child baring heterosexual couples from marriage, what specific same sex marriages should be banned? Non-adoptive parents? Do you think the average legislator is smart enough to get the precise? They are lucky if they get the rough average right. However, try to remember that the issue is the federal government's nose in the tent.

A major egregious constitutional problem, as I said.

 

Says the spox for the party who tends to view scotus as a legislature of last resort which is how Roe came to be in the first place. Dred Scott was settled law until 700k men died unsettling it. Plessey vs Ferguson was settled law until Brown said otherwise. The notion of settled law is an oxymoron.

 

Experience and history favors polygamy. Unless, of course, you are cherry picking your history.

Why would gay marriage upset the 'marriage fruit basket'? The only thing it will upset is bigotry.

So, you are saying that 2% of the nation, the gay population, about 6.6 million human beings, are a 'nook and cranny'?

So, you are suggesting that God's creations, nature's creations ( pick your philosophical base ) 6.6 million human beings, are not 'average' or 'normal'?

"If they banned...." ?

I'm certainly not suggesting anything of the sort. I advocate for gay marriage, not against.

The Robert's court (decision written by Kennedy) sorted it out, nicely, for us in Obergefell v. Hodges. There is no problem.

The only solution is to balance out the court, currently it's out of whack. With a larger number of justices, and limiting the distribution to say,

15/14 for 29 total ( as it exists in some circuit courts ) and a swing vote a centrist, you'd have a better check on one group over the other. With a 5/4 court, all one justice needs is one other justice to swing the vote, and they can collude on that. With a 15/14 court, it would take much more than one justice to achieve it, and thus it's a safer number, a number where consensus really matters.

 

I've always wondered why all our legal documents, drivers license and such, reference Date Of Birth.

Why not Date Of Conception?

 

Blah, blah, blah, you failed to say a word about the English language and what the 9th means. You are solidly in the corner, desperately in the corner.