Doma

[Jackass master]

1. The Defense of Marriage Act is federal law.
2. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution dictates that Congress will "... 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."
3. It follows that any federal law that is not necessary and proper for executing the federal government's enumerated powers is necessarily an unconstitutional law. Agreed?

What makes DOMA constitutional?

Nothing. It is another fine example of congress overstepping the powers granted it by the founders. We are besieged by their ill intended actions every session and it is getting worse. Instead of concentrating on what they are supposed to be doing(like crafting a balanced budget) they venture into folks bedrooms and doctors offices with their laws.

 

[The Man]

No.

eta: Actually, maybe it is. That'd be a great thread.
An excellent question. What makes something unconstitutional is that it is not constitutional. Being unable to prove constitutionality proves unconstitutionality.
I don't think you can prove it is a privilege. Driving is a privilege. You must qualify to do it and your misbehavior can cause you to lose the privilege. Marriage doesn't fit the description.

And it's not relevant because drivers licenses and marriage license are issued locally. Obtaining a drivers license is not a federal issue. How is marriage a federal issue?


Also not relevant, at least not until the question of the constitutionality of the law is answered.

I don't think you can prove it is a privilege. Driving is a privilege. You must qualify to do it and your misbehavior can cause you to lose the privilege. Marriage doesn't fit the description.

Marriage is also a privilege...as it has restrictions and benefits...Marriage isn't a right...thus not constitutionally protected.

And it's not relevant because drivers licenses and marriage license are issued locally. Obtaining a drivers license is not a federal issue. How is marriage a federal issue?

Sure it is... Federal taxes ...and spouse benefits then property after death.
Marriage needed to be defined or we could marry our TV for benefits of marriage for example.

Also not relevant, at least not until the question of the constitutionality of the law is answered.

Whats unconstitutional about it? Whats has been violated?
Marriage is a legal term..has been defined...but more importantly its an option..nothing is forced.

 

[Accountable]

Marriage is also a privilege...as it has restrictions and benefits...Marriage isn't a right...thus not constitutionally protected.

I agree that marriage is not a natural right, and as such is not protected by the Ninth Amendment, but without specific mention of marriage in the Constitution, restricting it violates the Tenth Amendment.

Sure it is... Federal taxes ...and spouse benefits then property after death.
Marriage needed to be defined or we could marry our TV for benefits of marriage for example.

Federal taxes were charges long before the federal gov't ever bothered to define marriage. Why? Because there is no federal marriage license; it's a state/local issue. It's not covered by the Constitution, therefore not the jurisdiction of the federal gov't, per the Tenth Amendment.

Whats unconstitutional about it? Whats has been violated?
Marriage is a legal term..has been defined...but more importantly its an option..nothing is forced.

DOMA clearly violates the Tenth Amendment. Conservative statism is still statism; it goes against the most basic tenets that formed our decentralized representative republic.

 

[Accountable]

Nothing. It is another fine example of congress overstepping the powers granted it by the founders. We are besieged by their ill intended actions every session and it is getting worse. Instead of concentrating on what they are supposed to be doing(like crafting a balanced budget) they venture into folks bedrooms and doctors offices with their laws.

Repped!

 

[The Man]

I agree that marriage is not a natural right, and as such is not protected by the Ninth Amendment, but without specific mention of marriage in the Constitution, restricting it violates the Tenth Amendment.

Federal taxes were charges long before the federal gov't ever bothered to define marriage. Why? Because there is no federal marriage license; it's a state/local issue. It's not covered by the Constitution, therefore not the jurisdiction of the federal gov't, per the Tenth Amendment.

DOMA clearly violates the Tenth Amendment. Conservative statism is still statism; it goes against the most basic tenets that formed our decentralized representative republic.

The laws of marriage are given to the states ..there is no violation.
Marriage has only been defined by the feds. If marriage wasn't defined marriage could mean anything from a loose tooth to land ownership.

Its as I have been saying...its the word that is the hold up.
Gay partners need to invent a word such as "united" and ask the same privileges be applied as "married"

Remember a marriage is a union...but union does not automatically mean marriage.

Example water is a liquid...this does not mean liquid is water.

 

[Accountable]

The laws of marriage are given to the states ..there is no violation.
Marriage has only been defined by the feds. If marriage wasn't defined marriage could mean anything from a loose tooth to land ownership.

Given?? Given?!? Man, have you got a lot to learn about the USA. This country wasn't conquered by a national government. Rights are not granted by the national government. The national government does not delegate responsibilities to the lower states. This is not a hierarchy.

It seems that it may a foreign concept, you being a statist and all, but We The People allow powers to the federal gov't via the US Constitution. Anything not specified in that document is not under federal jurisdiction. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at all, so marriage is not a federal issue.

Its as I have been saying...its the word that is the hold up.
Gay partners need to invent a word such as "united" and ask the same privileges be applied as "married"

Remember a marriage is a union...but union does not automatically mean marriage.

Example water is a liquid...this does not mean liquid is water.

Once again you've strayed from the point.

 

[The Man]

Not at all.
The states have their laws concerning marriage.
The feds did not create the laws regarding marriage is states.
The feds however did define the word marriage.
The word marriage does not have to be in the constitution to be defined....this is what is hanging you up.

 

[Stone]

Not at all. The states have their laws concerning marriage. The feds did not create the laws regarding marriage is states. The feds however did define the word marriage. The word marriage does not have to be in the constitution to be defined....this is what is hanging you up.

Sophistry.

 

[The Man]

Sophistry.

^^^^^ Ignorance ^^^^^

 

[Stone]

Not at all.
The states have their laws concerning marriage.
The feds did not create the laws regarding marriage is states.
The feds however did define the word marriage.
The word marriage does not have to be in the constitution to be defined....this is what is hanging you up.

Accountable has made his argument....TM, you didn't.....And yours a simplistic attempt at sophistry.

 

[Francis]

How is marriage a federal issue?

At least here Marriage is a Federal issue due to Statistical purposes as part of registration. Hence our State ( Province ) advises the Federal Government of the License number for Tax purposes and Census.

This of course also ensures that people do not get married in multiple States..

 

[The Man]

Accountable has made his argument....TM, you didn't.....And yours a simplistic attempt at sophistry.

Learn to read ^^^^^^^^

 

[Stone]

Learn to read ^^^^^^^^

That doesn't change a thing, TM.....Accountable is correct.

 

[Tim]

What makes DOMA constitutional?

Nothing.

But what makes you think that congress may only pass constitutional laws?

They are absolutely free to pass any law they want whether constitutional or not. They aren't supposed to pass unconstitutional laws but they do it quite often.

This is where someone like you needs to stand up and challenge the law. This is why we don't have only one branch of government. This is exactly why we have checks and balances built into our government.


Does that answer your question without actually answering it?

 

[Accountable]

Not at all.
The states have their laws concerning marriage.
The feds did not create the laws regarding marriage is states.
The feds however did define the word marriage.
The word marriage does not have to be in the constitution to be defined....this is what is hanging you up.

Is the Defense of Marriage Act a federal law?

 

[Accountable]

Nothing.

But what makes you think that congress may only pass constitutional laws?

They are absolutely free to pass any law they want whether constitutional or not. They aren't supposed to pass unconstitutional laws but they do it quite often.

No, they're not.

"The Congress shall have Power ... 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."


"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... 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 powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

The Constitution locks Congress into making only laws to carry out enumerated constitutional powers. Anything outside of those powers is reserved to The People and/or the States. So, even though Congress routinely passes unconstitutional laws, and SCOTUS routinely finds ways to declare them legal, they are not constitutional.

This is where someone like you needs to stand up and challenge the law. This is why we don't have only one branch of government. This is exactly why we have checks and balances built into our government.


Does that answer your question without actually answering it?

Maybe I should start buying lottery tickets so that I could get the money necessary to challenge the numerous unconstitutional laws.
SCOTUS (or maybe Congress, I'm not sure) has set up a huge roadblock to challenging laws called "standing." I can explain it if you wish. It would keep me from challenging DOMA and many other unconstitutional laws (maybe even the "Patriot" act) no matter how much money I spent.

As for checks and balances, the federal branches were set up as checks and balances, but they've broken down. The legislative and executive branches are dependent on and indebted to the same corporate sponsors, and they only hire justices who are sympathetic to their view of how things ought to be, rather than the actual Rule of Law.

 

[The Man]

Is the Defense of Marriage Act a federal law?

Sure is...as it defines marriage itself.
Nothing more.
It is up to the states on how long to wait before getting married blood tests etc..divorce proceeding etc.


Here is what they define below

Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

 

[Accountable]

Sure is...as it defines marriage itself.

Then, as I explained, it must support some provision in the Constitution, or it's unconstitutional.

What provision does it support?

 

[The Man]

Then, as I explained, it must support some provision in the Constitution, or it's unconstitutional.

What provision does it support?

Federal laws are just that and dont have to reference the constitution.
Hell you would be tossing everything from the epa to the marines being under the president if you did.

 

[Accountable]

Federal laws are just that and dont have to reference the constitution.
Hell you would be tossing everything from the epa to the marines being under the president if you did.

I typed a whole lot of shit that would have just put us off track, then deleted it.

Do you have any kind of support for that first sentence? Any at all??

What do you imagine "unconstitutional" means, if federal law doesn't have to follow the constitution?