Doma

[Stone]

In the words of the Terminators... :tooth

.
I am shocked and appalled at your language

 

[The Man]

So why keep denying you support and engage in torture when posts you've made say otherwise?

I do not support torture nor engage in torture,
You however claim you would and have no regard for the law while doing such.

 

[Francis]

.
I am shocked and appalled at your language

I'm sure you are.. :24:

 

[Francis]

I have answered it the best I can....but yeah post what you have.
If its unconstitutional then it needs to be repealed

I sent him one concise answer..

You have posted pages and pages on Wki stuff hoping to hit the jackpot.. Quote the question as I did and answer the damn thing with the best answer you have.. Right or wrong give him an answer..

And no I will not give you my answer until he answers me back.

 

[Stone]

I do not support torture nor engage in torture,
....................................

Slick, Tim outed you at this forum and I outed you from posts you made at TSG.

 

[Stone]

.......................

And no I will not give you my answer until he answers me back.

It's your call to make, but why?

Edit:.....Never mind....I think I just figured that out.

 

[The Man]

What provision in the US Constitution does the Defense of Marriage Act support?

It doesnt have to support any of them...however it cant go against the constitution.
If I am wrong then we need to eliminate about 90 percent of federal laws.
I gave a partial list of laws etc that had nothing to do with the Constitution...so they obviously can create laws as long as they are not deemed unconstitutional.

'

 

[The Man]

Slick, Tim outed you at this forum and I outed you from posts you made at TSG.

I havent been outed on anything.

 

[The Man]

I got stuff i need to go do,,,roads are a sheet of ice..not going to be fun
Will be back

 

[Stone]

It doesnt have to support any of them...however it cant go against the constitution.
If I am wrong then we need to eliminate about 90 percent of federal laws.
I gave a partial list of laws etc that had nothing to do with the Constitution...so they obviously can create laws as long as they are not deemed unconstitutional.

'

It doesnt have to support any of them...however it cant go against the constitution.

But Federal Law outside the limitations of the Constitution lacks justification for being constitutional. That seems to be Accountable's argument and so far only Francis is claiming to know and he isn't talking

If I am wrong then we need to eliminate about 90 percent of federal laws.

What a mess, indeed.
I'll be moving to the Bahamas for retirement......

 

[Stone]

I havent been outed on anything.

Ignorance is bliss?

 

[Stone]

I got stuff i need to go do,,,roads are a sheet of ice..not going to be fun
Will be back

Roads aren't too bad here, yet.
Drive carefully, wouldn't want you to miss anything here

 

[Francis]

It's your call to make, but why?

Edit:.....Never mind....I think I just figured that out.

Why I did not want to give the answer was simply to have others look it up. Give a darn simple answer to a question..

In any case my answer was wrong but here it was..

1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

 

[Accountable]

I think I understand where you are coming from ACC but dont think it applies...In others words DOMA doesnt have to be in relation to the constitution, In other words a law cant be unconstitutional ...but they pretty much make laws all the time..and if they are not constitutional then they dont fly....

You don't think it applies, but you don't take the time to verify your hunch. I did the research for you. Here it is once again:

"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 is what gives Congress, and only Congress, the power to make federal law. Not any law they please; only those laws needed to carry out their enumerated powers. But just so that they don't go and make other laws (as you think they are allowed to do) this was also put into the Constitution as the Tenth Amendment:

"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."​

This one sentence declares emphatically that the federal gov't may NOT enact laws that are not specifically delegated to them, spelled out in Article 1 Section 8. Congress may not make laws not aligned with the Constitution. To do so is, by definition, unconstitutional.

DOMA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE CONSTITUTION.
THAT ALONE MAKES IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Now, you copied and pasted an impressively long list, with no idea what is constitutional and what is not. Each one would have to be addressed individually to determine its constitutionality.

SCOTUS doesn't make any call about a law's constitutionality unless it is brought to them through the appeals process, and not even then unless the court determines that the person bringing the complaint has standing (meaning that he can show that he's been harmed by the law), and not even then unless they want to hear it. They can simply decide not to hear the appeal. So a law's continued presence is not evidence of its constitutionality.

The one and only litmus test of the constitutionality of a federal law is whether it supports a provision of the US Constitution. That is what must be proven. If it fails that test, it is unconstitutional.

And yes, there are tons of unconstitutional laws on the books ... and some of them are just.

 

[The Man]

Ok..I think I follow you acc...but they are not {public} saying its unconstitutional because the feds didnt have right to create the act...they are saying the act itself is of discriminatory nature.{which is gray IMO}

But now I must comment on this part of your post

And yes, there are tons of unconstitutional laws on the books ... and some of them are just.

If some of them are unconstitutional ..then how are they just?


So how are the feds passing all these laws when they dont have the right to....I am not arguing the point but am curious to the "loophole' they are using.

 

[Francis]

This is what gives Congress, and only Congress, the power to make federal law. Not any law they please; only those laws needed to carry out their enumerated powers. But just so that they don't go and make other laws (as you think they are allowed to do) this was also put into the Constitution as the Tenth Amendment:

"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."​

This one sentence declares emphatically that the federal gov't may NOT enact laws that are not specifically delegated to them, spelled out in Article 1 Section 8. Congress may not make laws not aligned with the Constitution. To do so is, by definition, unconstitutional.

DOMA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE CONSTITUTION.
THAT ALONE MAKES IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

OK I understand it makes it unconstitutional.

But could they make it apply to the Military ( Federal ) Institutions or does that get overridden by State laws ?

What happens when they are abroad on an Army base considered US Soil and get married by a Military Chaplain or at sea and by a boat Captain ?

Isn't that considered Federal Jurisdiction ?

Way curious on this..

 

[Accountable]

OK I understand it makes it unconstitutional.

But could they make it apply to the Military ( Federal ) Institutions or does that get overridden by State laws ?

What happens when they are abroad on an Army base considered US Soil and get married by a Military Chaplain or at sea and by a boat Captain ?

Isn't that considered Federal Jurisdiction ?

Way curious on this..

The military falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It's a completely different set of laws, since the military is so very different from the civilian population. Members of the military are subject to the UCMJ whether stateside or overseas. This doesn't release them from responsibility to follow local law. Rather, they are bound by both sets of laws.

There are lots of rules/laws/regulations that are far more stringent than you'll ever see in civilian America. Being late for work is a federal crime, for instance. Not only is gay marriage illegal, so is common-law marriage. A military chaplain (or ship captain, I assume) would not be allowed to perform a particular rite if it would violate the UCMJ. Chaplains also perform rites of religions other than their own (marriage, christenings, funerals, etc) if a chaplain representing that religion is not available.

 

[The Man]

So how do we get the feds to stop creating law that not in regard to the constitution?
Do we even want that?.....I can see some of the laws beneficial.

 

[Accountable]

Ok..I think I follow you acc...but they are not {public} saying its unconstitutional because the feds didnt have right to create the act...they are saying the act itself is of discriminatory nature.{which is gray IMO}

But now I must comment on this part of your post

If some of them are unconstitutional ..then how are they just?


So how are the feds passing all these laws when they dont have the right to....I am not arguing the point but am curious to the "loophole' they are using.

A just law is just, erm, only guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness ... not by whether it supports the Constitution. A just federal law - say, prohibiting child abuse in the home - can be unconstitutional if it doesn't support provisions in the Constitution. A bad law, such as hiking income taxes to 80% across the board, can still be constitutional.

The loophole is that SCOTUS doesn't review bills, only laws ... and only laws that are brought before them ... and only if they feel like it.
Not to mention the irritating fact that SCOTUS is often fast and loose with interpreting the Constitution.

So how do we get the feds to stop creating law that not in regard to the constitution?
Do we even want that?.....I can see some of the laws beneficial.

IMO, we need to value the Rule of Law more than the benefit an unconstitutional law might bring. Valuing benefit over constitutionality brought us the Social Security Act and myriad commerce regulations, but it also brought us the Patriot Act and Obamacare.

I don't know how to get Congress to stop making bad law, or get the President to stop signing bad law. Having SCOTUS review every bill for potential unconstitutionality might work, but it would place even more power in the hands of 9 unelected, unfire-able people. I'd like to see a requirement to have every bill site the specific constitutional provision it supports.

 

[The Man]

A just law is just, erm, only guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness ... not by whether it supports the Constitution. A just federal law - say, prohibiting child abuse in the home - can be unconstitutional if it doesn't support provisions in the Constitution. A bad law, such as hiking income taxes to 80% across the board, can still be constitutional.

The loophole is that SCOTUS doesn't review bills, only laws ... and only laws that are brought before them ... and only if they feel like it.
Not to mention the irritating fact that SCOTUS is often fast and loose with interpreting the Constitution.


IMO, we need to value the Rule of Law more than the benefit an unconstitutional law might bring. Valuing benefit over constitutionality brought us the Social Security Act and myriad commerce regulations, but it also brought us the Patriot Act and Obamacare.

I don't know how to get Congress to stop making bad law, or get the President to stop signing bad law. Having SCOTUS review every bill for potential unconstitutionality might work, but it would place even more power in the hands of 9 unelected, unfire-able people. I'd like to see a requirement to have every bill site the specific constitutional provision it supports.

I'd like to see a requirement to have every bill site the specific constitutional provision it supports.

I like that ...perhaps throw in a chance to contest as well before being signed.

Not to mention the irritating fact that SCOTUS is often fast and loose with interpreting the Constitution.

Is that how Obama care slip in?

A just law is just, erm, only guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness ... not by whether it supports the Constitution.

Ok..thats how doma got in right?
Which will eventually get repealed IMO...not because they didnt have authority to create the act...but will claim its biased.

IMO, we need to value the Rule of Law more than the benefit an unconstitutional law might bring. Valuing benefit over constitutionality brought us the Social Security Act and myriad commerce regulations, but it also brought us the Patriot Act and Obamacare.

But you sound as if you are willing to allow laws that are unconstitutional....such as ss...and as going as far to call it a benefit....you cant be sitting on the fence there acc.

But now I must ask this.
If doma stated that marriage is to include same sex couples..it would still be unconstitutional correct?
As it does not address a provision in the constitution.....so they would be back where they started from.
Nothing gained or lost.