U.S. Constitution

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield"

Okay this is a quote from George Washington...you might have heard of him. One of the things that worries me is that with the over whelming incompetence of the Democratic party is that the Republicans are gaining too much power. One of the good things about Congress being controlled by one and the Presidency by the other is that instead of getting bad stuff done they used to get nothing done. The attempt at passing the Gay Marriage amendment is deeply troubling to me. At no other other instance that I can recall has the constitution been used to deprive rights from the citizens(except Prohibition but they wised up on that quickly enough). The Constitution has been a blue print to what I am legally entitled to. It just worries me that the government is increasingly worried about protecting the wishes of many of over the rights of the minority. As a side note, I don't believe in gay marriage, however, it is hard to tell a couple that has been together and earned and lived together that they aren't entitled to social security benefits because they love someone of the wrong gender. My theory has been to allow them to get married in the eyes of the State and then the churches can choose not to recognize these marriages.

[olevetonahill]

Im drunk and I aint gonna touch this subject ;)

[oumartin]

isn't that a boat?

[olevetonahill]

isn't that a boat?
Change that damn avvie
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[BoogercountySooner]

Nope!

[oumartin]

what do you mean change the avatar?

[olevetonahill]

what do you mean change the avatar?
Much better !:)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Let's make threesome's a marriage.

[OU Adonis]

Since when is gay marriage a right?

[Partial Qualifier]

It just worries me that the government is increasingly worried about protecting the wishes of many of over the rights of the minority. As a side note, I don't believe in gay marriage, however, it is hard to tell a couple that has been together and earned and lived together that they aren't entitled to social security benefits because they love someone of the wrong gender. My theory has been to allow them to get married in the eyes of the State and then the churches can choose not to recognize these marriages.

Well that's the issue, isn't it? Do "married" gays deserve entitlement to traditional marriage benefits? I don't think so, and I think it's rather easy to tell two gays they aren't entitled to benefits of marriage.

:confused:

[Partial Qualifier]

Since when is gay marriage a right?

I should read the entire thread before posting :)

Oh and I'm pretty sure George Washington would be trippin' if he thought there was even a remote chance this could ever be an issue. Don't ask -- don't tell, etc. that's all cool but don't try to pass off "gay marriage" like it's some kind of legitimate thing.

I'm not cool with one penny of my tax/S.S. money being spent on gay couples.
What's next - Pet owners marrying their dogs? I mean they do love each other, right??

:rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

Let's make threesome's a marriage.

http://www.slate.com/id/2138482/

[yermom]

I should read the entire thread before posting :)

Oh and I'm pretty sure George Washington would be trippin' if he thought there was even a remote chance this could ever be an issue. Don't ask -- don't tell, etc. that's all cool but don't try to pass off "gay marriage" like it's some kind of legitimate thing.

I'm not cool with one penny of my tax/S.S. money being spent on gay couples.
What's next - Pet owners marrying their dogs? I mean they do love each other, right??

:rolleyes:

so you don't want your money going to fags?

what about their money? maybe they don't want their money going to some breeder's wife and kids? (not you specifically, i have no idea if you are married or whatever)

[yermom]

http://www.slate.com/id/2138482/

Polygamists: We're Just Like Gays!

[NormanPride]

Why don't they? It's just a legal union between two people. Lots of older people want it to be able to live with their friends and get the benefits. But that's not the real point in this thread. The real point is that the government is getting TOO unified.

Dissention and disagreement is what makes this country different from the others. We have too diverse a populace for one simple political party to govern it.

[OU Adonis]

so you don't want your money going to fags?

what about their money? maybe they don't want their money going to some breeder's wife and kids? (not you specifically, i have no idea if you are married or whatever)

It sucks to be them then. Us Breeders provide the basis for the continuation of the US of A. All they give us is really guys who can accessorize and like to shop. :D

[OU Adonis]

Why don't they? It's just a legal union between two people. Lots of older people want it to be able to live with their friends and get the benefits. But that's not the real point in this thread. The real point is that the government is getting TOO unified.

Dissention and disagreement is what makes this country different from the others. We have too diverse a populace for one simple political party to govern it.

Yeah, we have TWO political parties, while most countries have MANY.

Just because we have one dominant party doesn't mean that that party doesn't have several different viewpoints. Its like saying since we only have two parties, we only have two view points.

[TopDawg]

I agree that it's always a little dangerous when one party (whichever party it is) controls the House, Senate and Presidency. It makes the checks-and-balances system that is part of the genius of our system much less...well...balanced.

But I'm not all that worried. Political power comes and goes in cycles. When any one party has it for very long, the lack of balance ultimately ends up coming around to bite them in the arse and they end up ****ing off enough people or messing up enough things that the power shifts to the other party, or at least to a more balanced sharing of the power.

[soonerscuba]

I would support an amendment restricting the right for people to marry animals.

[yermom]

It sucks to be them then. Us Breeders provide the basis for the continuation of the US of A. All they give us is really guys who can accessorize and like to shop. :D

couples not being able to procreate is really the least of our problems ;)

[mdklatt]

I would support an amendment restricting the right for people to marry animals.

I wouldn't. KISS. If you start putting anything and everything into the US constitution you'll end up with the Oklahoma constitution. That damn thing needs ammending every time a town wants to install a new traffic light. The federal government should not concern itself with frivolities like marriage or flag burning. I guess we didn't learn our lesson from Prohibition.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I would support an amendment restricting the right for people to marry animals.THERE you go. Logical progression for ya!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

But that's not the real point in this thread. The real point is that the government is getting TOO unified.

Dissention and disagreement is what makes this country different from the others. We have too diverse a populace for one simple political party to govern it.There exists one tiny little program... The Democrat Party has gone off the leftist deep end. They keep losing the elections, because people don't trust them with national security, and other issues too, of course. But the image of an inexplicable pre-911 mentality will continue to stymie their electability.

[mdklatt]

There exists one tiny little program... The Democrat Party has gone off the leftist deep end. They keep losing the elections, because people don't trust them with national security, and other issues too, of course. But the image of an inexplicable pre-911 mentality will continue to stymie their electability.

Pssst...the leftist deep end and the fascist deep end both end up at the bottom of the same hole.

[Sooner Born Sooner Bred]

Well that's the issue, isn't it? Do "married" gays deserve entitlement to traditional marriage benefits? I don't think so, and I think it's rather easy to tell two gays they aren't entitled to benefits of marriage. I would be cool with it if it was two married chicks though

:confused::confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Vaevictis]

Since when is gay marriage a right?


Since when is interracial marriage a right?

pfft.

Ultimately, I don't have a problem with the government not sanctioning any particular kind of marriage... provided that it doesn't sanction any kind of marriage.

Just you wait, my friend. Once the Religious Right gets this boogey man under wraps, they WILL find a new one. They won't stop until we're the Christian equivelent of the Taliban. Do you really want to go back to the old school stuff like, I dunno, stoning adulterers (who, according to the Bible, include all divorce`s who got divorced for any reason other than adultery, btw)

[Partial Qualifier]

so you don't want your money going to fags?

what about their money? maybe they don't want their money going to some breeder's wife and kids? (not you specifically, i have no idea if you are married or whatever)

They're entitled to whatever social security a single person gets and I have no problem with that at all. If they don't want their $$ going to me, well, too bad. I'm not a gay-basher, I just don't think gays should be entitled to traditional, gubmint-provided marriage benefits.

[mdklatt]

I just don't think gays should be entitled to traditional, gubmint-provided marriage benefits.

Why should anybody?

[Sooner Born Sooner Bred]

I put some gold up there for you guys and I think you missed it.

TIA

[OU Adonis]

Did SBSB just say she put up her pot of gold for anyone to hit it?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Pssst...the leftist deep end and the fascist deep end both end up at the bottom of the same hole.Yes the fascists ARE the leftists, in case you didn't notice:eddie: !!!

[mdklatt]

Yes the fascists ARE the leftists, in case you didn't notice:eddie: !!!

Since it's not the leftists who are currently trying to enact their particular ideas of morality and patriotism into law, no I haven't noticed.

[yermom]

They're entitled to whatever social security a single person gets and I have no problem with that at all. If they don't want their $$ going to me, well, too bad. I'm not a gay-basher, I just don't think gays should be entitled to traditional, gubmint-provided marriage benefits.

i'm do gay lover either, but we don't really get to choose where our money goes.

i'm not sure SS really makes a difference in this case, you only get money from a spouse if you have kids, right? but if you replace SS with insurance or filing taxes it's basically the same thing

[Partial Qualifier]

Why should anybody?

I really don't disagree with this sentiment

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Since it's not the leftists who are currently trying to enact their particular ideas of morality and patriotism into law, no I haven't noticed.I guess you are referring to controversial ideas like outlawing murder again with the former, and I don't know what you mean by the latter

[mdklatt]

I guess you are referring to controversial ideas like outlawing murder again with the former

Yes, gay marriage = murder. :rolleyes:

Particular brand of patriotism: Burning a piece of cloth is repugnant, but suspension of basic constitutional freedoms is not.

[soonerscuba]

See, making a amendment to the constitution banning animal marriage is absurd, make the next logical step...

yeesh, work with me here people.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yes, gay marriage = murder. :rolleyes:

Particular brand of patriotism: Burning a piece of cloth is repugnant, but suspension of basic constitutional freedoms is not. I thought you were referring to abortion. My bad. Hey, dude, we got a war goin' on. I want the enemy to be observed. Please refer back to my post about why dims aren't winning many elections these days.:rolleyes:

[mdklatt]

Hey, dude, we got a war goin' on. I want the enemy to be observed.


Well hell, why not just declare martial law then? Terrorism is always going to be a fact of life, so the "War on Terror" is never going to be over. One of the things the Islamists would abolish if they had their way is our personal freedoms (see: the Taliban). So why should we voluntarily give them up?


Please refer back to my post about why dims aren't winning many elections these days.:rolleyes:

Once the pendulum swings far enough to the right it's going to swing back to the left. Most Americans are going to be so fed up with the Republican bull**** that they'll elect even the most bat**** crazy extreme Democrats. And those Democrats will inherit the all-powerful government the Republicans are creating now.

[yermom]

i love how the pubz love to mention how "dims" lose elections, and how electing Bush sent a message

what that 50% of the people that voted picked your guy? i seem to remember it being a pretty close election both times

[OU Adonis]

Well hell, why not just declare martial law then? Terrorism is always going to be a fact of life, so the "War on Terror" is never going to be over. One of the things the Islamists would abolish if they had their way is our personal freedoms (see: the Taliban). So why should we voluntarily give them up?



Wow, me and MD agree on something politically. Who would of thunk it.

There was a time that the republican party was all for the small federal government and individual freedoms.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Once the pendulum swings far enough to the right it's going to swing back to the left. Most Americans are going to be so fed up with the Republican bull**** that they'll elect even the most bat**** crazy extreme Democrats. And those Democrats will inherit the all-powerful government the Republicans are creating now.Ever the optimist...and then what will happen after the bat**** dims win control?

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm not sure what this thread is all about except homosexual marriage, but this isn't that difficult an issue.

The states created the Federal government at the Constitutional Convention and reserved for themselves all powers not enumerated and granted to the Federal government. No where is the issue of marriage an enumerated Federal power therefore the Federal government HAS NO AUTHORITY for defining or establishing what constitutes a state of marriage.

The individual states are suppose to be incubators for social change. Each state is suppose to craft laws that are a reflection of the beliefs, morals, and yes even prejudices of those states. Social changes WILL take place and the government closest to the people is the best means for legislating and dealing with that social change.

If Vermont for example wants to legalize homosexual marriage then that is their business and it is the business of other states whether or not they want to recognize that marriage from Vermont. If Mississippi, for example, wants to ban homosexual marriage then it is just as much their right to do so as it is the right of Vermont to legalize it. In either case, voters should never improperly use the power of the Federal government to impose their will on a state with peple who don't believe the same way they do.

The only "in" for Federal action on this issue is by amending the Constitution and I absolutely positively do not believe it is appropriate to do so.

[mdklatt]

There was a time that the republican party was all for the small federal government and individual freedoms.

Absolute power--White House, Congress, and Supreme Court--corrupts absolutely. Gridlock is our friend.

[mdklatt]

Ever the optimist...

Yes, I'm just being "optimistic". The Democrats will never ever win another election no matter how far to extreme right the Republicans continue to move.



and then what will happen after the bat**** dims win control?

They'll pull the same the **** the pubz do right now, which is worshipping government power in order to push their own lame-*** ideological agendas instead of coming up with practical policies for dealing with all the **** the government is supposed to deal with. Simply substitute the Elephant version of political correctness (anti-fag laws and flag burning amendments) with the Donkey version ("hate crime" nonesense and affirmative action).

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

They'll pull the same the **** the pubz do right now, which is worshipping government power in order to push their own lame-*** ideological agendas instead of coming up with practical policies for dealing with all the **** the government is supposed to deal with. Simply substitute the Elephant version of political correctness (anti-fag laws and flag burning amendments) with the Donkey version ("hate crime" nonesense and affirmative action).When the pubz go to raising taxes, or downsizing the military,they are TOAST!

[TUSooner]

My Rule of Thumb for Constituional interpretation:

Don't believe everything you read!

You're welcome.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

My Rule of Thumb for Constituional interpretation:

Don't believe everything you read!

You're welcome.And, claim you read things you didn't.

[mdklatt]

And, claim you read things you didn't.

Like where it defines marriage as between a man and a woman. ;)

[Vaevictis]

Like where it defines marriage as between a man and a woman. ;)

Or where it says that you have a right to be married at all.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Like where it defines marriage as between a man and a woman. ;) or where it says abortion is not murder.

[mdklatt]

Or where it says that you have a right to be married at all.

True. Marriage is not a government function.

[mdklatt]

or where it says abortion is not murder.

It doesn't say anything about abortion at all does it?

[Vaevictis]

It doesn't say anything about abortion at all does it?

Nope. In fact, I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything about murder either ;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

It doesn't say anything about abortion at all does it?I don't even think it addresses murder at all, nor marriage. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[mdklatt]

I don't even think it addresses murder at all, nor marriage. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

No, it does not, which is why adding flag-burning, "defense of marriage", or anti-abortion ammendments would be frivolous.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No, it does not, which is why adding flag-burning, "defense of marriage", or anti-abortion ammendments would be frivolous.An amendment to the Constitution would trump other law but the Constitution itself. I don't think frivolous would apply to an amendment. Silly in some cases maybe, but real for sure. The only one that I really don't appreciate is the flag-burning thing.

[Vaevictis]

On the other hand, it does say something about equal protection of the laws and unenumerated rights still being in full force.

Keep in mind the following:
* If there is a right to control one's own body, then just about the only way to sneak anti-abortion laws past the Constitution is to declare that humans are human from conception. This means:
1. All abortions are murder. No exceptions.
2. All abortions must be punished as if they were murder. No exceptions.
3. Anyone causing a miscarriage is guilty of murder. No exceptions. (This includes causing a miscarriage by negligence, ie, mother fails to take care of herself well enough, doctor screws up accidentally, someone does a fender-bender and oops, miscarriage -- vehicular homicide!)
4. Disposal of any fertilized egg in a fasion other than one that would permit it to come to term is murder. No exceptions. (ie, almost all fertility treatments are gone now)
5. Upon conception, the new "human" has all the rights and privileges and responsibilities of a citizen.
6. Anyone charging the mother for anything can charge for two (or more!); after all, there are two (or more!) human beings there.
7. Upon becoming pregnant, the new kid counts for welfare, etc! Hurrah! Need some extra income quickly? Get knocked up! Welfare queens must be salivating.

... and that's all I can think of off of the top of my head.

* Otherwise, you have to say there is no right to control one's own body. Have fun with that one.

Like I've said before -- Hello American Taliban!

[Vaevictis]

An amendment to the Constitution would trump other law but the Constitution itself.

Actually, an amendment to the Constitution trumps EVERYTHING except for subsequent amendments. That's why you need to be *extremely* careful when you add one.

[mdklatt]

An amendment to the Constitution would trump other law but the Constitution itself. I don't think frivolous would apply to an amendment. Silly in some cases maybe, but real for sure. The only one that I really don't appreciate is the flag-burning thing.

I meant "silly" more so than frivolous. Modifying the constitution is a serious business, and shouldn't be done frivolously.

How's that?

[Half a Hundred]

I am currently in an undergrad Civil Rights/Civil Liberties constitutional law class, and it amazes me that what I thought I believed when it came to the Constitution turns out to actually be much less clear-cut.

[mdklatt]

I am currently in an undergrad Civil Rights/Civil Liberties constitutional law class, and it amazes me that what I thought I believed when it came to the Constitution turns out to actually be much less clear-cut.

So you're saying we still need a judiciary branch?

[Half a Hundred]

So you're saying we still need a judiciary branch?

Pretty much. And that what we think of as judicial activism sometimes turns out to be quite the opposite, and vice-versa.

[mdklatt]

Pretty much. And that what we think of as judicial activism sometimes turns out to be quite the opposite, and vice-versa.

Why do you hate political partisanship?

[Half a Hundred]

Why do you hate political partisanship?

Something about "hating America" and the like... ;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Something about "hating America" and the like... ;)Sounds as if the class isn't making things any clearer for you.

[Half a Hundred]

Sounds as if the class isn't making things any clearer for you.

I hope you didn't think I was being serious on that one. There isn't a country better than this one, and it's because it means so many different things to so many different people. We get our strength through our conflicts, and hopefully become a better country because of them, not in spite of them.