Posted on 12/20/2012 10:19:31 AM PST by kreitzer
It’s often hard to accept the truth, especially when that truth is scary, when reality seems to offer you no solutions, only poison from which to pick. It’s as with a man I once knew who insisted it couldn’t be proven that smoking was bad for you. He knew better in his heart, but his available choices — giving up cigarettes or accepting the danger of their use —were both emotionally unpalatable to him. Enter the rationalization. We’re seeing the same thing with Republicans in the wake of Barack Obama’s re-election. Radio host Sean Hannity, citing changing American demographics, stated a while back that his position on immigration has “evolved”: we now must offer illegals some kind of pathway to citizenship (a.k.a. amnesty). Other conservatives are warning that we must dispense with social issues or the Republican Party will be dispensed with. Of course, this isn’t always rationalization.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
So you are ok with the feeds doing whatever they want to do. So you like a nanny state, you know the Constitution really means nothing anyway. You might want to change you name because nannies seem to be ok with you as long as it is fed nannies. Marriage and Abortion are not covered in the Constitution and they should not be allowed to mess with either issue.
That clause is exactly a forswearing of power not an exercise of power.
A federal law is not an exercise of power?
Not when its core is a nonrequirement.
It may reject applying one states law to another but that in and of itself is exercising federal powers.
Preventing one state from violating the sovereignty of another state would be a valid exercise of federal power.
Now, Why did that have to get passed in the first place? Ostensibly, under this whole 50 different nation states and a small constitutional federal govt, that wasnt needed in the first place.
The concern was that otherwise the Full Faith and Credit Clause would be interpreted to mean that all states had to recognize gay 'marriages' performed in states that allowed it. Did you really not know that?
That clause is exactly a forswearing of power not an exercise of power.
"Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns."
You can argue that the federal government shouldn't provide any employee insurance or Social Security survivors' benefits, or regulate immigration, or collect income taxes - but if you grant that any of those are as a whole within their powers, you can't then argue that setting specific policies in those areas is outside their powers.
As for abortion it also is not a federal issue it is not covered by the Constitution it was made up by the USSC.
And since the federal court made it up and is unwilling to unmake it, only action by the other federal branches can rectify that - those actions are in defense of the Constitution not in violation of it.
So you are ok with the feeds doing whatever they want to do. So you like a nanny state, you know the Constitution really means nothing anyway.
Hysterically misstate much? Try addressing what I actually posted instead of flailing at your cartoonish straw men.
Marriage and Abortion are not covered in the Constitution and they should not be allowed to mess with either issue.
I have arguments, you have bumper stickers - I'm content to let readers decide who has the better of this debate.
Passing an unconstitutional law is wrong period. Saying well it is to correct something else does not make it right, it is still unconstitutional. These are things that have lead us to this point, instead of correcting the problem they pass a law that affects everything except the problem. If the USSC does something it should not then Congress should address that. Not pass a law that affects us and not the USSC. They need to treat the problem not the symptom.
To what law are you referring?
Show me where in the constitution the feds are allowed to define marriage. DOMA is unconstitutional.
That clause is exactly a forswearing of power not an exercise of power.
"Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns."
You can argue that the federal government shouldn't provide any employee insurance or Social Security survivors' benefits, or regulate immigration, or collect income taxes - but if you grant that any of those are as a whole within their powers, you can't then argue that setting specific policies in those areas is outside their powers.
Show me where in the constitution the feds are allowed to define marriage. DOMA is unconstitutional.
Show me where DOMA "defines" marriage.
Sorry, the full faith and credit clause doesnt require a state to substitute its own laws the conflicting law of another state. Did you really think that?
thanks ...I have been too busy lately to be on here much.
Merry Christmas
The concern was that otherwise the Full Faith and Credit Clause would be interpreted to mean that all states had to recognize gay 'marriages' performed in states that allowed it. Did you really not know that?
Sorry, the full faith and credit clause doesnt require a state to substitute its own laws the conflicting law of another state. Did you really think that?
Liberals think that - which is why DOMA was needed. Any other questions you'd like me to clear up for you?
See Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335; see also Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16.
But aside from that, your position is that the FF&CC does force another state's laws on another and so you're sitting here arguing about why DOMA is needed when it's clearly unconstitutional by your own interpretation.
LOL. Progressive much? Golly gee, I guess I'm off to grow me some weed here in Utah since Washington says they can. According to you, I wont be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. < rolls eyes >
You just sat there and told me that libtards believe the FF&CC doesnt require a state to substitute its own laws the conflicting law of another state.
And then you said that DOMA was needed to protect against something liberals dont even believe in. LMAO! Yea, you really just cleared it all up for me. I guess yer kickin and fussin and being a little incoherent.
Sorry, the full faith and credit clause doesnt require a state to substitute its own laws the conflicting law of another state. Did you really think that?
Liberals think that
You just sat there and told me that libtards believe the FF&CC doesnt require a state to substitute its own laws the conflicting law of another state.
Wrong - you missed the obvious "think that" parallelism of "Did you really think that?" and "Liberals think that". What liberals think is what you asked me if I think: that the full faith and credit clause requires a state to substitute for its own laws the conflicting law of another state.
Liberals think that - which is why DOMA was needed.
No, these court cases say that.
See Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335; see also Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16.
I didn't say liberals were correct in thinking that the full faith and credit clause requires a state to substitute for its own laws the conflicting law of another state - I just said they thought so.
But aside from that, your position is that the FF&CC does force another state's laws on another
Where did I say that?
and so you're sitting here arguing about why DOMA is needed
"Needed" was too strong - let's make that "extra assurance."
More precisely, for "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" (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ199/html/PLAW-104publ199.htm). Is it your position that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to determine 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?
“Make mine the Founder’s Libertarianism every time.”
According to Bernard Bailyn the work most cited by the Founders in their deliberations was Deuteronomy. They lived in a world suffused with Christian ethics, not the vacant amorality that you’re pushing.
Of course, that ain't in there and I'm not pushing a damned thing. I dont support gay marriage in any way, shape or fashion. Read the rest of my responses and you'll see it's quite the opposite. It's you guys that are pushing something. It's called progressivism and it's dangerous whether pushed by republicans as by democrats.
So when you've established that the Constitution means and says whatever you want, how do you tell a liberal that they dont have the power to do the same thing? And once it's established that either party can violate the Const at will, what leg are you standing on when they regulate away the 2nd ammendment or any of the others? That's the bottom line of what I'm saying.
It's incumbent upon US, not the govt to protect marriage.
Of course, that ain't in there and I'm not pushing a damned thing. I dont support gay marriage in any way, shape or fashion. Read the rest of my responses and you'll see it's quite the opposite. It's you guys that are pushing something. It's called progressivism and it's dangerous whether pushed by republicans as by democrats.
So when you've established that the Constitution means and says whatever you want, how do you tell a liberal that they dont have the power to do the same thing? And once it's established that either party can violate the Const at will, what leg are you standing on when they regulate away the 2nd ammendment or any of the others? That's the bottom line of what I'm saying.
It's incumbent upon US, not the govt to protect marriage.
So therefore you're good with just ignoring the limits of the constitution and making your own rules...just like the dems?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.