Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: OneWingedShark
By asserting that these problems are federal in nature you are asserting that the servant [fedgov] is greate than the master [the states/people].

Well, let's turn that statement on it's head for a second.

If that be the case, then shouldn't the 2nd Amendment also be left to the States?

How about the First Amendment?

Since the equal protection clause will be used to support Gay Marriage contracts in the states that have outlawed the practice constitutionally at the state level, does it not cry out for a federal constitutional amendment remedy?
84 posted on 08/04/2014 8:29:40 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]


To: SoConPubbie

Government power has given us legal abortion and even pays for it. So your solution is more government power. You are a fool.


87 posted on 08/04/2014 8:35:32 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]

To: SoConPubbie
>> By asserting that these problems are federal in nature you are asserting that the servant [fedgov] is greate than the master [the states/people].
>
> Well, let's turn that statement on it's head for a second.

Great!
This'll be fun.

If that be the case, then shouldn't the 2nd Amendment also be left to the States?

Traditionally the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government [read its prolog] — however, the construction of the Second is in the passive voice where the action being prohibited is the subject and therefore the actor is irrelevant. By the reading of the 10th Amendment infringing on the right to bear arms is thereby prohibited by it to the States.

Another interesting fact is that the Bill of Rights amends the Constitution as further declaratory and restrictive clauses — this means that the power of Congress is limited thereby and, logically, there can be no legitimate weapons/munitions tax.

How about the First Amendment?

The First amendment explicitly limits Congress.
None of the several states have a Congress, but rather a legislature, assembly or somesuch as the legislative-branch; the application of the first amendments ought, therefore, to be a nullity — by accepting that the 14th Amendment makes the First amendment applicable to the States is to assert that there is some magic in incorporation which alters the text to suit whims.

Since the equal protection clause will be used to support Gay Marriage contracts in the states that have outlawed the practice constitutionally at the state level, does it not cry out for a federal constitutional amendment remedy?

Interestingly the Fourteenth amendment isn't valid [alt doc]; but let's assume for a moment that it is — how would allowing States to define marriage themselves be denying equal protection? If the definition is applied uniformly then there is no error; only when exceptions are made does the protection become unequal.

97 posted on 08/04/2014 9:02:32 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]

To: SoConPubbie

Libertarians know that gay marriage at the federal level guarantees that they will get their gay marriage at the state level in time.

We were not going have a situation where Marines and Sailors and FBI men and millions of federal employees and immigrants were going to have to deal with being “family”, or “not family” during their careers of transfers and duty stations for very long, and libertarians know that.


98 posted on 08/04/2014 9:05:53 PM PDT by ansel12 (LEGAL immigrants, 30 million 1980-2012, continues to remake the nation's electorate for democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson