Posted on 08/05/2005 7:58:18 AM PDT by Loud Mime
This issue deserves some clarification.
According to our Constitution, people cannot be denied the right to ask for something. They can ask for it, then be denied. But to prohibit their right to petition the government may not be taken away (excluding criminal behavior and its consequences); especially when you single out one specific group. That was the intent of our Founding Fathers.
In Romer v. Evans, the issue concerned Amendment 2, a voter-approved initiative the prohibited a group of citizens from seeking protected status. It singled out ONE group for such treatment, which was ultimately ruled unconstitutional. (http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/653/)
The procedure allowed by Amendment 2 was unfair, and ultimately ruled unconstitutional. Although I am against protected status for nearly every person, I must agree that the amendment was poorly written and was properly disposed of.
The constitutional issue should be the focus of this issue. Rise above the promotions of the mainstream media.
Hows about we don't put shameless vanity posts in the News forum, Mmmm Kaaaay?
Ping
Isn't equal protection under the law really about race? The point was to prevent states from making laws which treated blacks differently..
I'm not sure I'm willing to give Roberts a pass on this..
Yes, as the libs always do, they will attempt to spin the issue as the issue, so to speak. They always avoid the big picture, which as you noted, is support for existing Constitutional law.
This is what they fear -- because a SCOTUS that supports the Constitution and carries out ESTABLISHED law, will sink the socialists in this country.
I listed it as vanity.......what did I do wrong?
If the moderator will correct this, it would be appreciated....
Not according to your own link:
Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to their State Constitution precluding any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on their "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."The prohibition was against government organs, not against homosexual citizens.
I sure don't give him a pass. When I heard this I was quite disappointed. But lawyers will be lawyers I guess. I'm not thrilled with this choice now.
Better, rise above the "gays should burn in hell" hysteria on FR.
I see nothing in the Amendment about race.
great post the truth seems to elude those who are so willing to accept this candidate Roberts..his record is looking less and less like a conservative and MORE AND MORE like the liberal elite who RULE BY DECREE.
BUNK! The entire point of a constitution is to make some things harder to do. And technically, the homosexuals were still free to petition the government to repeal the constititonal amendment. But let me point out a reality. Homosexual activists do not, generally, petition legislatures. THEY SUE!!!!!!!!! That is entirely why these constitional amendments have become necessary. The only people being denied their rights to petition the government are the people against the gay agenda. They haven't a say --- JUDGES ARE DECIDING THESE ISSUES FOR THEM. So the seek recourse a constitional way, by amendment the constition so the activist judges will take note. BUT THE ACTIVIST JUDGES JUST GO ABOUT LEGISLATING ANYWAY. It is really appalling.
So you must make up posts to argue against. Okay. Well, since you brought it up, are you a Christian? Do you even believe in hell? If so, who is going there? And who will do the sending? For what reason?
After reading your post several times, I still don't see the incongruence. How do people get the legislature to act? The Judiciary responds to suits filed by people, doesn't it?
I know the point was raised, but knowing what I know I disagree with you. Wasn't the argument made that ANY state or federal Constitutional amendment would preclude people from "petitioning the government"? The amendment that prohibited poll tax, for example, precluded people who had a different point of view from "petitioning the govenrment" to allow them, to take a possibly screwy example. Seems like that line of logic, which I believe was used by the court, doesn't work unless somehow homosexuals are a protected class, which the court expressly refused to do.
The constitutional amendment is indeed the "royal flush" of laws. By merely asserting that the law had no "rational basis," the court seemed to just be asserting a naked right to strike down a state provision it didn't like without providing a "rational basis," rooted in the Constitution, of its own.
If the Colo const. amdmt was so patently unconstitutional, then why did Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas vote to uphold it?
How can it be said that Roberts is in the mold of Scalia and Thomas if he is working FOR FREE behind the scenes to defeat an amendment that these justices voted to uphold?
Roberts = Souter. You'll see!
If the moderator will correct this, it would be appreciated....
Sorry, my bad. I didn't see that. I'm used to the "[vanity]" tag in the title.
One may add that Roberts also worked for free to overturn welfare time limits. All of these complaints on FR, of course, are beside the point. The U.S. Senate majority, much like the Roman Senate majority circa 100 a.d., is not about to show any independence on this issue.
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.