Posted on 08/18/2007 9:59:26 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
Friday, August 17, 2007
Nix That [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
From Team Thompson:
I'm afraid CNN story you linked mischaracterized Thompson's comment on gay marriage. They've since altered the story....without noting the change.
For the record, the Thompson camp has officially noted that "Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage." He supports the rights of States to choose their marriage law for themselves.
The Thompson camp issued this statement:
In an interview with CNN today, former Senator Fred Thompson’s position on constitutional amendments concerning gay marriage was unclear.
Thompson believes that states should be able to adopt their own laws on marriage consistent with the views of their citizens.
He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states, or that activist judges should construe the constitution to require that.
If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states.
Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
08/17 09:37 PM
So, you think states have the right to ignore/alienate inalienable rights. Why exactly do we have a federal union again, then?
Under your formulation, do states have the right to outlaw free speech? Ban all guns? Do away with free assembly and freedom of worship? Why not, if they have the right to abrogate the preemininent right, the right to life?
Let's ask Mr. Madison what the original intent was shall we? Not Progressive views of 1870 and beyond, the original intent
It is crystal clear what powers were intended to lay with the states and what powers were federal issues. As for the Bill of Rights, it was confirmed in 1833 it only applied to the federal government and was not overturned in any fashion until 1898, and then only a limited reading of the 5th Amendment. As you well know, the incorporation of the other Amendments (minus the 2nd) did not begin to happen until the mid 1920s (which answers your second question Gitlow 1925 applied the First to the states).
As I stated, Courts packed with Progressives.
Again, why have a Bill of Rights or a federal union, then?
...the essental purposes of the Union.
The Preamble, or pretext, of the Constitution, which lays out the essential reasons for the very existence of the document:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You will note that to the framers, one of their primary goals was to "secure the Blessings of Liberty" to their Posterity. That's you and me, billbears. The word "posterity" is also inclusive of every single unborn American child that is in the womb right this minute, and the as-yet unconceived children of all future generations.
Can anybody recommend a good brand of popcorn?
As you will also note that James Madison in 1817 put the Preamble (and certain phrasings in it) exactly where they belonged. With no real power.
March 3, 1817Of course Mr. Madison was dealing with the political 'son' of that most worthless Hamilton, Clay. Whose own political 'son' would one day destroy the Republic so the vision of internal improvements and the supremacy of the National government (no longer Federal) could come to pass..To the House of Representatives of the United States: Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.
The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.
"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce with a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.
To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.
A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.
If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.
I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.
James Madison,
President of the United States
So no, EV, you have presented no argument from the Framers that would justify your stance.
So, the Preamble is as meaningless to you as the Bill of Rights. Got it.
I guess you’re an Articles of Confederation kind of guy.
Is an unborn child a “person,” billbears?
All Madison is saying is that the Preamble cannot be interpreted beyond the enumerated powers. That’s got a pretty high “duh” factor.
But, taken with the enumerated powers, and the protections clealy provided in the Bill of Rights, the Preamble is indispensable in understanding original intent.
Too bad so many like yourself have dispensed with it...
The Preamble was meaningless to Mr. Madison so I'm going to lean with his views versus yours. The BOR is not meaningless, it was intended as a limitation upon the federal government, nothing more. And until the Progressive movement got hold of it that's all it was. Interesting that you don't deny you're advocating the same stance as the early 20th century Progressives. In fact you seem proud of it. Perhaps we should get a group up to ban that 'demon alcohol' again as well.
Is an unborn child a “person,” billbears?
Indeed. However as the Constitution says nothing about it, Mr. Madison (and the Bill of Rights) states where that issue lies. Same place as death penalty cases. With the separate and sovereign states.
But, taken with the enumerated powers, and the protections clealy provided in the Bill of Rights, the Preamble is indispensable in understanding original intent.
And yet you have provided no documentation from the Framers stating the Preamble is indispensable or the existence of an invisible power no one else can see. Matter of fact, Anti-Federalist #12 discusses the argument you're trying to make and an argument the Messrs. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay did their best to alleviate (i.e. ensuring it would not happen). How far 'conservatives' have fallen. To propagate their values arguing for the very thing the Framers ensured us would not, could not, occur.
You should be proud...
You're making that up.
The BOR is not meaningless, it was intended as a limitation upon the federal government, nothing more.
Ridiculous. Why can't you even understand the simple words "Bill of RIGHTS"? While the Bill of RIGHTS most certainly limits the power of the national government, its primary purpose is obvious on its face: To protect the inalienable rights of the people.
And until the Progressive movement got hold of it that's all it was. Interesting that you don't deny you're advocating the same stance as the early 20th century Progressives. In fact you seem proud of it. Perhaps we should get a group up to ban that 'demon alcohol' again as well.
I've never mentioned those things. That's your red herring, not mine.
Indeed. However as the Constitution says nothing about it, Mr. Madison (and the Bill of Rights) states where that issue lies. Same place as death penalty cases. With the separate and sovereign states.
First, I have proved that the unborn are in the Constitution. Like nearly our entire legal and political class today, you're simply ignoring it, and pretending that the Preamble and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments somehow aren't part of the Constitition. How can you claim that an unborn child is a person, and not recognize they are protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? Even the judges that decided Roe understood that.
Second, even if you were correct, which you're not, you are doing exactly what the Ninth Amendment was designed to prevent: Excluding rights simply because they are not spelled out in the document.
Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
And yet you have provided no documentation from the Framers stating the Preamble is indispensable or the existence of an invisible power no one else can see. Matter of fact, Anti-Federalist #12 discusses the argument you're trying to make and an argument the Messrs. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay did their best to alleviate (i.e. ensuring it would not happen). How far 'conservatives' have fallen. To propagate their values arguing for the very thing the Framers ensured us would not, could not, occur. You should be proud...
Brutus, no. 12
7 Feb. 1788Storing 2.9.150--51
To discover the spirit of the constitution, it is of the first importance to attend to the principal ends and designs it has in view. These are expressed in the preamble, in the following words, viz. "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution," &c. If the end of the government is to be learned from these words, which are clearly designed to declare it, it is obvious it has in view every object which is embraced by any government. The preservation of internal peace--the due administration of justice--and to provide for the defence of the community, seems to include all the objects of government; but if they do not, they are certainly comprehended in the words, "to provide for the general welfare." If it be further considered, that this constitution, if it is ratified, will not be a compact entered into by states, in their corporate capacities, but an agreement of the people of the United States, as one great body politic, no doubt can remain, but that the great end of the constitution, if it is to be collected from the preamble, in which its end is declared, is to constitute a government which is to extend to every case for which any government is instituted, whether external or internal. The courts, therefore, will establish this as a principle in expounding the constitution, and will give every part of it such an explanation, as will give latitude to every department under it, to take cognizance of every matter, not only that affects the general and national concerns of the union, but also of such as relate to the administration of private justice, and to regulating the internal and local affairs of the different parts.
Even Brutus recognizes my point: That the Preamble was designed to declare the overall purpose of the entire document. Any other interpretation turns logic on its head. And, while Brutus' fears about the courts were most certainly well-founded, as was borne out by later history in which the courts and the Congress have abused the so-called "general welfare" clause, that abuse, that misuse and misunderstanding of the clear meaning of the Preamble, does not negate its true use, its true meaning, in the least.
Hamilton's [naive, IMO] response, in which he argues that we don't need a Bill of Rights and that the Enumerated Powers and the Preamble are sufficient:
Federalist 84
"WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government."
You'll notice that Mr. Hamilton skipped over a large portion of it, and went straight to the most important part: ie, "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
"Brutus" [Robert Yates?] argued against the Preamble. Hamilton argued against a Bill of Rights. Both lost, in a sense. But, they also both won. We got both.
I'm glad we did.
By the way, "Brutus" eventually accepted the Constitution, with its Preamble, just as Hamilton accepted the Bill of Rights. Too bad you seem to be unwilling to do the same.
Well let's see. I have his response to Congress in 1817 on the issue and you have what? Thought so.
Ridiculous. Why can't you even understand the simple words "Bill of RIGHTS"? While the Bill of RIGHTS most certainly limits the power of the national government, its primary purpose is obvious on its face: To protect the inalienable rights of the people.
What do you not understand about Barron (1833). What do you not understand that SCOTUS denied such incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states until 1898 (5th), 1925 (1st), and the 1930s for the rest? Why if this limitation existed no one was able to find it until we had the Progressives foisted upon us?
First, I have proved that the unborn are in the Constitution. Like nearly our entire legal and political class today, you're simply ignoring it, and pretending that the Preamble and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments somehow aren't part of the Constitition.
LOL, I'm the only one providing data from the Framers here. I don't care how you 'feel'. It has nothing to do with feelings. What it has to do with is the intent of the Framers. Listen again real close okay? SCOTUS did not recognize the Fifth Amendment applied to the separate and sovereign states until 1898, 30 years after the passage of the 14th. SCOTUS did not recognize the First applied to the states until 1925, a full 60 years after the passage of the 14th. Why if these Amendments applied to the states was the issue not confirmed before this time? What? It took a full 60 years for a First Amendment case to come before the Court?
Brutus, no. 12 7 Feb. 1788Storing 2.9.150--51
Hold on I had to pick myself up. You quoted from someone of the time.
Even Brutus recognizes my point: That the Preamble was designed to declare the overall purpose of the entire document
Of course he recognizes your point!! He was arguing this was a danger!!! I pointed that out. I also pointed out the Federalists did their best to alleviate the concerns of Brutus by saying the Preamble wouldn't do just that. And Mr. Madison confirmed that in 1817 by stating the Preamble did not have the power Mr. Calhoun wanted it to have
By the way, "Brutus" eventually accepted the Constitution, with its Preamble, just as Hamilton accepted the Bill of Rights. Too bad you seem to be unwilling to do the same.
Brutus accepted it because he had his concerns answered it would not do just what you want it to. Hamilton accepted the BOR because he realized early on it would be a fight of incrementalism to get what he truly desired. A strong national government with little to no use for the states.
I’ve never seen anyone who makes arguments against arguments I never made like you do. You’re the king of the red herring.
The fact is, we do have a Preamble, one that is not meaningless.
We do have a Bill of Rights, one that is applicable to the States, and that protects the rights of persons in the womb: or would protect them if judges, presidents and congresscritters could read simple English, understand it, and have the courage to enforce it, as their sworn oath requires.
God, Government and the Preservation of Life
by David Barton
Protecting innocent life is a key and recurring theme in the Bible. Life is God-given; He formed us, made us, and breathed life into us. Therefore, He gave clear commands both on preserving innocent life and on punishing those who take it (See, for example, Exodus 23:7, Deuteronomy 27:25 &21:8-9 & 19:10, Proverbs 6:16-17, 2 Kings 24:4, Psalm 10:2,8, et al.) Since God is the author of life, and since He alone holds the keys of death (see 1 Samuel 2:6), He – not man – is to determine when life is to end.
The first occasion is for the cause of civil justice (e.g., Deuteronomy 19:11-13, Numbers 35:16-27, 2 Samuel 4:11, etc.). The shedding of blood in such cases is not the shedding of innocent blood. The second justifiable cause is general military conflict (e.g., Numbers 32:27, 2 Chronicles 32:8, 1 Samuel 4:1). The third cause is in defense of one’s life, family, or property (e.g., Nehemiah 4:13-14 & 20-21, Zechariah 9:8, 2 Samuel 10:12). In these three situations, the taking of life is not viewed by God as the shedding of innocent blood.
Similarly, Jewish scholars point out that the prohibition in the Sixth Commandment is not against killing but rather is against murder. That is, they assert that the proper translation from the Hebrew is not “Thou shalt not kill,” but rather “Thou shalt not murder.” Murder is the taking of innocent life, while killing may not be (e.g., the three Biblically justified examples given above).
This preservation of innocent life was viewed by our Founding Fathers as one of the chief purposes of civil government. As Thomas Jefferson explained, “the care of human life. . .is the fist and only legitimate object of good government.” And the Declaration of Independence similarly declared: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men . . .are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life. . . .[And] that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”
Consequently, the Founders established numerous laws to protect innocent life – laws prohibiting murder, suicide (which the Founders termed “self-murder”), assisted suicide, abortion, and infanticide. Yet, in protecting life, the Founders understood that respect for innocent life would dwindle if the influence of religion were reduced in the nation. As President George Washington warned: “Where is the security . . . for life if the sense of religious obligation desert?”
It is not surprising, then, that with the concerted efforts over the past three decades to diminish the effects of religion in the nation, there has been a corresponding decrease in respect for and protection of innocent life. For example, in the abortion arena, since even those on the pro-abortion side concede that a partial-birth abortion takes the life of a baby capable of living on its own outside its mother’s womb, then even pro-abortion forces cannot deny that a partial-birth abortion is the shedding of innocent blood. Pro-lifers, however, have long argued that all abortions shed innocent blood.
Some researchers now argue that abortions are good for society. For example, researchers from Stanford University and the University of Chicago recently released the results of a study concluding that “Falling crime rates in the 1990s may be a direct positive result of Roe v. Wade. The study suggests that since a disproportionate number of poor, minority, and teenage mothers – whose homes produce statistically more young adult criminals – aborted their children right after the Supreme Court gave the nod in 1973, large numbers of would-be criminals were killed before they could rape, murder, or steal” (World magazine).
While such ludicrous logic is used to excuse the shedding of innocent blood inside the womb, it seems that there is now a move to justify the shedding of innocent blood outside the womb.
An advocate of this position is Peter Singer, a professor at Princeton. In the mid 1970s, Singer founded the radical group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) on the presumption that the life of a person is not necessarily more valuable that the life of an animal; he also has run for office as a candidate for the Green Party. However, it was not these beliefs or activities which have resulted in the latest outcries against him.
He was recently made a tenured professor of bioethics at Princeton’s Center for Human Values. This appointment enraged many because of his views on human life, documented in his book Practical Ethics, include the view that parents should be allowed to kill a severely disabled infant in order to increase the family’s happiness. Singer argues that children less than a month old have no human consciousness; therefore, it is acceptable to kill them. He asserts, ”Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all.”
So, first was the argument that a baby inside the womb was not a person; now we find that a baby outside the womb also is not a person! And this guy is a professor of bioethics at the Center for Human Values? What kind of “ethics” is this? And what “human values” is he teaching?
Perhaps the most sobering aspect of Singer and his views is the influence that he can have on his students. As Jesus wisely observed in Luke 6:40, every student, when he is fully instructed, will be like his teacher.
The conclusions reached by academicians at Princeton, Stanford, the University of Chicago, and at other schools confirm what Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration. Long ago correctly observed, “Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.”
Interestingly, a warning by John Quincy Adams also accurately describes where America now finds itself:
Three points of doctrine . . . form the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of a God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve [any] of these articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=164
You are very welcome. It is very hard to find. I tried to borrow it through a university’s inter-library loan, and they could not find it.
I did the reasearch on for such a case.
I did not find any. Of course I could ultimatly find own if I kept searching however I doubt it.
The LA law I found indicated they would in fact recognize a FL cousin marriage. (ie Albert Einsteins marriage would also be recognized due to a grandfather provision)
Pretty much all the cases that do allow challenges are based on CHILDREN crossing state lines and then the parents having the marriages annuled. (ie 16 year old daughter ran away with 17 year old boy and came back to state where consent is 18)
Given absolute lack of cases to the contrary, a FL marriage by first cousins who are adults would be recognized in LA.
Not buying it sorry.
Especially when you are DISSEMBLING!
The case you quote was about an ILLIGITIMAT CHILD BORN OUT OF A MARRIAGE!
-— — - —— —
In the Matter of the Succession of Joseph L. ROBINS.
No. 59138.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
June 20, 1977.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 2, 1977.
Ashton L. Stewart, Laycock, Stewart & Preis, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant.
Vanue B. Lacour, Lacour & Calloway, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees.
TATE, Justice.
May the state validly prohibit an illegitimate child from receiving a legacy intended for him by his father, solely because the child’s conception resulted from an adultery committed by the father? Simply stated, that is the issue before this court.
The deceased testator willed his estate, composed entirely of his separate property, to two illegitimate sons. Relying upon Civil Code Article 1488 (1870), his surviving widow by a second marriage opposed the judicial recognition of these legacies. The trial court held the code article to be unconstitutional and, accordingly, dismissed the widow’s claim to receive the decedent’s estate instead of his testamentary heirs, i. e., his illegitimate sons. An appeal is taken for her claim. 1
Page 277
Article 1488 2 prohibits natural parents from giving or willing any part of their estate to their illegitimate children, if these children were conceived as a result of an adultery or of incest. No such prohibition applies to gifts or legacies made by a father to his illegitimate children conceived under other circumstances, at least where (as here) the decedent is not survived by lawful descendants, ascendants, or collateral relations. Articles 1483-87.
The district court held that Article 1488 violates Article 1, Section 3, Louisiana Constitution of 1974 3, in that the code article unreasonably discriminates against adultery-conceived illegitimates solely on the basis of their birth. The constitutional provision states: “No law shall arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably discriminate against a person because of birth * * *.”
I.
In this direct appeal to this court from the judgment holding Article 1488 unconstitutional, see La.Const. Art. 5, Sec. 5(D)(1) (1974), the narrow legal issue is:
Does a statute unreasonably discriminate against illegitimate children because of their birth, in violation of our state constitution, when it prohibits a natural parent from giving or willing an illegitimate child any substantial part of the parent’s estate solely because the child’s conception resulted from the parent’s adultery? (The narrowed issue essentially involves the reasonableness of the legislative classification of adultery-conceived illegitimates as being incapable of receiving testamentary dispositions from their parents, when such dispositions are not prohibited as to other illegitimate children, nor as to (technically) “illegitimate” children likewise conceived as the result of an adultery.)
=snip=
III.
In contending that the complete denial of inheritance rights to adulterous children is founded upon a rational basis, the appellant principally relies upon Succession of Vincent, 229 So.2d 449 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1969), certiorari denied 255 La. 480, 231 So.2d 395 (1970), affirmed eo nomine Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532, 91 S.Ct. 1017, 28 L.Ed.2d 288 (1971). In that case, no unreasonable discrimination under the federal constitution was found to result from Louisiana’s denial to illegitimates of intestate inheritance rights which are granted to legitimate children.
The reliance is misplaced. The issue in Vincent involved the statutory regulation of the distribution of estates of decedents who died without making a will. The rational basis for the discrimination between legitimate and illegitimate children was found to exist in facilitating the prompt and definitive determination of property left by an intestate decedent, as well as in the social policy of encouraging marriage and discouraging illegitimacy. 10
However valid these may be as rational bases for differentiated treatment of legitimate or illegitimate children for purposes of intestate succession, these reasons do not afford any rational basis to deny completely by statute any right of an illegitimate child to receive a legacy given him by his father’s will solely because the child’s conception resulted from his father’s admitted adultery especially where, as here, the father could have willed his estate to non-adulterous illegitimates or to complete strangers. 11
Our holding that Article 1488 constitutes invidious discrimination against adultery-conceived illegitimates solely because of their birth, where other illegitimate children of the parent are not so penalized, is in accord with similar interpretations of the federal constitution’s equal protection guarantees: Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 763, 97 S.Ct. 1459, 52 L.Ed.2d 31 (1977); 12 Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 406 U.S. 164, 92 S.Ct. 1400, 31 L.Ed.2d 768 (1972). 13 See also Warren v. Richard, 296
Page 281
So.2d 813 (La.1974). However, since we have found that this invidious discrimination is barred by our state constitution, we need not ground our decision upon this additional basis.
Conclusion
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, which granted judgment in favor of the decedent’s sons and which held Civil Code Article 1488 violated our state constitution by denying the decedent’s illegitimate sons the capacity to receive the legacies intended for them by their father’s will. All costs to be paid by the appellee.
AFFIRMED.
DENNIS, J., concurs.
SANDERS, C. J., and MARCUS, J., dissent.
SUMMERS, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
SUMMERS, Justice (dissenting).
THE CASE ACTUALLY GOES AGAINST YOUR ARGUMENT!!!!!!
DID YOU ACTUALLY READ IT!
As a newbie (Since Jul 21, 2007), if you are going to Troll at least troll giving valid case law.
The bottom line sticks solid. Marrige IS a federal issue.
IF F.Thompson is weaseling by giving the COMPLETE BS of states rights on this then he has lost before he even started. The propaganda manure of F.Thompson running away from this issue to protect his effect elite and hollyweird alies only puts marriage defenition in the hands of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. (and does not give a dingo’s kidney about any state or constitutional right given her harmonazing global law conferences)
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.