oija - 2015-06-29 5:30 PM They were adopted by the Supreme Court later though and particularly defended in 1947. From the constitution, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The court is given jurisdiction to law and fact (thus to interpret cases and be the final word on legality) unless Congress says otherwise.

TXBO - 2015-06-29 5:38 PM


Well sure but if they were consistent with your reasoning, " it was scrapped because IT DIDNT WORK. It was a bad model so they came up with something better. As it is not law of the land, i refuse to refer to it. I care about what is relevant"...., you'd agree that it was judicial activism?  You're ok with the Supreme Court justices violating your personal sensibilities?

oija - 2015-06-29 5:46 PM Yup. It was legal pure and simple. I promise you it violated a lot of people's 'personal sensibilities' when they got rid of segregation. Still needed to be done. Government cannot act like individuals. It must act for the public good. Plenty of sins can be committed under the search for public good but plenty of great things have happened too including rights for blacks and women to vote. It ain't perfect but it's what we got. So we work with the system. If I disagree I can vote differently or run for office myself and try to get something done.

foundation horse - 2015-06-29 5:37 PM

The rights are enumerated via the text. Marriage, abortion and gun control are NOT enumerated via text. Per ANY Amendment!

TXBO - 2015-06-29 6:04 PM


The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution, not write law into the Constitution.  That is what they have done here.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that marriage is a fundamental right.  The Constitution is certainly a living, breathing document that allows us to make changes and correct horrible wrongs like you mentioned with women and blacks.  But those need to take place through the proscribed process laid out in the Constitution.  Women make up roughly 50% of the population and they gained their civil rights through the proper amendment process.  Blacks were roughly 11% of the population and they gained their rights through the amendment process.  What makes homosexuals at less than .5% of the population any different?  Our abandonment of rule of law has repercussions way beyond the scope of this case.  

oija - 2015-06-28 8:35 PM

I'm a fan of state's rights within limits, but until the SCOTUS stepped in on the issue of segregation, this country remained highly divided on the issue of race. Sometimes the federal government does have to step in to move the entire country in one direction and a direction that the majority finds acceptable.

36 states had already moved on this issue, meaning there was more than a 2/3 majority in this country on this issue. I think the SCOTUS simply forced the states who were not yet ready to move to do so. The SCOTUS is completely constitutional as are the fact that the judges are appointed, not elected, and serve for life. This protects that branch. It is part of our country's system of checks and balances and YES the SCOTUS has been given the power to interpret legislation by the Constitution as well. Just because anyone here personally may not interpret the Constitution or its amendments the same way this particular group of nine does in the end doesn't matter. They are given the power to interpret by our Constitution and they executed that power. You may not like it; you may not agree with it, but at the end of the day there is a reason that body exists, to balance out our legislature and executive branch. If you want to change something, go to law school become a judge and try to make yourself part of that body or influence it. Elect the type of presidents you want to appoint the sort of judges to that body you support. The vote was 5-4; that's a pretty close divide. Just one judge going a different way and this issue would have remained divided.

Anyone here who is upset for religious reasons, I'm sorry but the federal government is not a church and I'm **** glad its not. We have separation of church and state in this country for a reason. Laws should not be based on religious morality but on more general ideas of right and wrong and what the public considers acceptable. Governments are formed by consent of the governed. Not all those governed look to the Bible for their opinions on same sex relations. And they have a legally protected right to have a different opinion than the Bible. There are people here from many different religious backgrounds and their rights should be respected too.

Personally, as a result of this ruling I would like to see 'marriage' licenses changed to civil union licenses which can only be obtained from a JP. Marriage is a word with religious connotations for many and this would let them relax about the semantics. This would keep churches out of the whole deal entirely and keep them from being forced to perform same sex marriages which would violate their religious rights, something I do disagree with. Anyone wanting a traditional marriage ceremony could still have it at their church but would have to finalize it for a state license at a JP. I hope most states see their way through to this eventually; I'm sure there will be a certain amount of time before this issue settles down just as when the South passed their Jim Crow laws to keep blacks from voting. But it will eventually settle down.

The pedophilia issue and bestiality issue doesn't compute. Every state and country has age of consent based on the idea that people must have a certain ability to reason before becoming married, some bypass this with parental consent. But the big idea here is that the person must be a 'consenting human adult' to take part in sexual congress or marriage. Even bestiality in this country is illegal and considered animal abuse because animals cannot consent to these types of act; children too are not considered capable of giving this type of informed consent and are therefore protected by law. I do not see these 'consent' laws going away anytime soon. I'm sure the pedophilia people will try but ultimately fail to get anything done on this issue because of these legal understandings of consent.

RidenFly - 2015-06-29 10:32 AM

Normally, I believe very heavily in State rights. Especially after witnessing what Arizona has gone through. However, this is just something that was long overdue. The argument over marriage has gone on too long and has muddied the dialogue and detoured us when we should be discussing more important issues. I'm a conservative saying this. The Federal Government is already in the marriage business and this is no different. There is no where in our founding documents that outline marriage and in refrencing the Bill of Rights, all men are equal and should be afforded the same liberties under law. If it considered a sin with Christians then that is where separation of church and state come into play. There was once a time we could not interracial marriage, women couldn't vote, etc etc... sometimes things need to change as the population changes. Thank god the Fed. stepped in on those issues.

Gay marriage doesn't affect you personally, so I don't see why it cannot pass. There are no solid reasons. Let's take Arizona and the immigration problem for example, that affects everyone and that definitely should be left to the citizens dealing with this issue.

The pedophile argument is ridiculous. No judge, party or individual is ever going to allow children to become victims of the depraved. That is a scare tactic that is shameful to suggest. Those whackos can try all they want to pass this into law and it won't ever happen. Ever.

foundation horse - 2015-06-29 9:22 PM Oija and Flitastic, here is the exact event I am referring that The SCOTUS Decision has led up to. Still believe in Separation of Church and State?! http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-forc... Millionaire gay couple is suing to force a church to hold their wedding Read more: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-forc... Follow us: @TheLibRepublic on Twitter The Antithesis of Freedom is Forced Association DANBURY, U.K.–A wealthy gay couple has decided to launch a lawsuit to force their church to perform their wedding. “We’ve launched a challenge to the government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples.”Both attend St. John the Baptist church, a branch of the Church of England, and have been in a civil partnership since 2006. Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said that he and his partner Tony, “feel we have the right as parishioners in our village to utilize the church we attend to get married. “It is no reflection on our local church, who have been nothing but supportive towards us. We understand their hands are tied by a higher group of people within the church.” This reaffirms statements that Drewitt-Barlow made earlier this month, stating going to court was, “the only way forward.”“It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognize us.

barrelracr131 - 2015-06-30 7:17 AM


This is in the UK 

musikmaker - 2015-06-29 7:50 PM

This is something I put together a few years ago...the 9th amendment is one that is often overlooked but when you look up each word it has a lot to say!

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The 9th Amendment is simply a statement that other rights aside from those listed may exist, and just because they are not listed doesn't mean they can be violated.
So, when you look up the 9th amendment this is what you find pretty much.  Unfortunately, no one digs any further....so lets do just that!  It's important!!!
 
Enumeration:1 : to ascertain the number of
 
Construed:
1. To adduce or explain the meaning of; interpret: construed my smile as assent.explain. See Synonyms at
2. Grammar
a. To analyze the structure of (a clause or sentence).
b. To use syntactically: The noun fish can be construed as singular or plural.
3. To translate, especially aloud.
v.intr.
1. To analyze grammatical structure.
2. To be subject to grammatical analysis.
n. (knstr)
An interpretation or translation.
Interpret: 1. (tr) to clarify or explain the meaning of; elucidate
deny:de·ny  (d-n)play_w2("D0138500")
tr.v. de·nied, de·ny·ing, de·nies
1. To declare untrue; contradict.
2. To refuse to believe; reject.
3. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.
4.
a. To decline to grant or allow; refuse: deny the student's request; denied the prisoner food or water.
b. To give a refusal to; turn down or away: The protesters were determined not to be denied.
c. To restrain (oneself) especially from indulgence in pleasures.
 
disparage:dis·par·age  (d-sprj)play_w2("D0278500")
tr.v. dis·par·aged, dis·par·ag·ing, dis·par·ag·es
1. To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle. See Synonyms at decry.
2. To reduce in esteem or rank.
 
retained:
tr.v. re·tained, re·tain·ing, re·tains
1. To maintain possession of. See Synonyms at keep.
2. To keep or hold in a particular place, condition, or position.
3. To keep in mind; remember.
4. To hire (an attorney, for example) by the payment of a fee.
5. To keep in one's service or pay.
 
So once you put translate this into modern language the 9th Amendment says...
 
There is no set number of certain Constitutional Rights and no man, government nor judge shall belittle you into thinking
 they have the power to interpret the Constitution in any way that would deny you the inalienable rights that you possess & that this Constitution protects.
 
Feel free to play around with a better translation...translate the words anyway you want...does it not say that no matter, though?
 It shouldn't matter a judge's person as long as they don't commit the crime of interpreting the Constitution!  Lol!


 

oija - 2015-06-30 7:32 AM Besides the obvious point made here by barrelracr131, that this is in the UK, I actually see events in the U.S. following a similar pattern. What I mean by that is churches will likely be able to opt out, some gay couples will bring law suits and ultimately not win because of the protection of religious rights. Bringing a lawsuit and winning one are two very different things.

TxBronc - 2015-07-01 1:02 AM Your not a conservative. You may believe in some conservative ideals. But from your statement your not a true conservative.