Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A SCOTUS Among UsFollow

#52 Jun 27 2013 at 1:10 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
gbaji wrote:
The ruling does not resolve the issue of taxpayers in one state paying for federal benefits for marriages that their state does not recognize.

I've been paying federal marriage benefits for California's legally wed first cousins, despite first cousin marriages being illegal in my state. Pay back is a bitch, eh?

Quote:
Either we'll see all states recognize *** marriage (which is presumably what the SSM advocates want)
I think people just don't want to discriminate.





Edited, Jun 27th 2013 9:11pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#53 Jun 27 2013 at 1:14 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,098 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The ruling does not resolve the issue of taxpayers in one state paying for federal benefits for marriages that their state does not recognize.

Probably because it's not an issue. It's federal tax money being disbursed through the federal system. If your state is creating a barrier to accessing that money, that's an issue with the state, not the federal government.

Out of your outcomes, I'd see if far more likely that states are forced to remove that barrier than a massive change in apportioning the money. Really though, I expect the real (federal) outcome from that avenue to be nil and married SS couples in states legally recognizing the marriage will get the benefits and those who don't won't. And they'll either continue to petition the states or move to friendlier climates.


I'm curious how currently Federal benefits are handled in first cousin marriages across state lines (Married in California, move to Nevada). I don't know how they are, but I'd imagine how ever they are handled will weigh in pretty heavily on how the SSM marriages will.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 3:15pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#54 Jun 27 2013 at 1:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The ruling does not resolve the issue of taxpayers in one state paying for federal benefits for marriages that their state does not recognize.
I've been paying federal marriage benefits for California's legally wed first cousins, despite first cousin marriages being illegal in my state. Pay back is a bitch, eh?

Presumably though Maine recognizes first cousin marriages from CA as valid should those people move across country and start a moose ranch. A SSM couple moving to Indiana doesn't have that luxury.

Gbaji's argument is that the fine people of the Hoosier State are paying for lawless Sodomites to get joint social security benefits when said lawless Sodomites aren't allowed to be classified as legally married in Indianapolis no matter what liberal bastion of sin they hail from.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 2:17pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#55 Jun 27 2013 at 1:16 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The ruling does not resolve the issue of taxpayers in one state paying for federal benefits for marriages that their state does not recognize.
I've been paying federal marriage benefits for California's legally wed first cousins, despite first cousin marriages being illegal in my state. Pay back is a bitch, eh?

Presumably though Maine recognizes first cousin marriages from CA as valid should those people move across country and start a moose ranch. A SSM couple moving to Indiana doesn't have that luxury.

You'd have to go to Canada to get a Moose Ranch Permit.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#56 Jun 27 2013 at 1:23 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,098 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The ruling does not resolve the issue of taxpayers in one state paying for federal benefits for marriages that their state does not recognize.
I've been paying federal marriage benefits for California's legally wed first cousins, despite first cousin marriages being illegal in my state. Pay back is a bitch, eh?

Presumably though Maine recognizes first cousin marriages from CA as valid should those people move across country and start a moose ranch. A SSM couple moving to Indiana doesn't have that luxury.

Gbaji's argument is that the fine people of the Hoosier State are paying for lawless Sodomites to get joint social security benefits when said lawless Sodomites aren't allowed to be classified as legally married in Indianapolis no matter what liberal bastion of sin they hail from.


lolWiki has a table.

If you moved, and your marriage was Voided... would that mean no Federal benefits, or would it just mean the State doesn't recognize that other State's valid license, but Federal would still?

I'm glad I'm single...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#57 Jun 27 2013 at 1:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
From the looks of it, three states have laws voiding the marriage of first cousins who moved (as a married couple) into that state. And a whole bunch of "unknown"s.

I had assumed that all states reciprocated in observing that union. Shows what I know. Guess I never had reason to look into marrying my cousins.

I honestly don't know the answer to the second question. I could see an argument for saying that the feds should consider you married and an argument for saying they shouldn't. I guess the answer should be the same as "Do 'married' cousins in Arizona get federal benefits?"

Anyone know any married cousins in Arizona? Or have a hot cousin they'd be willing to run an experiment with? For political SCIENCE!?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Jun 27 2013 at 2:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I had assumed that all states reciprocated in observing that union. Shows what I know. Guess I never had reason to look into marrying my cousins.


It doesn't have a big a lobby behind it, nor is it as much of a wedge issue. Same legal issue at hand though.

Quote:
I honestly don't know the answer to the second question. I could see an argument for saying that the feds should consider you married and an argument for saying they shouldn't. I guess the answer should be the same as "Do 'married' cousins in Arizona get federal benefits?"


Decent question. Don't know the answer either. I would assume that they do, but that no one has really cared enough about it (for the same reason as above). Difference is between where the dividing line is, versus not having one at all.


Oh. Meant to answer your earlier question. Where do you think "federal funds" come from? We're still basically left with a situation where the majority of the voters in the US, and a majority of the states in the US, do not want their federal funds to be spent providing benefits to *** couples who marry in the small number of states that do recognize *** marriage. Whether that numerical majority shakes down to a legislative majority to make any changes to marriage benefits at the federal level is up in the air, but it would be foolish to ignore the possibility of that sort of reaction to this ruling.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Jun 27 2013 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Oh. Meant to answer your earlier question. Where do you think "federal funds" come from?

Payments made via taxes or other fees to the US Treasury office.

What's your point? People can "not like" it if they want. It's already been ruled that prohibiting legally married SS couples from those funds on a federal level is unconstitutional. No, there won't be any movement (of any force) to redefine how the federal government assigns benefits and other affected payments.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 3:23pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#60 Jun 27 2013 at 2:25 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,098 posts
gbaji wrote:
Whether that numerical majority shakes down to a legislative majority to make any changes to marriage benefits at the federal level is up in the air, but it would be foolish to ignore the possibility of that sort of reaction to this ruling.


They know the evil gays are coming, so they will ruin Federal marriage benefits for everyone just so those gays can't have them? I can't imagine any law maker making a serious try at removing key Federal benefits between married individuals just so gays can't have the benefits when they eventually win the fight to get them...

Oh, I'm sure a few crazies like Bachmann might, but I said "serious try".
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#61 Jun 27 2013 at 2:52 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Whether that numerical majority shakes down to a legislative majority to make any changes to marriage benefits at the federal level is up in the air, but it would be foolish to ignore the possibility of that sort of reaction to this ruling.


They know the evil gays are coming, so they will ruin Federal marriage benefits for everyone just so those gays can't have them?


Love the editorializing there. The reality is that they believe (as I do), that the purpose of the marriage benefits is to act as an incentive to get couples who might procreate to enter into a legally binding marriage prior to doing so. The problem is that when the laws were written at the federal level, no one considered that states might change their marriage laws to allow couples who can't possibly procreate to marry, so the benefits were tied to state issued marriage. Since that's changed, the benefits no longer make sense to tie to marriage, so the most logical course of action would be to remove the attachment of those benefits to "marriage", and tie them instead directly to Married couples with the potential for procreation" (or some similar language).

Let's remember that the courts have never ruled that these benefits cannot be tied to the sexual makeup of a couple, only that if you tie it to "marriage", you can't after the fact deny it to some marriages. If the benefits are tied to procreation from the get-go, that's no different than tying benefits to financial status, or health status, or any of a zillion other criteria we use to decide who can qualify for various benefits.

Will this happen? Can't say. But that will be what conservatives will be moving towards next. But yeah, barring the second part, they'd rather simply remove all federal benefits to married couples if the status quo is left in place. Those benefits serve no purpose otherwise.


Quote:
I can't imagine any law maker making a serious try at removing key Federal benefits between married individuals just so gays can't have the benefits when they eventually win the fight to get them...


Because you're thinking of this in an "us vs them" way, and not "do these benefits make sense"? I know that liberals think of benefits in terms of helping groups of people they like, but conservatives believe that benefits should have a purpose beyond just rewarding people we like. I suspect that this ruling will focus the issue more clearly on those benefits and their purpose. But time will tell, I suppose.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Jun 27 2013 at 3:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
Like lower-taxes marriage benefits? I'm assuming we're talking about and not the other stuff? Or tying in other federally recognized benefits as well (i.e. your same *** spouse dies in military service or something)? Since if you're trying to "reward procreation" then having a marriage tax-break isn't the smartest way to go about it, even way back when.

So if you maybe want to bump up the child-tax credit, and in return get rid of some of the benefits of simply filing jointly as a married couple I promise not to complain. Smiley: wink

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 2:22pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#63 Jun 27 2013 at 3:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Alma wrote:
I won't deny that anyone ever did the latter during the creation and amendments of our constitution; however, it has become more of a political tool as opposed to outlining rules and supporting the people.


You see where you said that and then didn't give any arguments or anything at all to prove that what you are saying is based in reality? And then Allegory pointed that out and somehow you thought pointing him back to the post was a good idea.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 2:47pm by Aethien


That wasn't the explanation, but the conclusion. You can't ignore the answer and say it wasn't there.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#64 Jun 27 2013 at 6:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,318 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I had assumed that all states reciprocated in observing that union. Shows what I know. Guess I never had reason to look into marrying my cousins.


Well, clearly your cousins suck.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#65 Jun 27 2013 at 6:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, but not well enough to marry 'em.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Jun 27 2013 at 7:06 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Whether that numerical majority shakes down to a legislative majority to make any changes to marriage benefits at the federal level is up in the air, but it would be foolish to ignore the possibility of that sort of reaction to this ruling.


They know the evil gays are coming, so they will ruin Federal marriage benefits for everyone just so those gays can't have them?


Love the editorializing there. The reality is that they believe (as I do), that the purpose of the marriage benefits is to act as an incentive to get couples who might procreate to enter into a legally binding marriage prior to doing so. .
The reality is that they believe (and this is from GOP folk shown on Fox) that they are sinful, evil, potential child rapists who are as corrosive to the American way of life as Stalinist Communism.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#67 Jun 28 2013 at 12:38 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Almalieque wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Alma wrote:
I won't deny that anyone ever did the latter during the creation and amendments of our constitution; however, it has become more of a political tool as opposed to outlining rules and supporting the people.


You see where you said that and then didn't give any arguments or anything at all to prove that what you are saying is based in reality? And then Allegory pointed that out and somehow you thought pointing him back to the post was a good idea.

Edited, Jun 27th 2013 2:47pm by Aethien


That wasn't the explanation, but the conclusion. You can't ignore the answer and say it wasn't there.
There must be a lot of imaginary text in that post that the rest of the world can't see because it sure as **** doesn't say what you think it says.

Here, let me quote the whole bit for you so you can read it again:
Alma wrote:
'Twas indeed different. I'm not a history buff, but you're allowing the negative connotation of "politics" skew reality. There is a difference between laying the foundation of rules and regulations for a nation vs purposely interpreting the aforesaid rules in a way to bolster personal motives. I won't deny that anyone ever did the latter during the creation and amendments of our constitution; however, it has become more of a political tool as opposed to outlining rules and supporting the people.

I don't see any arguments, facts or anything at all that makes me think that what you are saying is based in reality. In fact, you did quite the opposite by starting with saying that you are not a history buff before making your unsupported claim.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#68 Jun 28 2013 at 5:29 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
First, forgive me as I'm no longer in the US, so I don't have the full coverage as I did. The message that I received was that DOMA was deemed "unconstitutional". So, unless I'm missing something, it's either unconstitutional because it was federally mandated or unconstitutional due to the restrictions of marriage. Given that we have a ton of federal mandates, my assumption is that 'twas the latter.

So, if the main arguments used were that it should be a state's decision on the rulings of marriage, then it completely contradicts the aforementioned. That essentially says, "The restrictions of marriage is unconstitutional, but only at the federal level, it's ok at the state level"

The issue is that marriage has traditionally been left to the states to define. The argument made as that the federal government was infringing on the traditional domain of the state by effectively saying "You can call that marriage but it's not and we won't honor it". Without exceptional cause to justify the intrusion (as in miscegenation), that provision of the law was struck down.

That it was "marriage" is somewhat secondary except that you'd need something within the state's sphere to act as a catalyst for the case. For an opposite example, the SCotUS struck down provisions from Arizona's state laws regarding immigration enforcement; immigration being the traditional sphere of the federal government and the state not having the right to interfere.

Neither case was argued so much about "marriage" or "immigration" but rather "How far can the federal/state infringe into the working of the other?" If not for the social aspect, conservatives would be hailing this as a huge win for state's rights.


I don't have a problem with the argument for individual state freedom or the conclusion. I have a problem with labeling it "unconstitutional". It is not unconstitutional to have a federal mandate. Just because "we've always done it that way" is true, doesn't make it unconstitutional to have a change.

This is similar to the states trying to push the legal time limit to have an abortion closer and closer to conception. Roe v Wade made abortion legal with limitations. Can the individual states make those limitations more restrictive? I don't know, I'm not fully familiar with the case; but you simply can't call everything that you disagree with "unconstitutional" and everything you favor "constitutional".

LolGaxe wrote:
Am I the only one that has a good chuckle whenever someone argues that amendments shouldn't be changed, or interpreted based on 1800s culture?


If you're referring to me, then let me clarify that I'm completely for fully rewriting the constitution to accommodate the present time. That's part of my gripe. The constitution doesn't clearly address topics that we are discussing in today's world. As a result, people want to pretend that they know what the founding fathers would have thought on the subject and it always so happen to favor whatever political motive that they have. We can eliminate most, if not all, of that ambiguity and clearly write it anew.

Aethien wrote:
There must be a lot of imaginary text in that post that the rest of the world can't see because it sure as **** doesn't say what you think it says.

Here, let me quote the whole bit for you so you can read it again:

............


I don't see any arguments, facts or anything at all that makes me think that what you are saying is based in reality. In fact, you did quite the opposite by starting with saying that you are not a history buff before making your unsupported claim.

I figured someone would say "but you said that you're not a history buff!!" dur....
You know how people start off points like "I'm not a rocket scientist, but" or "I'm not a brain surgeon, but"? Usually the following statements indicate something that is common knowledge that it doesn't take someone of that caliber of knowledge to understand.

Clearly, you are even below that. How you can initially give a one sentence response as an argument and at the same time be incapable to understand a more in depth response in two posts is unrealistic. The answer is there. If you choose to be ignorant, that's on you.



Edited, Jun 28th 2013 1:35pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#69 Jun 28 2013 at 5:36 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,954 posts
Shhh Aeth, he thinks using big words and antiquated language is sufficient. Jusby definition.t coo and tell him what a good boy he is.


[Edit]

It's unconstitutional to have a mandate that defies the constitution...

Also, this post is a good lesson on why you shouldn't post from your phone.

Edited, Jun 28th 2013 9:00am by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#70 Jun 28 2013 at 6:06 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You know how people start off points like "I'm not a rocket scientist, but" or "I'm not a brain surgeon, but"? Usually the following statements indicate something that is common knowledge that it doesn't take someone of that caliber of knowledge to understand
Maybe this would actually work for you if you followed it up with something that is actually common knowledge.

As much as you may have convinced yourself that the answer is in that post of yours, it really isn't. But by all means, keep deluding yourself and pointing to that post as your savior.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#71 Jun 28 2013 at 6:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I don't have a problem with the argument for individual state freedom or the conclusion. I have a problem with labeling it "unconstitutional". It is not unconstitutional to have a federal mandate.

It certainly can be.
Amendment No. 10 wrote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#72 Jun 28 2013 at 6:48 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Id wrote:
Shhh Aeth, he thinks using big words and antiquated language is sufficient. Jusby definition.t coo and tell him what a good boy he is.


Please..tell me which word you think is "big". I've openly admitted to using GRE words in the past in preparation for my exam. However, I've had to temporarily change focus to the CISSP. Since then, I have not used any words in awhile, so please tell me what words you think are big?

Aethien wrote:
Maybe this would actually work for you if you followed it up with something that is actually common knowledge.

As much as you may have convinced yourself that the answer is in that post of yours, it really isn't. But by all means, keep deluding yourself and pointing to that post as your savior.


I'll give you a clue. It's after "I'm not a history buff" but before the statement in question. At this point, the fault is on you. I seriously cannot state it any simpler without going into analogies. Now, if you're seriously interested (at the risk of making yourself look more foolish) and want me to break it down post by post with an analogy, let me know. I'll have no problem doing so. Just note, given the difference in time zones, I might not respond right away.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#73 Jun 28 2013 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
The reality is that they believe (as I do), that the purpose of the marriage benefits is to act as an incentive to get couples who might procreate to enter into a legally binding marriage prior to doing so
In the same sense that people believed the world was flat, the best way to cure psychosis was to drill a hole in someone's head, and that violence doesn't solve problems I guess.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74 Jun 28 2013 at 7:28 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I don't have a problem with the argument for individual state freedom or the conclusion. I have a problem with labeling it "unconstitutional". It is not unconstitutional to have a federal mandate.

It certainly can be.
Amendment No. 10 wrote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



Our interpretation of that is completely different. I interpret that as saying that IF the US hasn't delegated powers by the constitution or prohibited it to the states, then the states and/or the people have the authorization to operate off of said powers.

That doesn't prevent the US from federally mandating a traditionally state power. It's essentially saying that it's either one or the other. If it isn't already taken care at the federal level, then it's at the state level. That doesn't prevent powers from changing from/to state and Federal levels.

Given that the first condition is at the federal level, I assume that the federal preference outweigh the states. If it weren't as such, then there should be more information explaining what can or can not be at what level.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. People having different interpretations (right or wrong, intentional or not). We need to just start over.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#75 Jun 28 2013 at 7:43 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Quote:
The reality is that they believe (as I do), that the purpose of the marriage benefits is to act as an incentive to get couples who might procreate to enter into a legally binding marriage prior to doing so
What about same-*** couples who wish to adopt?
____________________________
Banh
#76 Jun 28 2013 at 7:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
If it weren't as such, then there should be more information explaining what can or can not be at what level.

I disagree with your reading of the Tenth but it's sort of moot. Determining the grey areas is the point of judicial review.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#77 Jun 28 2013 at 7:56 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If it weren't as such, then there should be more information explaining what can or can not be at what level.

I disagree with your reading of the Tenth but it's sort of moot. Determining the grey areas is the point of judicial review.

I understand the concept of abiding by a set of rules, but when the "grey area" absorbs that much resources, it's time to simply redefine it. We should argue if we want the change, not if the change is supported by an outdated ambiguous set of rules that don't directly apply to today, just to argue if want the change.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#78 Jun 28 2013 at 8:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I understand the concept of abiding by a set of rules, but when the "grey area" absorbs that much resources, it's time to simply redefine it.

There's a process for that call constitutional amendments.

It's less resource consuming to have judicial review.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#79 Jun 28 2013 at 8:18 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I understand the concept of abiding by a set of rules, but when the "grey area" absorbs that much resources, it's time to simply redefine it.

There's a process for that call constitutional amendments.

It's less resource consuming to have judicial review.


Not when you're making the same argument for over a decade, with flip flop court decisions in the middle. There is absolutely no logical argument to want to argue the "founding fathers point of view" on a relevantly "new" issue just to argue to the actual point as opposed to simply arguing the actual point. If you want to amend the constitution, then fine. However, when the amendments get to the point, where they practically overwrite the original document, we're only keeping the original document for "keeps sake".

I understand the value of history, but this is ridiculous.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#80 Jun 28 2013 at 8:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I understand the concept of abiding by a set of rules, but when the "grey area" absorbs that much resources, it's time to simply redefine it.

There's a process for that call constitutional amendments.

It's less resource consuming to have judicial review.
Not when you're making the same argument for over a decade, with flip flop court decisions in the middle.

No, honestly. Judicial review is faster and less resource consuming.

Look at how many laws the SCotUS has found unconstitutional since our nation's founding vs how many times the Constitution has been amended.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Jun 28 2013 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
Jophiel wrote:
No, honestly. Judicial review is faster and less resource consuming.

Those judges may be more expensive, but at least you only need to buy 5 of them.

Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#82 Jun 28 2013 at 9:30 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
With how things are going, I'm sure they'll be the next Steam collectable.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#83 Jun 28 2013 at 3:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I don't have a problem with the argument for individual state freedom or the conclusion. I have a problem with labeling it "unconstitutional". It is not unconstitutional to have a federal mandate.

It certainly can be.
Amendment No. 10 wrote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



Our interpretation of that is completely different. I interpret that as saying that IF the US hasn't delegated powers by the constitution or prohibited it to the states, then the states and/or the people have the authorization to operate off of said powers.

That doesn't prevent the US from federally mandating a traditionally state power. It's essentially saying that it's either one or the other. If it isn't already taken care at the federal level, then it's at the state level. That doesn't prevent powers from changing from/to state and Federal levels.


Sure. But the power has to be granted to the federal government by the constitution. The US can't just pass a federal law and proclaim that it's now taken that power from the states. Or at least, it should not be able to do so without running afoul of the 10th amendment. So it is unconstitutional if the federal mandate cannot be tied directly to a power granted to it by the constitution.

Quote:
Given that the first condition is at the federal level, I assume that the federal preference outweigh the states. If it weren't as such, then there should be more information explaining what can or can not be at what level.


But just to make this as clear as possible. This does not mean that "federal law trumps state law". It means "federal law that reflects a power granted to the US by the constitution trumps state law". The federal government cannot pass a law that requires that all public schools must teach evolution, for example. Because nowhere in the constitution does "provide public education to the masses" exist as a power or authority of the federal government. It can, however, under a combination of tax and commerce powers (which it does have), direct tax funds to a program consisting of grants to public schools providing them funding *if* they have curriculum which teaches evolution.

It's why the federal government exercises most of its power via funding and not direct legislation. The federal government can't pass a national speed limit and force the states to comply. It can provide funding for highways, and attach a speed limit requirement to that funding though. That's how the federal government gets around the 10th amendment. It doesn't mandate anything directly. It requires it as a condition of funding for something the states want.

Quote:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. People having different interpretations (right or wrong, intentional or not). We need to just start over.


Unless you could show that what we'd create by starting over would have less gray areas and disagreements, I'm not sure how productive that would be. Baby's and bathwater, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#84 Jun 28 2013 at 4:36 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I understand the concept of abiding by a set of rules, but when the "grey area" absorbs that much resources, it's time to simply redefine it.

There's a process for that call constitutional amendments.

It's less resource consuming to have judicial review.
Not when you're making the same argument for over a decade, with flip flop court decisions in the middle.

No, honestly. Judicial review is faster and less resource consuming.

Look at how many laws the SCotUS has found unconstitutional since our nation's founding vs how many times the Constitution has been amended.



I'm not denying that their review may not be cheaper and/or quicker, but the current system that we're in to allow them to review it is most definitely not the most resourceful.

Educate me. Didn't someone say that the SCOTUS can't just make a change to an "unconstitutional" law even though it's openly practiced? That's being reactive instead of proactive. The SCOTUS at any given time should be able to say "Law x is unconstitutional, I propose a change" then bam, then have it changed in less than a month.

There should be no reason why a group of people should have to "fight the system" (progressively) for years/decades to change something that ultimately gets changed at the end. Especially social issues like SSM. Absolutely nothing legal has changed over the years to automagically make it no longer constitutional. Which brings me back to my point. People are simply abusing the ambiguously written law for personal political motives.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#85 Jun 28 2013 at 4:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Educate me. Didn't someone say that the SCOTUS can't just make a change to an "unconstitutional" law even though it's openly practiced? That's being reactive instead of proactive.

Well, yeah. The courts' job is to address the cases put before them, not to wander the countryside looking for laws they feel are wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#86 Jun 28 2013 at 7:40 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Sure. But the power has to be granted to the federal government by the constitution. The US can't just pass a federal law and proclaim that it's now taken that power from the states. Or at least, it should not be able to do so without running afoul of the 10th amendment. So it is unconstitutional if the federal mandate cannot be tied directly to a power granted to it by the constitution.


Sure it can, that's what the 10th amendment is for. It says that if the federal government doesn't explicitly cover a power, then it's implicitly left to the states and the people. No where does it state that the Federal government can or can not seize any power.

If you want to believe Jophiel's interpretation of the 10th amendment, then you have to show where the constitution explicitly defines what power can or can not be held at what level. Else, you can't say that a particular action is "unconstitutional" to be held at a certain level without any baseline to compare it to. Your only argument would be "We've always done it that way", which equates to "if it's in current practice, then it is correct". That mentality completely contradicts the concept of changes and amendments in the constitution.

Gbaji wrote:
But just to make this as clear as possible. This does not mean that "federal law trumps state law".


You're right. It doesn't. You can add to, but you can't take away.

Gbaji wrote:
Unless you could show that what we'd create by starting over would have less gray areas and disagreements, I'm not sure how productive that would be. Baby's and bathwater, right?


We wouldn't be wasting time debating the amendments, i.e. the whole 2nd amendment fiscal. Does gun control infringe on the 2nd amendment? Have a "final" argument and make it specifically clear on what type of gun control on current weapons infringe or do not infringe on your right to bear arms. As a result, no more wasted energy on debating after every mass shooting.

As of now, there is a ton of grey area in gun control because the 2nd amendment was written at a different time for a different purpose and is being pigeon holed in today's society.

Of course, people will always have the freedom to fight any change, but the difference is that the law is based on TODAY'S perspective on life and not 200 years ago when the argument in question was not in question. There's no "guessing" what the founding fathers meant, because it's irrelevant. That alone is the majority of the ambiguity. "You have the right to bear the following arms with the said restrictions". Done.

JOphiel wrote:
Well, yeah. The courts' job is to address the cases put before them, not to wander the countryside looking for laws they feel are wrong.


Which is why waiting till that magical time when the SCOTUS decides to address something is less efficient than simply redefining everything to today's society. In the meantime, time, money, effort along with other resources are wasted, when the SCOTUS could simply intervene an end it early.

Maybe it's the Army in me, but I hate wasting time and being reactive. There is absolutely no reason why the SCOTUS can't be proactive.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#87 Jun 28 2013 at 8:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that you don't really understand that "federal law" and "the US Constitution" are two different things?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Jun 28 2013 at 8:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Sure. But the power has to be granted to the federal government by the constitution. The US can't just pass a federal law and proclaim that it's now taken that power from the states. Or at least, it should not be able to do so without running afoul of the 10th amendment. So it is unconstitutional if the federal mandate cannot be tied directly to a power granted to it by the constitution.


Sure it can, that's what the 10th amendment is for. It says that if the federal government doesn't explicitly cover a power, then it's implicitly left to the states and the people. No where does it state that the Federal government can or can not seize any power.


Let me see if I can clarify. It doesn't say that. It says that unless the US Constitution grants the federal government power over a given issue, than that power belongs to the state. "Federal government" Is not "US Constitution". "Federal law" is not "US Constitution". The US Constitution is a relatively small document that contains a very short list of rules about the makeup of our federal government, the powers each part of that government has, and a set of enumerated amendments which serve to either detail limits on that power, or otherwise address changes made to the text of the document over time (for correction or clarity or just cause people wanted something added/removed).

Federal law is a body of legislation that contains millions of lines of text and covers everything that the US legislature has passed since the nation was formed. One is not the other. Your interpretation of the 10th amendment would make it meaningless because the federal government would gain power over something any time it passed a law about that thing. Since the presumed purpose of the 10th amendment is to allow us to know what things the federal government isn't allowed to do, that can't possibly be the correct interpretation.

Quote:
If you want to believe Jophiel's interpretation of the 10th amendment, then you have to show where the constitution explicitly defines what power can or can not be held at what level.


Um... Have you read the constitution:

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution

Quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, ********* dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.



Those are the powers that the constitution grants to the US government (legislature actually, but we were talking about the passage of laws here). You really didn't know this?


Edited, Jun 28th 2013 7:15pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Jun 28 2013 at 9:28 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that you don't really understand that "federal law" and "the US Constitution" are two different things?


I'm fully aware of that, I just misused the words in context. I'll be more accurate from now on.

Gbaji wrote:
Let me see if I can clarify. It doesn't say that. It says that unless the US Constitution grants the federal government power over a given issue, than that power belongs to the state.


No. That's your interpretation, hence why the constitution needs to be more objective. I see nothing in the 10th amendment that favors your interpretation over mine, other than you're for small government, hence favors your own interpretation.

Gbaji wrote:
Your interpretation of the 10th amendment would make it meaningless because the federal government would gain power over something any time it passed a law about that thing. Since the presumed purpose of the 10th amendment is to allow us to know what things the federal government isn't allowed to do, that can't possibly be the correct interpretation.


How are you coming to that conclusion? I don't see anywhere in the 10th amendment that suggests that. You're overlooking the phrase " nor prohibited to the States", which means that it doesn't have to be in the constitution. If the constitution does not explicitly give the power to the Federal Government NOR is prohibited to the States, then the power goes to the states. Nowhere in that amendment (at least what was quoted) does it say that the Federal or State levels can gain powers not mentioned in the Constitution.

It's a cover all statement. If it isn't covered by the Constitution for the Federal government, then it goes to the States and the people.

Gbaji wrote:

Those are the powers that the constitution grants to the US government (legislature actually, but we were talking about the passage of laws here). You really didn't know this?


Maybe you misunderstood me. Where in the constitution does it state that the Federal Government cannot mandate social laws? I wont deny that you know much more than me on this subject and almost opted not to get involved, but at least I'll learn something, even if it means embarrassing myself. So, I appreciate it if you address this topic unbiasedly. Given you are for small government, you will obviously argue your point, but I'm looking for something more fair and balanced.

See what I did there?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#90 Jun 29 2013 at 10:07 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,016 posts
A sexuality thread, monopolized by Alma in the first page?

Well, that escalated quickly.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#91 Jun 29 2013 at 4:20 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Yet the conversation has absolutely nothing to do with sexuality.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#92 Jun 29 2013 at 4:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Screenshot

Screenshot
 
____________________________
Banh
#93 Jun 29 2013 at 7:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,318 posts
And of course it isn't over.

Because those stalwart defenders of mawwiage just can't admit they lost this one. Even though they failed over and over to show how gays getting married damages the institution of marriage, the precious, precious children, or the American way... it just can't be over. /sob

I especially love that the anti-*** marriage coalition is called the Alliance Defending Freedom. I'm thinking of starting a serial killer support group and calling it We Love Peace.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#94 Jun 29 2013 at 8:39 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
Article wrote:
Attorneys with the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom
Why am I not surprised?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#95 Jun 29 2013 at 8:52 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,954 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Article wrote:
Attorneys with the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom
Why am I not surprised?

Notable as the only anti-abortion league that accepts significant exceptions!

Mandatory abortions if you're brown.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#96 Jun 29 2013 at 9:26 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
Less the group, more the location.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#97 Jun 29 2013 at 10:14 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,954 posts
Well... yeah. I don't know anything about that group. I assume they're more-or-less exactly the same as every other fringe pro-life organization.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#98 Jun 30 2013 at 5:01 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
All of this "back and forth" is wasting resources. Worst of all, is it possible to null previous marriages after granting them? I think that happened before. That's horrible. At least grandfather them in. I'm a huge proponent of the grandfather system!
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#99 Jun 30 2013 at 6:50 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,954 posts
Depends on your definition of nullify, I'd imagine. I don't think Prop 8 nullified the marriage licenses of SS couples that had married in CA before it was passed, it just ceased recognizing them. Those same married couples might have been recognized by other states.

That said, the "back and forth" is the very essence of a democracy. It's one of the prices you pay in having a peoples' government. There's just no way to have a government with less discourse and still maintain an acceptable level of organization. Unless you're going to advocate for a authoritarian regime, there's no going around it.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#100 Jun 30 2013 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,603 posts
I nominate myself the authority, if we go with an authoritarian regime!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#101 Jun 30 2013 at 7:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,318 posts
Almalieque wrote:
All of this "back and forth" is wasting resources. Worst of all, is it possible to null previous marriages after granting them? I think that happened before. That's horrible. At least grandfather them in. I'm a huge proponent of the grandfather system!



In California, at least, the marriages that had already taken place were allowed to stand. Issuing of new marriage licenses was suspended until the Supremes arrived at their decision on Prop 8, and the circuit court rubber stamped that decision.

On a completely unrelated side note, it's been a crazy giddy weekend here.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 26 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (26)