88's Amicus Brief in the Prop 8/DOMA Case

[smackaholic]

Hate to break it to you, counselor, but, that train (10th amendment hearse) left the station a long time ago. And, to be honest, I think this is a trivial matter compared to all the other examples of buttfukking the 10th in the mouf.

[Screw_Michigan]

I'm not reading all that.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I'm not reading all any of that.

ftfy

[Wolfman]

I'm sure 88 can put together a comic book version of his post for Screwy to read look at.

[Screw_Michigan]

I'm sure 88 can put together a comic book version of his post for Screwy to read look at.

Why? I wouldn't read any of that, either.

[BSmack]

Cliff Notes Version for Screwy

Congress doesn't have the power to regulate marriage. States do have the right to regulate marriage. Cleveland sucks.

Out

[Screw_Michigan]

Cliff Notes Version for Screwy

Congress doesn't have the power to regulate marriage. States do have the right to regulate marriage. Cleveland sucks.

Out

Rack!

[Smackie Chan]

Have you filed the brief?

[Smackie Chan]

A good lawyer should be able to defend both sides of an argument. What would be your rebuttal to your stated position?

[smackaholic]

A good lawyer ought to understand the Constitution and say that the opposing view is indefensible.

[Diego in Seattle]

Cliff Notes Version for Screwy

Congress doesn't have the power to regulate marriage. States do have the right to regulate marriage. Cleveland sucks.

Out

But states can't regulate marriage in such a manner that rights & privileges are denied w/o cause per the 14th Amendment.

EOS.

[Van]

No such right or privilege is granted by the 14th Amendment so that argument is a non sequitur.

[Dr_Phibes]

More than two hundred and thirty six years ago, the people who later founded this great nation declared their independence from Great Britain on the principle that a just government must derive its power based upon the consent of the governed.

Guilty. Faulty premise and a flair for drama.

The tyranny of a minority (the founders and their supporters) shouldn't be used to discredit minority rights. The revolution took place over everyones head.

The colonies were offered full representation in British Parliament with the same rights as any British citizen. They voted it down because they themselves would have been voted down as a minority seeking special privileges.

[Diego in Seattle]

No such right or privilege is granted by the 14th Amendment so that argument is a non sequitur.

Try a reading comprehension class, putz.

I never said that rights & privileges were given by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendments says that government can't take away rights & privileges w/o due process. Try to keep up.

[Van]

No such right or privilege is granted by the 14th Amendment so that argument is a non sequitur.

Try a reading comprehension class, putz.

Says the clown who invoked the 14th Amendment without understanding what it does and does not say.

I never said that rights & privileges were given by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendments says that government can't take away rights & privileges w/o due process. Try to keep up.

It won't be difficult to keep up with a dullard like you, considering the fact that you don't even realize the government isn't taking away any rights or privileges here. Those privileges were never granted in the first place, so how is the government taking them away? Again, since you mentioned it, take another look at the 14th Amendment.

Life? Liberty? Property? Fuck, how about we stretch it to the bejeezus and add "pursuit of happiness." No matter how you slice it, marriage is not a right or privilege granted by the Constitution and there is no language contained therein regarding the taking away of it either. You are simpy trying to twist the Constitution to suit your agenda, and you're doing a horribly poor job of it.

[Diego in Seattle]

No such right or privilege is granted by the 14th Amendment so that argument is a non sequitur.

Try a reading comprehension class, putz.

I never said that rights & privileges were given by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendments says that government can't take away rights & privileges w/o due process. Try to keep up.

Where does the U.S. Constitition provide a right and/or privilege for individuals of the same sex to "marry" each other?

If you want to insist on taking the exact verbiage route....right next to where people are given the right to have assault weapons.

As long as there are benefits to getting married, you can't deny some people the right w/o due process. Especially not for the reason of gender.

[Van]

Except that the Constitution does make mention of the right to bear arms. There is no similar mention of the right to marry.

Try again.

[Dr_Phibes]

And it is not a gender issue, it is a sexual orientation/preference issue.

eh, you sure? Biological or culture choice?

[Van]

It's not a gender issue because it applies equally to both genders. It doesn't matter whether it's man/woman, man/man or woman/woman, the Constitution makes no mention of any right to marry.

[Van]

I have no idea what makes a...woman want to marry a woman. Could be biological. Could be a cultural choice. I don't know. If you do, enlighten me.

I'll just go ahead and take a wild stab at it...

[mvscal]

No such right or privilege is granted by the 14th Amendment so that argument is a non sequitur.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights. It is a limitation on government power. That said marriage is neither a natural or legal right. Marriage is a contractual agreement licensed by the state in which it was issued. It should be needless to say, but any state is free to define the terms and conditions of the licenses they issue. That is a fundamental concept of federalism. If one state wishes to define marriage between a man and a woman they may do so. If another wishes to include fag marriage, they may do so. As long as the terms and conditions are uniformly applied to all citizens of the state, there is no federal recourse.

[Screw_Michigan]

Life? Liberty? Property? Fuck, how about we stretch it to the bejeezus and add "pursuit of happiness." No matter how you slice it, marriage is not a right or privilege granted by the Constitution and there is no language contained therein regarding the taking away of it either. You are simpy trying to twist the Constitution to suit your agenda, and you're doing a horribly poor job of it.

Tired of chasing your tail yet? If you had the slightest fuck of a clue, people might take you seriously. But continue to flail away, you're good at it.

[Van]

Life? Liberty? Property? Fuck, how about we stretch it to the bejeezus and add "pursuit of happiness." No matter how you slice it, marriage is not a right or privilege granted by the Constitution and there is no language contained therein regarding the taking away of it either. You are simpy trying to twist the Constitution to suit your agenda, and you're doing a horribly poor job of it.

Tired of chasing your tail yet? If you had the slightest fuck of a clue, people might take you seriously. But continue to flail away, you're good at it.

You're Screwball. You're a punchline here, and Mgo's faithful bidet...nothing more. You are to 'taken seriously here' what Air France is to music.

[Mikey]

Why are amicus briefs always so long?

[Diego in Seattle]

If you want to insist on taking the exact verbiage route....right next to where people are given the right to have assault weapons.

Assault weapons are "arms" under any reasonable definition. And the 2nd Amendment says that the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
I'm not asking you to provide the "exact verbiage" in the Constitution that protects a right and/or privilege for individuals of the same sex to "marry" each other, which we both know is not present. I'm asking you to identify anything in the Constitution that supports your position. By the way, your best source for such a right would have been the 9th Amendment, except of course that there was no right of same sex couples to marry at the time it was ratified.

I see you working there, but I'd say that's a weaker argument. It's not a matter of whether people have a right or privilege, but rather whether states can limit those rights & privileges w/o due process. Unless one can show that allowing same-sex couples to marry would cause others harm (good luck with that one) the state has no right to deny that privilege to some people while extending it to others.

As long as there are benefits to getting married, you can't deny some people the right w/o due process. Especially not for the reason of gender.

What do you think "due process" means? And it is not a gender issue, it is a sexual orientation/preference issue. If the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, prohibited gender discrimination, then why was the 19th Amendment ratified in 1920? Wouldn't the 14th have already addressed such gender discrimination?

W/o bothering to do extensive research (knock yourself out), I would guess that states took liberty with the 10th Amendment to mean they could keep women from voting (since that right wasn't specifically called out in the Constitution. And that speaks to the strength of the 14th Amendment in today's issue. Just because a right or privilege isn't specifically called out by the Constitution doesn't mean that it's acceptable for states to deny them in an arbitrary or capricious manner.

I found your comment about Arizona V. Miranda being an example of the Constitution being stretched was interesting. Could you expand on that?

[Diego in Seattle]

I'll get back to you on the DOMA case, as it would take too long for me to address (work starts at oh dark thirty).

A couple of thoughts on Miranda...
Although you mirrored Wikipedia in referencing it as a bright-line rule, I would question whether it truly is one. One of the biggest misnomers created by the entertainment media is that one has to be mirandized when they're arrested. In fact, that is a fallacy. The rule for the warnings is basically that if an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person is responsible for a crime & wishes to question that person, the warnings must be given. Thus, if an officer arrives at a murder scene where there's a guy hovering over a bloody corpse with a machete in his hands, the officer had better mirandize the suspect before asking questions related to the crime (questions related to identity are not applicable). Likewise, if an officer arrives at that scene and arrests that suspect, warnings aren't necessary until the officer begins to question the guy (most of the time patrol officers are discouraged from mirandizing in this type of situation so that a stressed-out suspect doesn't automatically say no & cockblock a detective's attempt to gain permission to question the suspect). Similarly, if the suspect decides to blurt out a confession w/o any prompting from the officer, that confession is still admissible (although most officers will attempt to mirandize in that situation just to make sure that the confession isn't contested anyways). So to characterize the Miranda warnings as a bright-line rule doesn't really come across as accurate to me.

That said, I would venture a guess is that the court viewed the right against self-incrimination as only being exercisable if one had knowledge of it. Is it reasonable to expect the average person to be constitutional schalars, especially while in a custody situation? My guess is that the court felt that the only way for citizens to retain that right is to be aware of it, and that required a warning. Sure, such a warning isn't mentioned in the 5th Amendment, but does it really conflict with or violate the spirit of it? I say, as most officers would, that it doesn't.