T1B

Jsc810 wrote:

Truman wrote:Seventy per cent of the electorate in Missouri decided the question democratically in 2004. What part of "it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best" do you struggle with?

That the voters approved it is the extent of your analysis? If 70% of the voters in Missouri passed a law declaring Christianity to be the official religion of the state, would that be ok?

Or are there fundamental rights that individuals have that no law can impinge upon?

Fellacious argument, and you know it. Or, fellatious argument, given the topic. Missouri Supremes woulda struck down such a ballot measure per the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Tell me you knew.

Or are you truly the best that Tulane Law has to offer these days?

Regarding marriage as a fundamental right... There any number of Constitutional interpretations out there on the subject, including Scalia's...

But a fundamental, enumerated right? Really?

Hmm. The thinking here is the Founders didn't get around to specifically addressing that one, and provided an out to the States to define it for themselves per the 10th Amendment (Slave Amendment[/JesseJackson]). But that's just me. Perhaps the version of the Bill of Rights distributed to Louisiana holds a different take.

Personal passion does not the Constitution redefine, Jsc. The Will of the People is the Law of the Land. Don't like it? There's a process to amend the Document you clearly haven't troubled yourself to read or assimilate (Article V). I suggest you look into it.

Or are you one of those that is bent on telling us what the Founders really meant? -out-loud.

Truman wrote:
Seventy per cent of the electorate in Missouri decided the question democratically in 2004. What part of "it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best" do you struggle with?

I remember that day well. Best I have ever felt walking out of the voting booth. Then later that night I was reminded that my state is comprised of pig molesters and morons.

That gay marriage thing was all a ploy to get values voters to the polls.

I hope that a court finds all marital benefits to be unconstitutional. Just cause I'm straight doesn't mean I get more rights than fags. My fag relative is not a second class citizen.

Jsc810 wrote:You seem to be missing a point: marriage is a fundamental right.

That isn't something you can argue against because you don't like it. Three SCOTUS cases say it.

Article and Section please. Or do you defer to the 10th amendment?

BTW, you seem to be missing the point that precedence does not necessarily define our laws. Or do you not read Justice Thomas's opinions? Despite the cunts Oharelip appointed tho the Supremes, sanity still prevails. Thank God.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Truman wrote:
Seventy per cent of the electorate in Missouri decided the question democratically in 2004. What part of "it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best" do you struggle with?

I remember that day well. Best I have ever felt walking out of the voting booth. Then later that night I was reminded that my state is comprised of pig molesters and morons.

And they're all Card fans. Go figure.

Truman wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Truman wrote:
Seventy per cent of the electorate in Missouri decided the question democratically in 2004. What part of "it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best" do you struggle with?

I remember that day well. Best I have ever felt walking out of the voting booth. Then later that night I was reminded that my state is comprised of pig molesters and morons.

And they're all Card fans. Go figure.

I do not believe a poll was taken divided by baseball loyalties.


and I doubt the city dwellers were more backwoods and stupid to have voted against gay marriage than the inbred father rapers in southern missourah.

88 wrote: And all it would take is five justices to do the goddamned right thing, and simply declare that if it isn't expressly written in the Constitution, it ain't Constitutional. Send it to the People and let them decide.

The right thing would be to rule that if a state wants to regulate who can legally be married in a civil union presided over by a government official, so be it. But they should also rule that neither the federal government, nor state governments, have a right to determine who can and cannot be married by a religious organization. Individual churches should be able to decide for themselves who they want to marry.

OCD Mike, YOU are the reason my US Navy went from bar soap to powder soap. Just sayin'...

Atomic Punk wrote:OCD Mike, YOU are the reason my US Navy went from bar soap to powder soap. Just sayin'...

The male nurse who photographs himself in women's panties calls someone else gay. Awesome.

Go fish a turd out a coma patient's bunghole.

Jsc810 wrote:Truman, merely because it is not articulated in the Constitution does not mean it is not a fundamental right. Please read the exerpts from the three cases I posted earlier. See also the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which has absolutely dick to do with this discussion.

The Constitution was not designed to articulate all of your rights.

Nor was it designed to define them all either. That task was left to the States, despite FDR and Barry's contrarian opinion of what the Constitution should be.. Thank you for validating my argument.

Truman wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Truman, merely because it is not articulated in the Constitution does not mean it is not a fundamental right. Please read the exerpts from the three cases I posted earlier. See also the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which has absolutely dick to do with this discussion.

The Constitution was not designed to articulate all of your rights.

Nor was it designed to define them all either. That task was left to the States, despite FDR and Barry's contrarian opinion of what the Constitution should be.. Thank you for validating my argument.

Barry and FDR... and every single other president in the history of the country. Not a single president has ever been one of your strict constructionalist.

Leave magic fairy land and re-enter the real world.

Bizzarofelice wrote:and I doubt the city dwellers were more backwoods and stupid to have voted against gay marriage than the inbred father rapers in southern missourah.

Well, then, you'd be wrong. Haven't stepped inside a black church lately, have you Bace? Folks in those precincts don't 'zactly cotton to dick suckers marryin' one another.

Categorizing the 70% that voted against gay marriage as "inbred southern missourah father rapers" would almost be like someone categorizing the 30% who didn't as cock sucking, communist, left-wing, America-hating, card-carryin' SEIU Obama-loving traitors. Or something like that. Can't imagine anybody being that narrow-minded...

Truman wrote:Haven't stepped inside a black church lately

blacks don't vote. tell me you knew.

Bizzarofelice wrote: Barry and FDR... and every single other president in the history of the country. Not a single president has ever been one of your strict constructionalist.

Leave magic fairy land and re-enter the real world.

Ah. I see somebody failed to catch the Second Bill of Rights reference.

I live in Missouri, Bace. Pole-smokers and the constituency who argue for their "right" to marry despite the will of the people live in "fairy land." 'Sayin'.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Truman wrote:Haven't stepped inside a black church lately

blacks don't vote. tell me you knew.

So the black mayor, city council, and school board were all appointed the white governor.

Enlightening.

Jsc810 wrote:I believe in a living Constitution, one that grows with the jurisprudence

Big surprise, that.

rather, you believe in a malleable set of rules that you can bend and form to suit whatever fruitcake philosophy is currently in vogue.

Have I ever told you to go fuck yourself?

Consider that a permanent injunction, not subject to change on a whim.

You deify the scotus as if they were the last word but last I checked, the game isn't over yet.

Jsc810 wrote:Marriage is a fundamental right.

Total bullshit. The only respect in which marriage is a "fundamental right" is as a free exercise of religion. The states could stop issuing all marriage licenses tomorrow without infringing on anybody's "fundamental rights."

Jsc810 wrote:I believe in a living Constitution, one that grows with the jurisprudence.

The Constitution grows with Constitutional amendments not jurisprudence, you brainless, dong-slurping asshat.

mvscal wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Marriage is a fundamental right.

Total bullshit. The only respect in which marriage is a "fundamental right" is as a free exercise of religion. The states could stop issuing all marriage licenses tomorrow without infringing on anybody's "fundamental rights."

But marriage manifests itself as a property right. This is all just JSC's Thomas Hobbes vs 88's John Locke.

Dr_Phibes wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Marriage is a fundamental right.

Total bullshit. The only respect in which marriage is a "fundamental right" is as a free exercise of religion. The states could stop issuing all marriage licenses tomorrow without infringing on anybody's "fundamental rights."

But marriage manifests itself as a property right. This is all just JSC's Thomas Hobbes vs 88's John Locke.

I thought LOST went off the air last year.

Good read for someone who is semi-drunk with insomnia stuck in a hotel in Texas. Good job all.

whole lot of talk about state's rights to discriminate


so


a whole lot of ignorant losers are cloaking their hatred in some legalese.

Jsc810 wrote:

88 wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:I believe in a living Constitution, one that grows with the jurisprudence.

I hope you are capable of appreciating the danger of that view. Will you still champion a "living Constitution" if, for example, the People vote a slew of Tea Party candidates into the Senate and a Tea Party president in 2012, and that new president is given the opportunity to grant lifetime appointments to a majority of new justices? Will your "living Constitution" still be growing with the jurisprudence when the new majority of robed oracles decides that every decision you hold near and dear to your heart was wrongly decided by their predecessors, and strikes all of them down in favor of a brave new world view? Think about what you are advocating, amigo.

I champion our living Constitution right now, even considering some of the absolutely horrible decisions that recently have come from the Court.

Some of the cases re search and seizure have disgusted me. There was another one involving prosecutorial misconduct that to me is one of the worst decisions in the Court's history, the prosecutors hid evidence from the defense that would have exonerated the defendant, and he ended up on Death Row. Just before he was to be executed, a private investigator found the evidence, and he was released from prison. He then sues the DA for wrongfully spending 18 years in prison (14 on Death Row), wins $14 million, but when the case made it to the SCOTUS, they reversed and gave him zero. How in the FUCK can you have a constitional violation with no consequence? Absolutely pathetic, a horrible decision, here is a NYT article on it.

Sounds like Harry Connick should stick to making music.

88 wrote:

Jsc810 wrote:Some of the cases re search and seizure have disgusted me. There was another one involving prosecutorial misconduct that to me is one of the worst decisions in the Court's history, the prosecutors hid evidence from the defense that would have exonerated the defendant, and he ended up on Death Row. Just before he was to be executed, a private investigator found the evidence, and he was released from prison. He then sues the DA for wrongfully spending 18 years in prison (14 on Death Row), wins $14 million, but when the case made it to the SCOTUS, they reversed and gave him zero. How in the FUCK can you have a constitional violation with no consequence? Absolutely pathetic, a horrible decision, here is a NYT article on it.

Nevertheless, I support a living Constitution, and I do have faith that one day that crap decision will be overruled, like Bowers was with Lawrence.

Instead of reading dissents, perhaps you should read the majority opinion:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-571.pdf

The version of facts signed onto by the majority makes it very clear why the civil judgment was overturned.

Cliff's Notes, please.

Goober McTuber wrote:
Cliff's Notes, please.

Those notes essentially say, "Shut up Gobbles and let those with brain cells discuss an issue."

Atomic Punk wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:
Cliff's Notes, please.

Those notes essentially say, "Shut up Gobbles and let those with brain cells discuss an issue."

OK, brainiac. You have 10 minutes. Please summarize the salient points of the majority opinion.

My underlying concern is that jobs won't be created if ObaMao healthcare goes into effect and the males here that want to hook-up with the other males here will be a further drain on our economy. No employer is going to hire confirmed homosexual men if it passes. The implication is that unemployment will increase as the fags here will feel free to go against nature and be a drain on the health care system.


What do I win?

88 wrote:Obviously, the Constitution articulates all of our constitutional rights. If the Constitution does not identify a right, how can it be a constitutional right? The People very likely possess rights that are not articulated in the Constitution. Some of these rights are recognized within the framework of common law. And some are recognized in statutory law. But rights that are not articulated in the Constitution cannot, by definition, be considered as constitutional rights.

Now wait just a damn minute...

The APA clearly states that marriage is a fundamental right.

Surely that trumps the Constitution and silly little statewide voter referendums all day, every day and twice on Sunday.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:
Cliff's Notes, please.

Those notes essentially say, "Shut up Gobbles and let those with brain cells discuss an issue."

OK, brainiac. You have 10 minutes. Please summarize the salient points of the majority opinion.

Sorry I busted the time limit since my "Booze Cruise" ship had to come to port in Cabo to let off passengers with salmonella poisoning. Poor bastards that have bloody diarrhea need IV's. If they followed my lead they would have been smart to just drink and eat popcorn.

Since it happened in territorial waters in the 3 to 12 nm zone off the coast I'm allowed to not help and won at the poker table since I'm the only one sitting here and have annoyed the dealer to the point she just let me win.

Atomic Punk wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:OK, brainiac. You have 10 minutes. Please summarize the salient points of the majority opinion.

Sorry I busted the time limit since my "Booze Cruise" ship had to come to port in Cabo to let off passengers with salmonella poisoning. Poor bastards that have bloody diarrhea need IV's. If they followed my lead they would have been smart to just drink and eat popcorn.

Since it happened in territorial waters in the 3 to 12 nm zone off the coast I'm allowed to not help and won at the poker table since I'm the only one sitting here and have annoyed the dealer to the point she just let me win.

That's OK. It's not as if the assembled masses needed any more proof as to what a complete and total moron you are. Have another drink. It's already 10:30 on the coast.

Jsc810 wrote:I champion our living Constitution right now, even considering some of the absolutely horrible decisions that recently have come from the Court.

That's because you're a fucking idiot.

Gobbles...

You know what's really cool? No lines at the bar right now. This bartender (serious Mexican hottie that had boobs smaller than ucunts) was telling me about how she got a "Brazillian" bikini wax.

I replied to her "What a coincidence! I know an old lonely man that needs a credit card to be able to even talk to a woman that did the same thing." She went "EWWW!" Now I have to start tipping her due to the trauma she suffered after that story.

Poor girlie... I heated up some Pesos and stacked them on the floor and told her to squat and pick up as many as she can without using her hands. She screamed at first, but hey, that's a cheap fix for her bacterial vaginosis condition. You might try the same.

Atomic Punk wrote:I know an old lonely man that needs a credit card to be able to even talk to a woman

Pre-op tranny sending random skanks photos of himself in women’s bloomers says what?

Jsc810 wrote:Is there a constitutional right to privacy?

If so, where is "privacy" mentioned in the Constitution?

Try the 4th amendment, fucktard.

Does it even have to be in the Constitution, Mr 9th Amendment?

Jsc810 wrote:Perhaps your copy of the Constitution has something different, I'm not seeing "privacy" in this version of the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Again that would be because you are a fucking idiot. The sooner you come to terms with that the better.

Limiting the government's ability to go nosing around your house and through your pockets protects your privacy.

Atomic Punk wrote:

Jsc810 wrote: Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.

A simple counter argument is the following: Anal copulation = zero population.

I thought you were the product of a buttfuck?

Kansas City Kid wrote:

Atomic Punk wrote:

Jsc810 wrote: Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.

A simple counter argument is the following: Anal copulation = zero population.

I thought you were the product of a buttfuck?

How is that a question?

Sorry.....it is factual as I thought.

Kansas City Kid wrote:Sorry.....it is factual as I thought.

You didn't address how you made a statement into a question. That was my point.