Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    Then you need to take marriage provisions out of any and all federally provided or mandated things. As a simple example, let's look at the 1040 return. You are able to file as "Married Filing Jointly" or "Married Filing Separately", and have various rules relative to that. Therefore, you need to define what constitutes a "marriage" in order for people to be able to lawfully file as "married". If you want to please everyone, then you pretty much have to remove all of these provisions, have everyone file as single and declare dependents as need be, and set up declarations of "next of kin" where people talk about estate transfer and visitation privileges.
    Sure. Why not? See my proposal over on the Tapestry thread. If everyone files single the feds become family status neutral. Inheritance becomes a matter of contract law of what is expressly in the will is what is distributed to the heirs.

    Since in my world, there are no death taxes, we bypass the estate tax issues.
    CCT '77 & '78
    4 kids
    5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
    1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

    ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
    - Benjamin Franklin

    Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

    I want to live forever. So far, so good.

    Comment


    • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

      As we've started seeing with a handful of states recognizing same sex marriage, the problems of having states differing in what they recognize is pretty clear. So somehow it seems there is a need to have a consistent definition. Otherwise you'll have same sex people marry in a state that recognizes it, move to a state that doesn't, and problems ensue. I guess you could argue that people that marry like that should realize they are moving to a state that doesn't recognize their marriage, but that wouldn't stop some people and you could argue that's unduly restrictive. On the other hand, one state recognizing same sex marriage shouldn't be able to force another state to recognize such marriages if the second state has chosen not to. Sounds like a recipe for lots of messiness in the courts and elsewhere.
      Originally posted by Priceless
      Good to see you're so reasonable.
      Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
      Very well, said.
      Originally posted by Rover
      A fair assessment Bob.

      Comment


      • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

        Driver's licenses are recognized state-to-state. Is this legislated on a state-by-state basis (all 50 states have specific legislation to recognize them) or is the the federal government that requires universal recognition?
        Code:
        As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
        College Hockey 6       College Football 0
        BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
        Originally posted by SanTropez
        May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
        Originally posted by bigblue_dl
        I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
        Originally posted by Kepler
        When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
        He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

        Comment


        • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

          Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
          Driver's licenses are recognized state-to-state. Is this legislated on a state-by-state basis (all 50 states have specific legislation to recognize them) or is the the federal government that requires universal recognition?
          full faith and credit clause.
          That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

          Comment


          • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

            Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
            Driver's licenses are recognized state-to-state. Is this legislated on a state-by-state basis (all 50 states have specific legislation to recognize them) or is the the federal government that requires universal recognition?
            I don't think it's a comparable situation, as with drivers licenses you don't the massive divergence in what is recognized from state to state. Maybe an analogy would be if one state gave drivers licenses to anyone 5 years or older, while next door another state only gave them to people over 40. Would the 20-year old from the first state be valid driving in the second state? Not a perfect analogy, but I think it highlights the problem of states recognizing something very differently.
            Originally posted by Priceless
            Good to see you're so reasonable.
            Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
            Very well, said.
            Originally posted by Rover
            A fair assessment Bob.

            Comment


            • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

              Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
              Driver's licenses are recognized state-to-state. Is this legislated on a state-by-state basis (all 50 states have specific legislation to recognize them) or is the the federal government that requires universal recognition?
              It would have to be a state-by-state basis based upon Article IV and Amendment X, although it would not surprise me if federal bullying was involved through the apportionment of highway funds.

              The issue is that if you are going to federally require something, you must have a definition for it. Come to think of it, this is probably why the courts have been reversing Photo ID laws when it comes to voting. If you wrote the law based upon the possession of a social security card, though, there may be a chance that it would be constitutional.

              Comment


              • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

                Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                full faith and credit clause.
                That was the main thrust of DOMA. It allowed states to not recognize same sex marriages from other states. I can see the court striking down the federal marriage rules, but keeping the full faith and credit exemption.
                "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat

                Comment


                • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

                  I think we're going to see a repeat of 50 years ago. Just like with bans on interracial marriage, I think the Supremes are going to say enough is enough, the ship has sailed, and any laws banning same sex marriage violate the equal protection clause, and we'll be done with it.
                  That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

                    Not a lawyer but I'm curious if you could set up a federal law whereby the feds recognize a marriage granted by a state, but if you get a divorce or an inheritence you'd have to go through the court system of the state where you married in order to reap the benefits of a same sex union?

                    So, a Mass couple owns a house in Texas and divorces. They'd have to return to Mass to sort it out. How would this be any different than if the couple resided most of the year in Mass but owned land in Texas? That asset would still go through the Mass judicial system wouldn't it it terms of who it was awarded to?

                    The key to all of this is that you couldn't award same sex rights and then take them away afterwards which perhaps the SCOTUS will weigh in on.
                    Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                    Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                    "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

                      Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
                      I don't think it's a comparable situation, as with drivers licenses you don't the massive divergence in what is recognized from state to state. Maybe an analogy would be if one state gave drivers licenses to anyone 5 years or older, while next door another state only gave them to people over 40. Would the 20-year old from the first state be valid driving in the second state? Not a perfect analogy, but I think it highlights the problem of states recognizing something very differently.
                      Actually, there are what some would consider major divergences. Farm licenses vs. regular. Permits vs. provisional vs. full. Ages. Testing requirements. I mean, there's a huge difference. Imagine a 14/15-year-old from a state with a farm hand driver's licence drives to a state that doesn't have a farm license.
                      Code:
                      As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
                      College Hockey 6       College Football 0
                      BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
                      Originally posted by SanTropez
                      May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
                      Originally posted by bigblue_dl
                      I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
                      Originally posted by Kepler
                      When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
                      He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

                        Originally posted by SJHovey View Post
                        I think we're going to see a repeat of 50 years ago. Just like with bans on interracial marriage, I think the Supremes are going to say enough is enough, the ship has sailed, and any laws banning same sex marriage violate the equal protection clause, and we'll be done with it.
                        The polygamists will love it if it goes that way, as they also deserve equal protection.
                        Originally posted by Priceless
                        Good to see you're so reasonable.
                        Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
                        Very well, said.
                        Originally posted by Rover
                        A fair assessment Bob.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X