unofan
Well-known member
At least for inheritance purposes, that line was crossed a few thousand years ago. That was one of the first reasons to get married.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
At least for inheritance purposes, that line was crossed a few thousand years ago. That was one of the first reasons to get married.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Amazing how the media is already trying to ramp up the pressure on the Court to rule the way they want it to. I'm sure Obama will put the pressure on again also.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Saw that case recently. Very interesting. If Singer actually won out, it would seem to have widespread ramifications. Somehow it does seem very problematic for a U.S. court to extend it's jurisdiction in such a way.
unofan
Well-known member
You came back just to post a rant about the 'liberal' media? Wow.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Yes and no. Depending upon where you happened to be, or the system you were living under, a widowed woman may find the estate passing to her husband's eldest child or even back to his family. But again, in many instances it was still tied to the religious strictures of that locale.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I cannot imagine how the courts could possibly let Singer win out. that would be a disastrous outcome. it would make it impossible for any debtor ever to restructure their debt. Restructuring is always better than outright default for all parties in the long run.
I cannot imagine how the courts could possibly let Singer win out. that would be a disastrous outcome. it would make it impossible for any debtor ever to restructure their debt. Restructuring is always better than outright default for all parties in the long run.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
I also have him on ignore. Of course, I'll once in a while poke in at what's being said, and if I think it's warranted of having a good conversation, I'll respond to it. If it's just an obvious troll or troll accusation, at first no response is warranted unless I can think of something really funny, but once they're on ignore, forget it. Same with Rover, Scooby, and Gurth.
I also have him on ignore. Of course, I'll once in a while poke in at what's being said, and if I think it's warranted of having a good conversation, I'll respond to it. If it's just an obvious troll or troll accusation, at first no response is warranted unless I can think of something really funny, but once they're on ignore, forget it. Same with Rover, Scooby, and Gurth.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Disagree. Roberts made it very clear when he found the PPACA mandate to be unconstitutional, that only states have the power to regulate people. IIRC he said explicitly that the federal government does not have the power to regulate people. If he is going to be consistent, then only the states can define marriage.
If DOMA is found to be unconstitutional on the federal level, then in states that allow same-sex marriage, there would be a spousal deduction for the estate tax for a surviving same-sex spouse. What happens though if they then move to another state that does not allow same-sex marriage? Do they get a spousal deduction for federal estate tax but not for state estate tax?
If I were to bet on the outcome, I'd say that the SCOTUS rebukes the federal court that overturned the CA referendum and allows the CA referendum to stand while also finding DOMA an over-reach of federal powers. The first by 5-4 vote and the latter by 7-2 vote. Both decided as limitations of federal power / affirmation of state power.
Disagree. Roberts made it very clear when he found the PPACA mandate to be unconstitutional, that only states have the power to regulate people. IIRC he said explicitly that the federal government does not have the power to regulate people. If he is going to be consistent, then only the states can define marriage.
If DOMA is found to be unconstitutional on the federal level, then in states that allow same-sex marriage, there would be a spousal deduction for the estate tax for a surviving same-sex spouse. What happens though if they then move to another state that does not allow same-sex marriage? Do they get a spousal deduction for federal estate tax but not for state estate tax?
If I were to bet on the outcome, I'd say that the SCOTUS rebukes the federal court that overturned the CA referendum and allows the CA referendum to stand while also finding DOMA an over-reach of federal powers. The first by 5-4 vote and the latter by 7-2 vote. Both decided as limitations of federal power / affirmation of state power.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
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.
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.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
Since in my world, there are no death taxes, we bypass the estate tax issues.
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.
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.
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.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
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?
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?
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
full faith and credit clause.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
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.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
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.
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.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order
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.
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.
- Status