What's new
By:
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 Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

LynahFan said:
Ah, good point. Let me try again.

"Each person can marry exactly one other person."

Does that violate the 14th amendment, and if so, how?
Click to expand...

Perhaps being married to two people makes the person happy.

Wonder if NAMBLA will be next... :eek:
 
FlagDUDE08 said:
Perhaps being married to two people makes the person happy.

Wonder if NAMBLA will be next... :eek:
Click to expand...

Fascinating 14th amendment argument you put togethet there. The 14th means that anything that makes someone happy must be legal. Is that really the thought that popped into your head? That you then didn't think better of typing out?
 
LynahFan said:
Fascinating 14th amendment argument you put togethet there. The 14th means that anything that makes someone happy must be legal. Is that really the thought that popped into your head? That you then didn't think better of typing out?
Click to expand...

That IS the argument. That being lgbt is a choice to make one happy like choosing more than one spouse. I had this argument with a guy at work yesterday when I realized that.
 
alfablue said:
That IS the argument. That being lgbt is a choice to make one happy like choosing more than one spouse. I had this argument with a guy at work yesterday when I realized that.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. Not even close. The 14th has nothing whatsoever to do with happiness or choice. It's purely an equal protection issue: the government can't grant marital rights to some types of people but not other types. Period.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Shirtless Guy said:
Thats an interesting theory, I've always thought of it as being a check between the big states and small states, not to mention a check on the shortsightedness of those who are constantly facing reelection versus those with longer terms.
Click to expand...

That was certainly the basis for having two chambers: the Great Compromise. The Senate protected the small states from being dominated by the large states. But that was also a time when there were few states. In 1792, the first election in which all (by then, 16) states had ratified, it would have taken an alliance of just 5 states to reach the EV needed to win the White House. Today it would take 12 states, so a "conspiracy against the small states" is far less likely. Likewise, sectional differences are reflected well by the distribution of House seats.

I'd be for trying to reform the Senate before killing it off, and there may be ways of saving it (51 vote cloture, no anonymous holds, no blue slips), but the Senate has been completely broken now for 2 decades, about equally under each party, and it doesn't look like it's going to pull out of it without a big overhaul similar to the 17th Amendment.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Kepler said:
That was certainly the basis for having two chambers: the Great Compromise. The Senate protected the small states from being dominated by the large states. But that was also a time when there were few states. In 1792, the first election in which all (by then, 16) states had ratified, it would have taken an alliance of just 5 states to reach the EV needed to win the White House. Today it would take 12 states, so a "conspiracy against the small states" is far less likely. Likewise, sectional differences are reflected well by the distribution of House seats.

I'd be for trying to reform the Senate before killing it off, and there may be ways of saving it (51 vote cloture, no anonymous holds, no blue slips), but the Senate has been completely broken now for 2 decades, about equally under each party, and it doesn't look like it's going to pull out of it without a big overhaul similar to the 17th Amendment.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see what would happen in the present if we repealed the 17th amendment and gave the power back to the state legislatures.
 
Shirtless Guy said:
I was reading this post on 538:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/a-brief-history-of-gay-rights-at-the-supreme-court/?ex_cid=538fb

Hollingsworth v. Perry sure was an interest result huh?

Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan in majority

Kennedy, Sotomayor, Thomas, and Alito in dissent
Click to expand...

Technical issues can play out that way. That was as close to a punt without being one that the court could get. The end result was that gay marriage became legal in California, but the case itself was essentially kicked on standing - a private advocacy group was not allowed to stand in for the state when it refused to pursue appeals.
 
LynahFan said:
No, it's not. Not even close. The 14th has nothing whatsoever to do with happiness or choice. It's purely an equal protection issue: the government can't grant marital rights to some types of people but not other types. Period.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but the the choice argument is then one being used. So one can choose to be a polygamist and be protected as a type.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

alfablue said:
I agree with you, but the the choice argument is then one being used. So one can choose to be a polygamist and be protected as a type.
Click to expand...

maybe someday we'll believe that polygamy isn't a choice, maybe some people are born polygamists?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Shirtless Guy said:
maybe someday we'll believe that polygamy isn't a choice, maybe some people are born polygamists?
Click to expand...
Sigh....

IT. DOESN'T. MATTER.

Today's ruling didn't recognize new types of people (gay men and gay women) and declare that henceforth Type M can only marry Type F and Type GM can marry only type GM and Type GW can only marry type GW. As of today, the law is less about the "typing" of people than it *ever* has been before. The government has no business even asking what type you are - a GM can marry a GW if they want to do so. Marriage can no longer be limited to type M plus type F - marriage is now between two adults, period - types have been *consolidated*, not further subdivided.

So create a new "type" of person if you like called a polygamist. So what? Just because a type of person is recognized does not mean that they are suddenly being treated unequally before the law. Maybe someday we'll find a gene that makes people "natural born killers." Would you make an equal protection argument that such a type of person should be allowed to kill, just because they are born that way? I hardly think so.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Shirtless Guy said:
It would be interesting to see what would happen in the present if we repealed the 17th amendment and gave the power back to the state legislatures.
Click to expand...

If by "interesting" you mean a repudiation of democracy and an invitation to corruption and cronyism, yes, yes it would.

At least it would leave no doubt that we truly are in the Second Gilded Age.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

LynahFan said:
Sigh....

IT. DOESN'T. MATTER.

Today's ruling didn't recognize new types of people (gay men and gay women) and declare that henceforth Type M can only marry Type F and Type GM can marry only type GM and Type GW can only marry type GW. As of today, the law is less about the "typing" of people than it *ever* has been before. The government has no business even asking what type you are - a GM can marry a GW if they want to do so. Marriage can no longer be limited to type M plus type F - marriage is now between two adults, period - types have been *consolidated*, not further subdivided.

So create a new "type" of person if you like called a polygamist. So what? Just because a type of person is recognized does not mean that they are suddenly being treated unequally before the law. Maybe someday we'll find a gene that makes people "natural born killers." Would you make an equal protection argument that such a type of person should be allowed to kill, just because they are born that way? I hardly think so.
Click to expand...

Jeez, sorry for not adding the eye roll at the end, it was a joke...I think most of my posts here have been pretty level headed but thanks for going there...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Kepler said:
If by "interesting" you mean a repudiation of democracy and an invitation to corruption and cronyism, yes, yes it would.

At least it would leave no doubt that we truly are in the Second Gilded Age.
Click to expand...
If the senate is about protecting the smaller states, what's so terrible with state legislatures choosing their senators? Does it really allow for more problems than the current way?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Shirtless Guy said:
If the senate is about protecting the smaller states, what's so terrible with state legislatures choosing their senators? Does it really allow for more problems than the current way?
Click to expand...

The current way is direct election, so the only way it could be different is if it stifled the popular will.

Also, state legislators make House members look like Daniel Webster. No thanks.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

LynahFan said:
Sigh....

IT. DOESN'T. MATTER.

Today's ruling didn't recognize new types of people (gay men and gay women) and declare that henceforth Type M can only marry Type F and Type GM can marry only type GM and Type GW can only marry type GW. As of today, the law is less about the "typing" of people than it *ever* has been before. The government has no business even asking what type you are - a GM can marry a GW if they want to do so. Marriage can no longer be limited to type M plus type F - marriage is now between two adults, period - types have been *consolidated*, not further subdivided.

So create a new "type" of person if you like called a polygamist. So what? Just because a type of person is recognized does not mean that they are suddenly being treated unequally before the law. Maybe someday we'll find a gene that makes people "natural born killers." Would you make an equal protection argument that such a type of person should be allowed to kill, just because they are born that way? I hardly think so.
Click to expand...

I tried using that logic on my friend, and he didn't buy it.

Basically people DO see this as granting gays and lesbians new rights, as opposed to just applying the same rights to all.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

alfablue said:
Basically people DO see this as granting gays and lesbians new rights, as opposed to just applying the same rights to all.
Click to expand...

If they do, they're wrong. But in any case, it doesn't matter. It's done, and nobody born from noon today onwards will ever think twice about it.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Kepler said:
If they do, they're wrong. But in any case, it doesn't matter. It's done, and nobody born from noon today onwards will ever think twice about it.
Click to expand...

Yea, convince them of that. Logic does not work. They still have the heebie-geebies about two guys hooking up, so logic and reason goes out their ears.

They seem to think that they are going to be forced into a gay marriage. As opposed to this meaning nothing as they know nobody who is homosexual, so nothing in their life will change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top