Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Congress passes the Sodom and Gomorrah act

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Machinist View Post

    Wow. So abortion was never federally protected? When the Supreme Court over turned Roe v Wade, that wasn't overturning a federal law?
    When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs, it wasn't overturning any law. It was overturning its prior decision.

    "Overturning" isn't the term used for when a Supreme Court rules a law as unconstitutional; that's "striking down" a law. (technically "striking down" isn't perfectly accurate either, as the law remains on the books unless formally repealed, it is just unenforceable--but "striking down" is still the generally used term for it)

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

      What civil unions a state chooses to recognize is no business of the federal government. A state forcing a county or city to follow state law is a different matter since counties and cities are not independent of the state in the same way that states are independent of the federal government.

      Counties and cities are political subdivisions of the several states in the same way the several states are subdivisions of the United States. The fact that the several states had retained or otherwise devolved powers does not negate that. Both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution provide for full faith and credit among the states regarding acts, records, and judicial proceeding. A out-of-state gay civil union is no different than an out-of state straight civil union.

      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

      Interesting you should bring that up, because one of the ways that local jurisdictions ignore state mandates is to, for example, write traffic citations under municipal codified ordinances rather than state. Or, if they're protesting their own jurisdiction's polices, to issue citations based on state law, rather than local.
      i would consider that essentially jurisdiction shopping, which is in the purview of law enforcement.
      P1) If , then I win.

      P2)

      C) I win.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
        i would consider that essentially jurisdiction shopping, which is in the purview of law enforcement.
        And I believe that, in Texas, the State cannot place unfunded mandates on municipalities.

        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Diogenes View Post


          Counties and cities are political subdivisions of the several states in the same way the several states are subdivisions of the United States. The fact that the several states had retained or otherwise devolved powers does not negate that. Both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution provide for full faith and credit among the states regarding acts, records, and judicial proceeding. A out-of-state gay civil union is no different than an out-of state straight civil union.



          i would consider that essentially jurisdiction shopping, which is in the purview of law enforcement.
          Are you from the US? Because your understanding of the relationship between states and the federal government is incorrect. States are independent entities and not political subdivisions of the federal government, and the federal government has authority only in so far as the states consent to it. I hope there is at least one state that challenges this law, because I have a feeling the Supreme Court would declare it unconstitutional.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

            Are you from the US? Because your understanding of the relationship between states and the federal government is incorrect. States are independent entities and not political subdivisions of the federal government, and the federal government has authority only in so far as the states consent to it. I hope there is at least one state that challenges this law, because I have a feeling the Supreme Court would declare it unconstitutional.
            I said subdivisions of the US. The states are quasi-independent. Federal laws take supremacy over state laws. I doubt it would be declared unconstitutional as it's just a codification of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. And yes, I'm from the US.
            P1) If , then I win.

            P2)

            C) I win.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

              I said subdivisions of the US. The states are quasi-independent. Federal laws take supremacy over state laws. I doubt it would be declared unconstitutional as it's just a codification of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. And yes, I'm from the US.
              I was absolutely certain you were from another planet --- so, the US is your temporary LZ?

              (I won't tell)
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                No, that was not found in "the text of the SCOTUS ruling that said abortion was no longer a constitutionally-guaranteed right". That was in a concurring opinion written by one justice that was joined by no other.

                Still, I can see how it could cause some alarm. Makes one wonder if this law would be passed had that concurring opinion not existed. Still, to claim it was in the SCOTUS ruling itself (indicating it is actually in the majority opinion) is not exactly accurate.
                I didn't say it was in the majority decision, I just said it was part of the ruling on the case. If you download the case ruling pdf, you'll find it in the text.

                I'm surprised you're not aware that this law is explicitly a response to the concurring opinion in that case, as I seem to recall that being mentioned quite a number of times in the lead up to this bill.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                  I said subdivisions of the US. The states are quasi-independent. Federal laws take supremacy over state laws. I doubt it would be declared unconstitutional as it's just a codification of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. And yes, I'm from the US.
                  The federal government has no jurisdiction over the states outside of the few laws defined in the Constitution.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                    I was absolutely certain you were from another planet --- so, the US is your temporary LZ?

                    (I won't tell)
                    Technically I'm on a layover atm. I do have a temporary residence card and cover story from the Persons in Blue (due to a recent name change of the agency).
                    P1) If , then I win.

                    P2)

                    C) I win.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                      The federal government has no jurisdiction over the states outside of the few laws defined in the Constitution.
                      There is a doctrine called federal preemption.
                      P1) If , then I win.

                      P2)

                      C) I win.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                        There is a doctrine called federal preemption.
                        From your source:

                        In the law of the United States, federal preemption is the invalidation of a U.S. state law that conflicts with federal law.

                        That is correct. States cannot enact laws that violate federal law, which is to say the US Constitution. In all other matters, state law takes priority per the Tenth Amendment:

                        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

                        A lot of people don't understand that the purpose of the Constitution is not to grant power to the federal government but to strictly limit it.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          From your source:

                          In the law of the United States, federal preemption is the invalidation of a U.S. state law that conflicts with federal law.

                          That is correct. States cannot enact laws that violate federal law, which is to say the US Constitution. In all other matters, state law takes priority per the Tenth Amendment:

                          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

                          A lot of people don't understand that the purpose of the Constitution is not to grant power to the federal government but to strictly limit it.
                          I'm aware of the tenth amendment. Your issue that it's a federal law but all it's doing is codifying a part of Article 4 as federal law. Even if the federal law is declared unconstitutional, a gay marriage would still be valid access states per Article 4.
                          P1) If , then I win.

                          P2)

                          C) I win.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            I didn't say it was in the majority decision, I just said it was part of the ruling on the case. If you download the case ruling pdf, you'll find it in the text.
                            You said "in the text of the SCOTUS ruling that said abortion was no longer a constitutionally-guaranteed right". The ruling, however, is only the majority opinion; the other things (concurrences and dissents) are separate from the ruling itself. Ordinarily I'd say this is a nitpick, but you did go on to say "even if SCOTUS goes ahead with their threat to declare same sex marriage no longer a constitutional right" as if the statement was from a majority of the SCOTUS rather than one person.

                            I'm surprised you're not aware that this law is explicitly a response to the concurring opinion in that case, as I seem to recall that being mentioned quite a number of times in the lead up to this bill.
                            I'm not sure how you got that impression from my post. I'm fully aware that the concurring opinion played a role--but people were, right after the draft leak (before there was any concurring opinion known to anyone), already fearmongering about an overturn of various Supreme Court decisions, including Obergefell. Which is why I was wondering to myself whether there would have been enough of a push to pass the law if not for the concurring opinion. There would have been a push no doubt, but less of a push, and would that lesser push have been enough? That was what I was pondering. Oh well, it's all speculation in the end.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              From your source:

                              In the law of the United States, federal preemption is the invalidation of a U.S. state law that conflicts with federal law.

                              That is correct. States cannot enact laws that violate federal law, which is to say the US Constitution. In all other matters, state law takes priority per the Tenth Amendment:

                              The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

                              A lot of people don't understand that the purpose of the Constitution is not to grant power to the federal government but to strictly limit it.
                              Hence, the "Bill of Rights" (for the people) to make sure.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                                What is this new law supposed to provide, exactly? How will things be different now with gay marriages?
                                It would enshrine it in federal law, rather than relying on a SCOTUS decision that could be overturned by the current court like Roe was.
                                "When you're attacking FBI agents because you're under criminal investigation, you're losing"
                                -Trump Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders


                                "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
                                - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 07:58 PM
                                9 responses
                                66 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by NorrinRadd, Yesterday, 04:46 PM
                                0 responses
                                16 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post NorrinRadd  
                                Started by Sparko, 01-26-2023, 11:40 AM
                                8 responses
                                78 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post NorrinRadd  
                                Started by Stoic, 01-25-2023, 07:20 PM
                                36 responses
                                213 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Machinist  
                                Started by seer, 01-25-2023, 10:45 AM
                                103 responses
                                554 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X