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

  • #61
    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?
    Correct. Roe v Wade had nothing to do with federal law. A scotus decision is not federal law.
    "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


    • #62
      Originally posted by Ronson View Post

      I thought the SCOTUS already ruled on this, Obergefell v. Hodges, so this legislation is more symbolic than functional anyway.
      Nope. It's what liberals should have done on Abortion decades ago if they wanted it to remain without the chance of a simple overturning of the SCOTUS decision. This way if Obergfell is overturned, gay marriage will still be protected federally and enshrined in actual law instead of just a court decision.
      "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


      • #63
        Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

        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.
        Sure, but federal law is not immune from being overturned by SCOTUS.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #64
          Sodom and Gomorrah is an ancient mythology of morals and ethics justifying incest thousands of years old. Not particularly relevant to the contemporary world.

          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

            Sure, but federal law is not immune from being overturned by SCOTUS.
            Certainly. But that would require an entirely new case unrelated to Obergfell, and entirely new arguments on how it is unconstitutional, and then have to work its way up to SCOTUS and then be picked up by them for that to happen.
            "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


            • #66
              Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

              Certainly. But that would require an entirely new case unrelated to Obergfell, and entirely new arguments on how it is unconstitutional, and then have to work its way up to SCOTUS and then be picked up by them for that to happen.
              And where it stops, nobody know.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #67
                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?
                Obama firmly promised to pass a federal protection for abortion when he got into office. But once in office, he declared it was "not a priority" and never passed it.

                Had Obama actually passed a federal right to an abortion, it's entirely possible that SCOTUS would never have bothered to overturn Roe v Wade (given it would no longer have achieved much) and that abortion would still be a federal and constitutional right today.

                Just one among the many of Obama's failures to deliver on promises of progressive policies he'd made.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                  Homosexuality is destructive for the same reason adultery and pornography are destructive: it's a sin. If you as a Christian are struggling with the theology of this then I strongly encourage you to do some soul searching and figure out why, but I can assure you of at least this much: the Bible is not wrong to unambiguously condemn homosexuality. There is no spiritually and physically healthy way to practice homosexuality no matter how many laws are passed to validate it, and it will inevitably destroy both body and soul.

                  As for your claim that grace is extended to those who persist in sin, you need to read your Bible:

                  Scripture Verse: Acts 17

                  The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  I think he meant that the Church has customarily applied a double standard: We have tended to wink at hetero men being hound-dogs, but treat gays much more strictly.
                  Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                  Beige Federalist.

                  Nationalist Christian.

                  "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                  Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                  Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

                  Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                  Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                  Justice for Matthew Perna!

                  Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    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.
                    Did Thomas even state "intent," or just raise the possibility?
                    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                    Beige Federalist.

                    Nationalist Christian.

                    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                    Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

                    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                    Justice for Matthew Perna!

                    Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                      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.
                      Seems to me that Amendment 14 potentially violates Amendment 10. I don't have my Constitution handy. Is there any place that specifically says 14 supersedes 10?
                      Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                      Beige Federalist.

                      Nationalist Christian.

                      "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                      Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                      Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

                      Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                      Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                      Justice for Matthew Perna!

                      Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                        Sure, but federal law is not immune from being overturned by SCOTUS.
                        But in that case, they would have to find that the Constitution actually *precludes* the new law. That's not the same as saying it does not support Obergfell.
                        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                        Beige Federalist.

                        Nationalist Christian.

                        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                        Proud member of the LGBFJB community.

                        Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                        Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                        Justice for Matthew Perna!

                        Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                          Did Thomas even state "intent," or just raise the possibility?
                          Here was his exact words (with a little bit of extra context):

                          Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66.

                          For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., con- curring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.


                          This is found on page 3 of his concurrence (page 119 overall).

                          So technically speaking he says they should "reconsider" those. However, as Thomas dissented in Lawrence and Obergefell, and has given no indication that he has changed his mind since, it's fairly likely that he would want to overturn them.

                          Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                          Seems to me that Amendment 14 potentially violates Amendment 10. I don't have my Constitution handy. Is there any place that specifically says 14 supersedes 10?
                          I would assume that any amendment is assumed to override any previous contradicting part of an amendment or part of the Constitution even if it doesn't say so explicitly. For example, the 17th Amendment (making Senators be re-elected by popular vote rather than state legislatures) completely overrides several paragraphs of Article I Section 3 (talking about the original way Senators were chosen). But it doesn't explicitly say "this portion is removed", it just gives something that overrides some of it. I know the 21st Amendment explicitly repeals the 18th Amendment, but that is a case where it legitimately repeals it all, rather than merely adjusting a section as other amendments have done, such as the 17th, hence its statement of repealing it in order to be clear it was all going away.

                          In regards to 14 and 10, though... I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here as being the contradiction, as the fourteenth amendment wasn't being discussed. The only thing I can see offhand that would seem at all as a contradiction is the Fourteenth Amendment putting some limits on state law that weren't there before ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") However, I don't see this as any contradiction between it and the tenth ("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.") because the 10th Amendment says that powers not given by the Constitution to the federal government or denied to the states are powers the states have. not given to the federal government or denied to the states are given to the states. Therefore, the 14th Amendment is perfectly compatible, as it simply adjusts the list of things states are prohibited from doing, no more violating the 10th Amendment than amendments like the 13th amendment (abolishing slavery) did.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                            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.
                            The purpose of Article 4 is not for Congress to force its will on the states, which is exactly what is happening here.
                            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


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                              The purpose of Article 4 is not for Congress to force its will on the states, which is exactly what is happening here.
                              Even without the federal law, the Constitution would enforce the recognition of legal marriages from one state in all states. You're complaining about a redundant federal law. It's basically for show.
                              P1) If , then I win.

                              P2)

                              C) I win.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                                Even without the federal law, the Constitution would enforce the recognition of legal marriages from one state in all states. You're complaining about a redundant federal law. It's basically for show.
                                No. It's there so that what happened with Roe does not so easily happen. Currently the protection of gay marriage comes from state laws (and not all states have it) and from the Obergefell SCOTUS case. If the current justices overturn that decision like they did with Roe, then no federal protection is in place. Hence this law.
                                "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 Cow Poke, Today, 09:45 AM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:13 AM
                                21 responses
                                102 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 04:29 AM
                                3 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by Starlight, 01-28-2023, 10:15 PM
                                67 responses
                                334 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by seer, 01-27-2023, 07:58 PM
                                133 responses
                                722 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X