We need a new supreme court :: Ultimate MMORPG Gaming Community & Trading Zone

ATM Banana
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 8575

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:24 Post subject:

if nws gave two s***s about the sodomy issue, then why did he directly claim the two other issues dealing with the supreme court, on something of a tangent? maybe he doesn't pay attention to what he says, maybe the supreme court is his focus here, but i think he's got some sort of need for either someone to critizise ad a scape goat, or show whats wrong with our judicial system and propose another system, and by another system i mean modifying the existing one, or something completely different.

Back to top

Akronn
Guest

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:25 Post subject:

It's conceded by the state of Texas that married couples can't be regulated in their private **** decisions... but yet gays can? Remember that the 14th Amendment holds that states can't pass laws discriminating against certain classes of people unless there is some rational basis for the law and a legitimate government purpose behind it. Think about this a sec. A man can plug his wife in the pooper all day (hell, bestiality isn't even considered 'deviant' under Texas law) but a guy can't do it to another man. Texas law on the matter is unconstitutional. You might fail to see this, but only because you're going about it the wrong way.

Back to top

quotison
RealPoor Sensei

Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1594

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:27 Post subject:

Here's Amendment XIV, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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. I suppose the equal protection clause might be an interesting arguement to make for the SC's decision. If Texas allows two people to have **, then they should allow any two people to have **. Of course, if I remember correctly, Texas's sodomy laws prohbited it for everyone, man-woman and man-man.

Back to top

lauren000
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:28 Post subject:

It's illegal to wear a red dress in chicago at night hitachi. It's illegal to curse in public parks, with words such as 'hell' and 'damn' which is punishable by a 50$ fine. There is many many old laws that are totally ludicious this is one of them. Texas can't manage to see past their own biggotry, to repeal such a trivial law, then the lobbying homosexual activists and community are going to make it so. That's the way this country works. Get some money, go lobby, and maybe you can sell your idea. Untill you're prepared to do that, shut your mouth, vote, and know your place.

Back to top

hitachi
RealPoor Sensei

Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1508
Location: Maryland

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:28 Post subject:

Akronn wrote:

It's conceded by the state of Texas that married couples can't be regulated in their private **** decisions... but yet gays can? Remember that the 14th Amendment holds that states can't pass laws discriminating against certain classes of people unless there is some rational basis for the law and a legitimate government purpose behind it.

Think about this a sec. A man can plug his wife in the pooper all day (hell, bestiality isn't even considered 'deviant' under Texas law) but a guy can't do it to another man.

Texas law on the matter is unconstitutional. You might fail to see this, but only because you're going about it the wrong way.

are you sure its only illegal for sodomy between two men? i havnt seen anywhere where it says its not illegal between a man and a woman also. if so, that changes a few things in my opinion.

but his other two examples still stand.

Back to top

WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:29 Post subject:

hitachi wrote:

WheresNWS wrote:

lauren000 wrote:

WheresNWS wrote:

lauren000 wrote:

WheresNWS wrote:

lauren000 wrote:

hitachi wrote:

i think his point was more that, no where in the constitution does it guarantee an individual the right to sodomy, but it does guarantee a state the right to make it illegal.

them ruling against texas violates that states rights guaranteed in the constitution, or should we say not so guaranteed?

oh and i agree that the sodomy law is pretty stupid. but i agree on the other two examples he gave.

life, liberty, and the persuit of d**k in anus hitachi. And atm, it's the legislative branches part to create new law, it's the judicial branche's responsibility to interpret it. Nws- stop throwing little hissy b***h fits like a limp-wristin nancy boy. For someone who is heterosexual you sure are highly interested in sodomy.

Like I said, you perversion of **** orientation, why don't you quote the part of the constitution that guarantees sodomy, rather than blabbing your mouth about how much you like it in the butt because your fake p***y just doesn't do it for you.

all men are created equal. Does that mean women aren't recreated equal? Is it all straight, white, rich men are created equal? Guarantee to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Stop acting like such a victim, this law has very little bearing on your everyday encounters and I get the impression you're just looking to start drama. As allways really, you're trying to rile up a few select few people hoping to get some original response to the same rehashed b******t you peddle on a biweekly basis. And what does it say about our country when we're more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

Just as I predicated. bla bla bla, I don't have a real p***y, bla bla bla. Where's the quote from the constitution I was looking for? Oh yeah...there isn't one. Why? Because I'm right. The supreme court does not base its decisions on the constitution.

........................... I guess you must have missed it give me a second to cite it properly using mla format.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (par. 2).-Declaration of Independance, with toting the constitution as a shield you better know who the fathers or "framers" were. There is also no place in the constitution, bill of rights, nor any other significant american document stating that homosexuality is a crime and will not be tolerated. The constitution in actually never really touches the subject. But the supreme court has obligations outside that of just interpretting the constitution. It's their responsibility to see that justice is enforced, and punishment for "homosexual contact" doesn't even come remotely close to justice. But your view of the world is quite skewed. I mean, you seem so angry, upset, and just plain unbalanced nws. I kind of feel sorry for you, I honestly don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. And I can state with reasonable certainity that the way you portray yourself on realpoor doesn't even resemble who you really are. Simply put, you're a simpleton who can't seem to get much of anything right, and unfortunately for you the constitution makes no provisions for people of terminal stupidity.

You whole argument falls to pieces when you read the 10th amendment. The supreme court is not granted with the authority to arbitrarily grant "justice" according to your own corrupted interpretation of it. It is bound by the constitution to allow Texas any law that does not violate the very specific restrictions specified in the constitution. I see you're still unable to quote the constitution. Instead you refer to poetry, not law. I remember a while back how Akronn ludicrously quoted an obscure personal letter from jefferson that mention the seperation of church. He took that to mean the contintental congress believed religion should essentially be outlawed at every level. The constitution says quite differently, though. Now I'll ask you again, please quote the constitution because all you're saying is "Hey, I WANT to live under the rule of 5 people!"

it doesnt matter! you attacked sodomy, which is important to his homosexual lifestyle. i personally have no problem with him liking sodomy, but he cant have anyone attacking the lifestyle he chooses!

i really dont think nws gives two s***s about the sodomy issue ( i could be wrong). i think the point is that the supreme court does not have the right to ignore the constitution like it obviously did, if you cant see that you are a f*****g moron. he has quoted the passages more then once that show that rights now directly written about in the constitution are individual states responsibility to handle. in this case, texas handled it, and was told no sorry we are going to unconstitutionally rule against you, so sorry~

Finally someone understands. I don't give a f**k about sodomy laws. At the time of the ruling, only 13 states had them on the books. I don't go around saying those other 37 states need to have anti-sodomy laws. I said that it is each state's right to choose whether or not they have an anti-sodomy law because it is guaranteed by the constitution. However, it's gender f**k-ups like Lauren who want to unconstitutionally enforce their will via federal courts on the entire nation.

Back to top

themy
Sir Postalot

Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:32 Post subject:

the constitution was written as you all know back around 1776, hmm how long has it been? did they even have anything like telephones or computers or the internet??? no that is why we must constantly update it. In fact i'm sure anyone could take a passage in the constitution and say that it supports two completely opposite beliefs. So as you can see this does not answer your quoting the constitution to prove a point but if u give me a sec i will gladly find something to quote you on.

Back to top

WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:32 Post subject:

hitachi wrote:

Akronn wrote:

It's conceded by the state of Texas that married couples can't be regulated in their private **** decisions... but yet gays can? Remember that the 14th Amendment holds that states can't pass laws discriminating against certain classes of people unless there is some rational basis for the law and a legitimate government purpose behind it.

Think about this a sec. A man can plug his wife in the pooper all day (hell, bestiality isn't even considered 'deviant' under Texas law) but a guy can't do it to another man.

Texas law on the matter is unconstitutional. You might fail to see this, but only because you're going about it the wrong way.

are you sure its only illegal for sodomy between two men? i havnt seen anywhere where it says its not illegal between a man and a woman also. if so, that changes a few things in my opinion.

but his other two examples still stand.

The law was same-**** sodomy. If you read the 14th amendment, it makes no guarantee that Akronn claims. It's also not discriminatory because the law applied to both heterosexual and homosexual men.

Back to top

Mugaaz
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3576

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:33 Post subject:

"You're trying to use the constitution to push your agenda and that's where your problem lies" WOW, just WOW.

Back to top

WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:33 Post subject:

themy wrote:

the constitution was written as you all know back around 1776, hmm how long has it been? did they even have anything like telephones or computers or the internet??? no that is why we must constantly update it. In fact i'm sure anyone could take a passage in the constitution and say that it supports two completely opposite beliefs. So as you can see this does not answer your quoting the constitution to prove a point but if u give me a sec i will gladly find something to quote you on.

So basically...you admit you have no argument?

Back to top

themy
Sir Postalot

Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:34 Post subject:

quitison is absolutely right there here is another clause to think about NWS Article III Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. i have underlined the important parts for you aswell

Back to top

andrew935
Total Newbie

Joined: 03 Dec 2002
Posts: 44

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:34 Post subject:

so nws is for pro-state laws choosing whether to make gay **** legal or illegal? and the rest of you are for making national laws to solve this?

Back to top

lauren000
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:35 Post subject:

it doesn't really matter if I force it on the country. You see south africa and austrailia are comming around now to gender recognition laws. So is all of europe really. Canada is allready there. How long do you think it will be before it infects the united states nws?

Back to top

WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:35 Post subject:

themy wrote:

quitison is absolutely right there here is another clause to think about NWS
Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

i have underlined the important parts for you aswell

Are you literate?

Back to top

ATM Banana
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 8575

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:36 Post subject:

andrew935 wrote:

so nws is for pro-state laws choosing whether to make gay **** legal or illegal? and the rest of you are for making national laws to solve this?

make an opinion so i can tell you it doesn't matter plz.

Back to top

WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:36 Post subject:

lauren000 wrote:

it doesn't really matter if I force it on the country. You see south africa and austrailia are comming around now to gender recognition laws. So is all of europe really. Canada is allready there. How long do you think it will be before it infects the united states nws?

You ignorance is beyond my admittedly limited comprehension.

Back to top

themy
Sir Postalot

Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:37 Post subject:

no NWS i am merely pointint out that if you use the state's rights clause that you can say the states should be able to do whatever they want. But this is not true since the constitution blocks states from infringing onto one's own civil liberties (such as how someone has ****) this is what the supreme court does they decide against stupid laws that make the U.S. seem like we are headed on a road to Naziism. Thus protecting the constitution against states.

Back to top

themy
Sir Postalot

Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:38 Post subject:

WheresNWS wrote:

themy wrote:

quitison is absolutely right there here is another clause to think about NWS
Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

i have underlined the important parts for you aswell

Are you literate?

did you not READ what is posted all you do is make stupid comments when you are proven wrong. You are wrong man, just give it up already.

Back to top

lauren000
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:40 Post subject:

WheresNWS wrote:

lauren000 wrote:

it doesn't really matter if I force it on the country. You see south africa and austrailia are comming around now to gender recognition laws. So is all of europe really. Canada is allready there. How long do you think it will be before it infects the united states nws?

You ignorance is beyond my admittedly limited comprehension.

"you ignorance"? I can't say it's ignorance really. It's fact. It's happening right now. You're in that phase that psychologists refer to as 'denial'. Don't worry eventually you will reach the phase of "acceptance". Regardless, in 20 years the United States is going to follow suit and none of your worthless b******g and moaning and stars and stripes bs is going to change that.

Back to top

quotison
RealPoor Sensei

Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1594

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:43 Post subject:

themy wrote:

no that is why we must constantly update it.

Agreed, that's why there is Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Unfortunately, Article V does not give the courts power to update the constitution for today's times. The congress is more then welcome to, though.

Back to top

WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:44 Post subject:

Here is the fundamental problem I have with this, broken down into parts so that people as dumb as Lauren can understand. 1. There is no constitutional or legal guarantee of sodomy. 2. There is a constitutional guarantee for states' rights. 3. The supreme court arbitrarily ruled that Texas does not have the right to have an anti-sodomy law, despite the 10th amendment saying it does. 4. There is no constitutional restriction of religion at the state level. 5. A justice in the Alabama supreme court put up the 10 commandments and nobody compained at the state level. 6. A federal court rules that the monument must be removed despite the fact the constitution only says congress shall not establish religion and this was done at the state level. 7. McCain-Feingold specifically restricts political speech. 8. The supreme court ruled that it was constitutional. Bla bla bla bigot bigot bla...stfu, Lauren, you self-mutilating freak. The supreme court is now consistently ruling not only arbitrarily, but directly against the constitution in which it is supposed to be bound. This is my point in summary. As evidence, I present the complete lack of a single (applicable..for Themy's off the wall quote) quote from the constitution to support the constitutionality of these rulings.

Back to top

themy
Sir Postalot

Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:46 Post subject:

while it is not directly stated in the constitution no judicial powers are outlined whatsoever. If you take a look at the presidential powers those aswell are mostly infered and recently the president has gained more power much more power then he should have in the constitution. Likewise is the Judicial branch they have gained a lot of power by acting on things and nobody told them no you can't do that so they have now gained those powers. The courts undid segregation brown V board and also roe V wade these are both cases which outline the Judicial system's ability to "create" laws.

Back to top

WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:47 Post subject:

themy wrote:

WheresNWS wrote:

themy wrote:

quitison is absolutely right there here is another clause to think about NWS
Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

i have underlined the important parts for you aswell

Are you literate?

did you not READ what is posted all you do is make stupid comments when you are proven wrong. You are wrong man, just give it up already.

Dude...this provision specifies federal court involvement to be between inter-state (rather than intra) affairs. It has no relevance whatsoever to this discussion.

Back to top

ATM Banana
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 8575

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:49 Post subject:

considering its relative vocabulary, you might think it would be.

Back to top

lauren000
RealPoor Guru

Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:50 Post subject:

WheresNWS wrote:

Here is the fundamental problem I have with this, broken down into parts so that people as dumb as Lauren can understand.

1. There is no constitutional or legal guarantee of sodomy.
2. There is a constitutional guarantee for states' rights.
3. The supreme court arbitrarily ruled that Texas does not have the right to have an anti-sodomy law, despite the 10th amendment saying it does.
4. There is no constitutional restriction of religion at the state level.
5. A justice in the Alabama supreme court put up the 10 commandments and nobody compained at the state level.
6. A federal court rules that the monument must be removed despite the fact the constitution only says congress shall not establish religion and this was done at the state level.
7. McCain-Feingold specifically restricts political speech.
8. The supreme court ruled that it was constitutional.

Bla bla bla bigot bigot bla...stfu, Lauren, you self-mutilating freak. The supreme court is now consistently ruling not only arbitrarily, but directly against the constitution in which it is supposed to be bound. This is my point in summary. As evidence, I present the complete lack of a single (applicable..for Themy's off the wall quote) quote from the constitution to support the constitutionality of these rulings.

nevermind. You win. I lose. You're right. I'm wrong. You're smart. I'm stupid. You're attractive. I'm ugly. The supreme court justifices are hopeless inadequate. You're the answer to this country's transgressions. You're tall. I'm short? You're big. I'm little? I can go on I guess but I'd hope by now you'd realize the sarcasm and the obvious...

nevermind

Back to top

themy
Sir Postalot

Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:55 Post subject:

Quote:

1. There is no constitutional or legal guarantee of sodomy.

first ammend bill of rights "Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"
speech grnats them the ability to do as they wish with eachother since it does not infringe on another's rights

Quote:

2. There is a constitutional guarantee for states' rights.

"Amendment X

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. "
while the states do have all other laws not given to the U.S. they are still not able to withold a person's right to do as they wish.

Quote:

3. The supreme court arbitrarily ruled that Texas does not have the right to have an anti-sodomy law, despite the 10th amendment saying it does.

The 10th ammend does not gaurentee all laws no matter what to states, the laws must still be constitutional. and obviously the texas laws are not.

Quote:

4. There is no constitutional restriction of religion at the state level.

actually the federal law can be seen as a blanket since any federal law applies to all states

Quote:

5. A justice in the Alabama supreme court put up the 10 commandments and nobody compained at the state level.

this is a clear cut church/state descision, obviously his religious views did not need to be posted inside a court of LAW where all religions are equal.

Quote:

6. A federal court rules that the monument must be removed despite the fact the constitution only says congress shall not establish religion and this was done at the state level.

wrong, just plain wrong thinking go back to google pls and look agian

Quote:

7. McCain-Feingold specifically restricts political speech.

if someone set a campaign out to attack a politition a week before elections the other side would not be able to have a response to this attack therefor that is unfair obviously.

Quote:

8. The supreme court ruled that it was constitutional.

what was constitutional?

Back to top

WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:55 Post subject:

themy wrote:

while it is not directly stated in the constitution no judicial powers are outlined whatsoever. If you take a look at the presidential powers those aswell are mostly infered and recently the president has gained more power much more power then he should have in the constitution. Likewise is the Judicial branch they have gained a lot of power by acting on things and nobody told them no you can't do that so they have now gained those powers. The courts undid segregation brown V board and also roe V wade these are both cases which outline the Judicial system's ability to "create" laws.

Not quite. Brown vs. Board was constitutional, because it specifically prohibited states from not applying laws equally to any particular person which the states were doing at the time. Technically "separate but equal" is constitutional, but things were actually not equal. Roe vs. Wade has no basis in the constitution, however. It was another violation of the constitution because abortion does not violate the equal protection clause (e.g., there was no law that said only black women couldn't get an abortion) but it did violate the 10th amendment. Remember that abortion laws were all at the state level at the time.

Back to top

themy
Sir Postalot

Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153

Posted: 12/11/03 - 01:57 Post subject:

i posted those cases to show how the supreme court creates laws....

Quote:

"separate but equal" is constitutional, but things were actually not equal

actually, the supreme court rules separate means that they are NOT equal so anythign separate is not equal by nature.

Back to top

Akronn
Guest

Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:00 Post subject:

WheresNWS wrote:

The law was same-**** sodomy. If you read the 14th amendment, it makes no guarantee that Akronn claims. It's also not discriminatory because the law applied to both heterosexual and homosexual men.

Heh, the Texas DA tries to argue this by saying that two homosexuals caught doing homosexual things in this case may not actually be homosexual. However, Texas law expressly applies to men performing homesexual acts... or in other words: homosexual men. Texas is one of four contiguous states which criminalize certain **** activities by same-**** couples which are legal when performed by a man and women

And for those of you scoring at home, the applicable portion of the 14th Amendment: "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."

Again, the Supreme Court properly found Texas' sodomy law unconstitutional. There's no agenda here.

Back to top

WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts

Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448

Posted: 12/11/03 - 02:04 Post subject:

themy wrote:

Quote:

1. There is no constitutional or legal guarantee of sodomy.

first ammend bill of rights "Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"
speech grnats them the ability to do as they wish with eachother since it does not infringe on another's rights

Wrong. Speech != Expression. That is a corruption of the law. Speech does not mean that you can "do as you want." Can I dump radiocative waste in my house that is in the middle of a city? No.

themy wrote:

Quote:

2. There is a constitutional guarantee for states' rights.

"Amendment X

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. "
while the states do have all other laws not given to the U.S. they are still not able to withold a person's right to do as they wish.

Yes they are. There are many thousands of laws that do just that. Otherwise we would live in anarchy, which we clearly don't.

themy wrote:

Quote:

3. The supreme court arbitrarily ruled that Texas does not have the right to have an anti-sodomy law, despite the 10th amendment saying it does.

The 10th ammend does not gaurentee all laws no matter what to states, the laws must still be constitutional. and obviously the texas laws are not.

They aren't? Where's that quote I was looking for? You still haven't provided it.

themy wrote:

Quote:

4. There is no constitutional restriction of religion at the state level.

actually the federal law can be seen as a blanket since any federal law applies to all states

Read the amendment. It says congress may pass no law respecting the establishment of a religion. This amendment refers to Congress at the federal level, leaving states to do as they wish. That is why I specifically said "at the state level."

themy wrote:

Quote:

5. A justice in the Alabama supreme court put up the 10 commandments and nobody compained at the state level.

this is a clear cut church/state descision, obviously his religious views did not need to be posted inside a court of LAW where all religions are equal.

Obviously that is not the case, since only the ACLU complained. He had every constitutional right to do what he did. If he didn't, please provide a direct quote.

themy wrote:

Quote:

6. A federal court rules that the monument must be removed despite the fact the constitution only says congress shall not establish religion and this was done at the state level.

wrong, just plain wrong thinking go back to google pls and look agian

What was wrong? A federal court didn't order it removed? It did.

themy wrote:

Quote:

7. McCain-Feingold specifically restricts political speech.

if someone set a campaign out to attack a politition a week before elections the other side would not be able to have a response to this attack therefor that is unfair obviously.

Well then let's restrict all speech that might be "unfair!"

themy wrote:

Quote:

8. The supreme court ruled that it was constitutional.

what was constitutional?

McCain-Feingold, despite the fact that it clearly restricts free speech.

Back to top

We need a new supreme court

LIFEFORM SOCIAL COMMUNITY NETWORK