And what specific rights are me and my partner not entitled to under the law?
But that’s the problem. You keep saying it’s there, but you can’t show that it is. You just keep repeating, without any evidence, that it is there.
So the fuck this -[ul][li]the power to define new rights is not assigned to the Supreme Court or the federal government[*]All powers not assigned to the federal government go to the states, or the people.[/ul]That’s what the Tenth Amendment says. [/li]
You claim you’re not stupid, but you sure are doing your best to prove that you are. You admit that both my major and minor premises are correct, but you deny the conclusion. I realize you don’t like it, but that’s how logic works.
This is not a fact, it is an assertion. And it is contradicted by the text of the Constitution.
The Tenth Amendment does not say, 'All unenumerated powers pass to the federal government". It gives them to the states, or the people. That’s what the words mean. The power to decide which are rights and which are not, is an unenumerated power. Therefore, it belongs to the states, or the people.
It’s quite simple, really. If the judicial power included the power to find laws unconstitutional that violate the not-previously-established rights of its citizens, then the judicial power would include the power to establish not-previously-established rights. As already demonstrated, the power to establish not-previously-established rights is not assigned specifically to the federal government. Therefore, that power belongs to the states, or the people.
So, your assertion violates the Tenth Amendment, and is therefore incorrect.
Your assertion that the Tenth Amendment violates the Ninth Amendment is equally ridiculous. A right cannot be said to be denied or disparaged unless and until it has been found to exist. Unless and until the states or the people exercise their power to determine that a right exists (or if said right is enumerated in the Constitution), it has not been found to exist. Therefore, it is not disparaged.
As mentioned, the Ninth Amendment is not a source of substantive rights. The Tenth Amendment is - it assigns the power to determine what are those rights not to be disparaged.
No, it doesn’t. I have already demonstrated that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution. Unenumerated rights, by definition, are not enumerated in the Constitution. Therefore, cases establishing unenumerated rights do not come under the purview of the federal government, since that would mean establishing unenumerated rights, which we have already discovered is not one of the powers of the federal government.
Your difficulty is to try to parse the plain text of the Constitution and change the meaning of “cases arising under this Constitution” to “cases not arising under this Constitution, and having nothing to do with anything mentioned in it”. That doesn’t work, which is why you are having such troubles. Logic does work. Unfortunately, in this case it works rather definitely against you.
I have addressed them several times. In fact, I have refuted them.
All of your assertions have been debunked. Your factual inaccuracies have been corrected. You simply repeat the same nonsense, over and over again, generally without evidence. And when you are asked for evidence, you repeat the same nonsense, over and over. and accuse me of not addressing issues that have been exploded ten times over.
If that’s all you got, fine.
So what would you call the legally and/or religiously sanctioned relationship of a gay couple? In the vernacular, I mean, because trust me, “civil union” is fine as a legal term, but nobody is going say, “Bob and Sam got civil unioned last weekend” or “Are you going to Sylvia and Joan’s civil union?”
I thought you had already conceded judicial review is one of The Judicial Powers. If you now insist that the courts are not able to find statutes that violate citizens’ rights unconstitutional, we can just stop now. I’ll have to settle for the fact that judicial review has been a part of the judicial power since the Constitution was written (and before for that matter). And you can continue to wallow in your willful blindness.
But, what I understood you to say, is that you believe judicial review is part of the Judicial Power, but you, for whatever reason, think it only applies to rights specifically enumerated. And, for the 5th time, that limitation on judicial review VIOLATES THE VERY WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. The Ninth Amendment clearly states that listing rights in the Bill of Rights does nothing to “deny or disparage” other rights not listed. Your inane reading of the 10th Amendment to try and deny judicial review of non-enumerated rights, clearly violates that.
Again, if you want to deny judicial review of statutes violating citizen’s rights, knock yourself out. You lost that battle 200+ years ago. But you can’t pretend that judicial power includes judicial review for only enumerated rights because that distinction isn’t in the Constitution (I love the irony of you violating your own requirements) AND the Constitution specifically says otherwise.
Your confused. Again. I agree “the Supreme Court has the power to define new rights” are not in the Constitution. As I asked before, SO FUCKING WHAT? The judicial power IS granted in the Constitution and it includes, as I thought you already conceded, judicial review of statutes that violate citizen’s rights.
I have no clue how Shodanlogic works, but here in the real world, your conclusion is wrong.
Do you even realize what you’re doing there? You’re limiting, without any support and in violation of the Constitutional language, the judicial power of judicial review to ONLY cases of “not previously established” rights of its citizens. YOU are the one who is flying in the face of the clear language of the Constitution. For the 6th time, the 9th Amendment forbids the non enumeration of rights to be used to “deny or disparage” rights not enumerated. And that is EXACTLY what you are doing.
Again, we would have a much better chance of debating these issues if you would stop pretending what you think I assert. Because, invariably, you are wrong. It gets annoying after awhile, and it makes you like the dishonest debater you are.
I assert that SHODAN’S INTERPRETATION of the 10th Amendment violates the 9th Amendment. See, the founding fathers (and probably their livestock) were WAAAAAYYYY smarter than you. So, when they wrote the Constitution, they tried not to make two parts of it contradict each other. It isn’t the 10th Amendment itself that violates the 9th. It’s your inane interpretation that does.
Interesting, and completely unfounded, attempt. The founders were big believers in natural law, and that rights came from _________ (a Creator, nature, whatever you wish) and not the government. And they thought that those rights were not dependent on being listed in order to exist.
See, the founding fathers knew there would be people, people like yourself, who thought that rights, if they weren’t enumerated in the Bill of Rights, would not be protected from governmental intrusion. So they wrote the 9th Amendment, to make it clear to those people that simply by writing down some rights, that doesn’t mean the other rights can be “denied or disparaged”.
This SHODANlogic is complete bizarre. It’s completely inane to insist that something has to exist to be denied. That’s the very heart of a denial, that it doesn’t exist. Denying a right, inescapably, means it doesn’t exist. And that’s exactly what you are saying. It’s humorous to see you contradicting yourself in such a bizarre way.
Look, you can repeat your premise another dozen times too, and it doesn’t get any more right. See, debates like what I’m trying to do with you, shouldn’t be just repeating the same thing over and over. Granted, with you, it’s hard to avoid because that’s all you do, but it shouldn’t be.
The 9th Amendment, due process, and equal protection are all in the Constitution. Laws that violate those, therefore, “arise under the Constitution”. It ain’t that difficult to understand, and you’ve done nothing to refute it.
This must be more of that SHODANlogic that so confuses me. You’ve snipped, ignored, and didn’t refute my arguments. You don’t answer my questions. You misrepresent my arguments. And you simply repeat yourself over and over, even after I’ve shown you to be wrong.
So, when you get a spine to answer my prior questions and answer the other arguments, let me know. Because all you’re doing is repeating one thing ("It’s not written specifically in the Constitution…WAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!) over and over and over. And, while I’ve thoroughly destroyed that “argument”, I think honest debate requires the discussion of ALL the points, not just the one you think helps you the most. But, then again, you and honest debate are aeons apart.
Please read my post in the other thread. Trust me, the ‘foundation of western civilization’ had a very different kind of marriage than you want.
Ah, but remember that you’re an academic and therefore brainwashed by the Liberal psycho-sexual revisionism of history!
Thanks for the warning, but don’t delude yourself into thinking you can walk up my back , metaphorically or literally.
You want to delude yourself into thinking a lost any part of the fight, let alone the linguistic.
Would you vote YES on a poroposal you disagree just becasue it is popular and so you won’t fell pressured? Wow, what a wuss.
You say you *married *documents and sure you do. The word *marry *has several meanings (thus, the polysemy), the marrying of documents is metaphorical.
I aswered your question and you said I danced around it? More like, stomp on it while taking a huge crap.
Well, I also *aborted *a program, am I now pro-life?
If a word is used for different meanings it has no effect on the “root” word.
M-W, the key is “like that of traditional marriage”, thus recognising that traditional marriage is man-woman.
Meaning 3 is metaphorical. Go study a bit before trying to get me with dictionaries man, don’t even try to come to gunfight only with a dictionary.
So, you’ve just found out that people fall short of (even their own) expectations, WOW, GOOD FOR YOU!
King Kamehameha is definitely not part of western culture, not even sure if he was a US citizen, but polygamy is still a succession of paralel man-woman marriages; it’s not polyamorist.
Now, I don’t know, check you state/country laws.
Marriage, sure.
Your quote is uninformsative as to marriage being other than man-woman. Definitely reason to marry and extra curricular activities are nor part of the definiton of marriage.
irony only works when it’s closer to the truhth-. I have avoided (except once) personal insults or ad hominem , don’t imply that I did.
So you’re saying gay marriage should be called “marriage” and hetero marriage should be called “traditional marriage”?
So you still don’t have anything concrete? You said that gay couples should get MOST of the benefits and rights of marriage. I see that you’re not going to actually respond to me so I guess we’re done here.
See now, there’s the problem. You left off the part that would give meaning to my argument, in a rather lame attempt at misrepresentation.
You did notice the phrase “already established”, did you not? I repeated it several times.
Again, the problem is that I already addressed this. Your notion of the Supreme Court having the power to establish unenumerated rights contradicts the Tenth Amendment. Because, as you have already conceded, the power to establish rights is an unenumerated power, and therefore a power of the states, or the people.
No, that’s not it - you’re just stupid.
See? you’re an idiot. I spent several paragraphs parsing the phrase “arising under this Constitution” for you, which you then ignore (because, as mentioned, you are stupid and stubborn).
That’s fine. Simply pretending that arguments don’t exist if you can’t refute them, and then accusing me of not answering question or debating in good fiath, simply marks you as a persistently stupid person.
And I already answered this. You have ignored it, because you are exceptionally stupid and dull witted. Look for the phrase “So fucking this -” followed by a detailed explanation. Have a friend read it to you, if you have one.
Or any other kind, apparently.
Nope, still wrong. See the previous discussion of “cases arising under this Constitution” for a detailed explanation.
Or don’t - it is apparently beyond your intellectual grasp.
Right, but you haven’t got the IQ of a burnt out light bulb, so your assertion isn’t worth much.
OK, then you merely have to produce the evidence that shows that the Founding Fathers thought that there was a right to SSM granted by God, or nature. Interesting that you do not include the Supreme Court on that list.
But again, if you can produce some evidence, in the form of a quote or something, where the Founding Fathers make it clear that they want the Supreme Court to be the source of rights rather than Nature or God. If not, this is another of your baseless assertions.
Unfortunately, by that “logic”, my right to have my mortgage paid for by Paris Hilton is being denied or disparaged. The Ninth Amendment says that I might have that right, and just because it isn’t in the Constitution doesn’t mean that it isn’t there.
And your (or the Supreme Court’s) denial of that right means that it is being disparaged.
Help, help, I’m being oppressed!
Or -
Your point is completely silly and nonsensical. Of course you can deny a right that doesn’t exist. Don’t be idiotic. (Is that even possible?)
Actually, I quoted the Supreme Court a couple of times to show that cases involving new rights cannot arise under the Ninth Amendment, because the Ninth Amendment is not a source of rights. I notice you haven’t tried to refute it. I’m not surprised.
Here you are just lying, And projecting.
How about “Classic Marriage” and “New Marriage?”
You know, I thought that the argument “but we’ve always done it this way” had kind of gone out of fashion…
That’s your idea of a comeback? Really? I’m a bigot somehow? What’s next, “I’m rubber, you’re glue, etc.”?
Grow up, kid.
It could be called whatever, definitely civl unions wil be called marriage by some people for shorthand if for no other reason.
Words have power. If you call a black man “nigger” you’re saying much more than “mispronunciation of negro”; the word is de-humanising but doesn’t affect that person humanity.
Your use of the simple present tense (“are”) confused me. Frpm the top of my head I’d say adoption (but I don’t want to turn this thread into a “gay adoption” thread) and coimpulsory acceoptance in private religious schools.
…and still you couldn’t do any better…“grow up, kid” is the last resort of the unable to answer.
You’re a bigot becasue you started the process of de-humanising by calling me a bigot.
Errrr…have you lost your dictionary or something? That’s not what “bigot” means. Just because I think you’re a sullen, frightened homophobe doesn’t make me a bigot. It makes me correct.
I’m having a tough time understanding you. Yes, it seems likely that all Greek and Roman and ancient Jewish marriages were man-woman. That wasn’t my point. My point is that you’re saying that you want to protect ‘traditional marriage’ - and that isn’t actually as traditional as you think.
If you want to claim that ‘western civilization’ defines marriage, then you’d better accept lack of religious sanction, common and faultless divorce, polygamy and no expectation of fidelity along with opposite sex partners.
History is not on your side.
I… don’t know what else I can say.
I’m deluded? Dude, you concede that you’ve lost the linguistic battle over the word marriage in this very same post!
Hey, you’re the one who wants the “easiest” solution. I’m just telling you what the easiest solution is: give up. If you want to do it the hard way, we can do it the hard way. The outcome’s going to be the same either way. If you want to waste a lot of time and money fighting the inevitable, knock yourself out. While you’re at it, I’ve got a thimble around here somewhere: you want to borrow it to hold back the sea?
Are you really this fucking dense? You’re the one who compared it to heptagons being 8-sided, as if SSM went against natural/physical laws. If all you’re saying is it’s wrong because it’s illegal, your argument’s even weaker.
And now homophobe, man you’re really making me laugh, textbook ad hominem.
Religoius sanction: For Greeks and Romans no, for Jes and Christians, yes. and I wasn’t basing my case in religion.
Polygamy was basically dead at the end of patriarchial times and except for very specific cases (e.g. Solomon) not even remotely widespread.
Common and faultless divorce: I’d love a good cite. Maybe your presidents, maybe powerful people, but most? No, was it held as the model? No…do people routinely fall short of their goals? Yes. Do societal pressures play a role? Definitely
So shut up.
You’re the one fixated on the word, I’m fixated on the concept. When words change their meanings it might affect how we appreciate the unchanging underlying fact.
Well, dude, you couldn’t win California, one of the most liberal states. That thimble looks mighty big and hole-less and
That fact that you prefer cowardly easy solutions baffles me. The GLBT community has fought a hard fight not accepting the easy solutions of shutting up (even if I think they are mistaken in what they fight for in some cases).
Just to clarify the “linguistic” point some think I’m fixating. Marriage exists whatever we call it and despite what other may call marriage. I’m sure that if/when SSM is accepted most people will call it marriage as it externally looks like the real thing. I do not, however dismiss the power that words have in shaping how we perceive reality (reality which exists even if we don’t recognise it). “Nigger” was used to refer to African-americans; even if linguistically it means “black” the connotation of living in a place where African-americans are routinely called “niggers” (unless you’re AA) will shape your perception of that man’s persohood. The obejective reality of equality of personhood regardless of race still is there, but we have biased our perception.
If we started calling triangles and squares “triangles”, we would see them differently that what their objective realities are.
Actually, it would only be “textbook” if I were engaged in debate with you, since ad hominem refers to a fallacious argument. I’m not debating you. I’m making fun of you.
Please note the difference for future use.