On current events
The 9th Circuit struck down Prop 8 as unconstitutional. Turns out, true democracy not such a good idea. And, apparently, this is a threat to my marriage so I should get a lawyer or something.
The Republicans look to have had a bit too much to drink and woke up next to Rick Santorum.
Ron Paul is polling second nationwide. No kidding. I am really shocked.
The administration will force Catholics to pay for contraception. This seems clearly unconstitutional to me.
February 8th, 2012 at 11:48 am
What part of the ObamaCare calculus “force x to pay for y” was ever Constitutional?
This is what tyranny looks like.
February 8th, 2012 at 11:51 am
When Republican presidential candidates are forced to answer questions about the latest Obama Administration assault on social issues, their uniform response should be something along the lines of, “The most important issue in this election is removing Barack Obama from office, to stop his attempted transformation of our country from a constitutional republic to a corrupt kleptocracy. Everything else is a lower priority.”
Sidetracks lead to dead ends. Every question about social issues is a side track, to take the focus off the failures of the current occupant of the Oval Office.
February 8th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Democracy is a two way street… Of course what the prop 8 strike down does is simply say that there is no reason for democracy and that the people should not bother to vote because their opinion does not matter….
This is why national referendums are not allowed in america on controversial subjects…
February 8th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
The key to government control is control of healthcare.
February 8th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
How can prop8 be unconstitutional? I thought that this is how they amended their state constitution.
I mean, if the people and the states wanted to ratify a US Constitutional amendment saying that geese were blue, it would be added, but only if following the process.
It seems odd that the opposition who lost in the vote could come in and rule it out anyhow.
February 8th, 2012 at 2:36 pm
So, if cali passed an amendment making slavery legal that’s constitutional?
February 8th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
SayUncle, California’s constitution never provided for same sex marriage until California’s Supreme Court decided that it required California to recognize same sex marriage. California’s voters did not pass an initiative legalizing slavery, they passed an initiative that reversed the California Supreme Court’s creation of a right never before found in California’s constitution and not put there by legislature nor voters. California has a domestic partnership act which conveys upon same sex couples every single right of marriage except the name.
It was that initiative that the Ninth Circuit found unconstitutional the initiative which did nothing except strip the name “marriage” from same sex couples.
And the Ninth Circuit did so in another of Judge Reinhardt’s notoriously dishonest opinions.
February 8th, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Please, “9th Circus”.
February 8th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
SPQR… I believe you just handed uncle his lunch…
And Uncle. Slavery is unconstitutional. Marriage is neither in the constitution nor unconstitutional. It is a matter for the people to decide under the 10th 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.
February 9th, 2012 at 12:31 am
So, SPQR? California voters could amend their Constitution to rigidity women from driving? Driving isn’t mentioned in the CA Const. either.
And since it’s not mentioned in the US Const. it must be up tp the States under the 10th A. Right?
February 9th, 2012 at 4:49 am
#9 John Smith: Who are “the people” you are talking about? The facless collective mob of democracy, or free and sovereign individuals as understood by the Founders?
The Left has been fooling people into believing the answer is option #2 for a very long time (Heller just repaired that bit of vandalism for Amendment II). The goal is to subvert and dilute away from your minds the original American principle of a government *constrained* by the principle of individual rights (where government, democratic or no, shall do nothing except what is explicitly permitted, while anything not so granted is reserved to the individual) in favor of a government “constrained” solely by majority opinion — unlimited democracy, in other words.
Thusly did they transform “the people” from the morally sovereign individual of the Founders into the majoritarian tyranny of democracy — and you two suckers fell for it, as have so many others.
Marriage is a form of assembly (of contract), and so is covered under Amendment I — and Amendments IX and X back it up. Under liberty, government — including popular vote — is constrained. Keep your dirty majoritarian hands off.
(And spare me the thrice-damned “states rights” horsehockey. The Founders meant for the states to be constrained by their respective citizens under their own individual constitutions — not for them to be 50 little unconstrained fiefdoms that can override individual rights at majority whim. That bizarre idea — that the Founders sought to constrain tyranny at the federal level by means of permitting it at the state level on the state level — is merely modern conservatism’s feudalish riff on the Left’s original substitution of democracy for liberty.)
February 9th, 2012 at 10:32 am
#9 John Smith: If the Tenth applies, how do we constitutionally handle federal taxes for gay people in civil unions/marriages under the 14th Amendment?
Which amendment takes precedence?
The tenth says states can regulate things not protected by the constitution; the 14th says that everyone must be treated the same.
States do not “have rights”. They have “powers”, just as all government has powers. Only people are afforded these little tokens of freedom we call “rights”.
So the question when it comes to treatment of people gay or straight is: may government tax people differently based on who they love?
And more broadly: when the powers of a state intersect with the rights of a lawful individual, who should win?
February 9th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Democratic vote. In the USA we have several controversial items that hangnail our country. My idea is to put ultra controversial things up to national referendum and day to day operations to the states and congress. That would make people responsible for the things that go on in the country. Since there are only 2-3 really controversial things in this country we would not be out voting all the time. Organize the vote and let everyone throw as much cash at it as they want with one caveat… The loosing side pays for referendum. Allow a previous vote to be challenged if the challengers get a hand signed 1 percent petition from the voting population under the same payment rules. I brought this up before a Tennessee state senators aid and she had mixed feelings about it.. Mainly from the standpoint that she did not trust her senators constituency to vote the way the senator would….