18th August 2010, 12:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 18th August 2010, 1:13 PM by Dark Jaguar.)
Agreed. A state is free to challenge national laws, that is part of the checks and balance, but it must be done through the set up methods for doing so, not just by making laws in direct contradiction of the constitution.
Further more, are you admitting that you do agree that such rights ARE protected by the constitution? Are you admitting that it IS a law that specifically targets a group for no other reason than homosexuality? If that is the case, you're stating that a state should be free to oppress a minority JUST BECAUSE, that you believe it's their right to oppress whoever they want whenever they want so long as a majority votes to do so.
I must ask you, what is the justification for this law to begin with? Is there any? So far all you've been doing is arguing that the state had "the right" to pass the law, at no point arguing WHY they should pass it. That's PART of the reason Walker struck it down.
Walker's a STATE DISTRICT judge by the way. The federal government didn't strike it down, the very state that passed it did.
I should add something else. Back on the topic of amendments applying to all levels of the law, what is the point of requiring ratification methods for getting amendments passed if it only amounts to a government restriction on itself, as opposed to otherwise?
You listed a specific legal precedent. That was actually a pretty terrible decision. Do you honestly mean to tell me that, in that case of a local wharf being damaged by state construction, that you take the side of the state? Are you saying that if your state built a highway through your house, you'd not demand just payment to buy and move into a new house of similar value? You'd take it as their right, and that ONLY government building projects should require payment? That's what the case was ABOUT after all.
Let's seriously think about what you are arguing for. Put the gay marriage thing aside for a moment. If the 9th amendment does not apply to state level government, if it isn't a TRUE protection at all levels, you're arguing that any state can arbitrarily pass whatever restrictions it wishes. What rights ARE protected from state government interference? Let's start with that.
Further more, are you admitting that you do agree that such rights ARE protected by the constitution? Are you admitting that it IS a law that specifically targets a group for no other reason than homosexuality? If that is the case, you're stating that a state should be free to oppress a minority JUST BECAUSE, that you believe it's their right to oppress whoever they want whenever they want so long as a majority votes to do so.
I must ask you, what is the justification for this law to begin with? Is there any? So far all you've been doing is arguing that the state had "the right" to pass the law, at no point arguing WHY they should pass it. That's PART of the reason Walker struck it down.
Walker's a STATE DISTRICT judge by the way. The federal government didn't strike it down, the very state that passed it did.
I should add something else. Back on the topic of amendments applying to all levels of the law, what is the point of requiring ratification methods for getting amendments passed if it only amounts to a government restriction on itself, as opposed to otherwise?
You listed a specific legal precedent. That was actually a pretty terrible decision. Do you honestly mean to tell me that, in that case of a local wharf being damaged by state construction, that you take the side of the state? Are you saying that if your state built a highway through your house, you'd not demand just payment to buy and move into a new house of similar value? You'd take it as their right, and that ONLY government building projects should require payment? That's what the case was ABOUT after all.
Let's seriously think about what you are arguing for. Put the gay marriage thing aside for a moment. If the 9th amendment does not apply to state level government, if it isn't a TRUE protection at all levels, you're arguing that any state can arbitrarily pass whatever restrictions it wishes. What rights ARE protected from state government interference? Let's start with that.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)