9th August 2010, 7:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 13th August 2010, 1:18 AM by Dark Jaguar.)
More to the point, by saying you think it's ONLY about giving rights to former slaves, you're implying that you DON'T think that rights should apply to ALL citizens equally. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that the 14th amendment has no bearing on whether or not Asians should be freely protected from illegal search and seizure? If so, you'd at least be consistent. Further, you are also implying you don't think gays deserve equal rights.
Oh, and you are also saying you don't think marriage is a "right". In the sense that any one individual can't force ANOTHER to marry them, I agree. However between two consenting people? Why wouldn't it be a right? The big question is, does the expression of any "right" infringe on another's right in a clear and self-evident way? If so, it's not a right, if not, it IS a right. That's how I'd judge it. Basically you'll need to come up with some way in which specific people are directly harmed by two consenting people of the same sex getting married. If you can't, it's covered by the 9th amendment.
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Basically, this is meant to show that just because a right isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution as protected doesn't mean the people don't have it. That's kind of "rough" and open to interpretation, but that's clearly their intention. The meaning is clear, the government can't make laws prohibiting activities without due cause, and the only cause that's really due is whether or not it infringes on another's rights.
I thought I'd add more history to this to make the original intentions clear. When the Bill of Rights was first proposed, people were afraid that specifically enumerating a set of rights would imply that if it isn't listed, it isn't a right. The ninth was intended to make clear that the amendments are intended to set in stone what already should be considered unconstitutional by way of the main articles of the constitution.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/...tss11.html
Read the whole thing, it's very enlightening, and makes clear to me the purpose of states once again (not just as "independent nations to be left to their own devices" but as possible challengers to any unjust law government may pass, and visa versa).
Fair treatment of all equally under the law is clear. Yes, originally the 14th was intended for black people as (aside from declaring them all citizens) a needed means to protect blacks from oppressive laws that targeted blacks specifically, in many cases reducing them to near-slave status de-facto if not by law. It's perfectly reasonable to extend this though, as their intention in wording it that way was to resolve any FUTURE conflicts they didn't foresee, future groups being targeted by oppressive specific laws. This is made all the more clear by the 9th, which states that just because gays aren't mentioned as being free to do as they will doesn't mean it isn't protected.
I should add one more important thing about your not considering marriage a "right". Your argument is that it's due to the licenses and existing restrictions making it a whole different thing right? Well, by that logic, what's the harm in anti-miscegenation laws? Clearly no rights are being violated if you don't see marriage as a right, so for consistency's sake, do you consider it perfectly acceptable to ban a white and black couple from marriage? If not, why not? Explain the difference.
The hits just keep coming.
This is from the Federalist Papers.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1404/1404-h/1404-h.htm
These papers are not legal documents, but they are the clearest source of information on the original intent of the writers of the constitution available. Recently there's been some anger over "activist judges" overturning the "will of the people". That quote does not sit alone. Read all of it. If they had wanted a complete democracy, we'd be like Athens. However, they felt that the "will of the masses" was simply too subject to passing whims to be left unchecked. Among the many checks and balances is that the vast bulwark of the various branches of government is a massive barrier to complete and total "will of the people". It's tyranny of the majority, and while that exact phrase isn't in the papers, that's what they are attempting to get across. This is to be avoided. To that end, this is the reason for the electoral college. Sorry ABF, I've changed my mind on this. The reason for the college as a barrier against random voting in of Yogi Bear at the last minute is a worthwhile necessity.
I should add that I don't consider the founding fathers to be perfect gods. If you want to argue that they were wrong, I'm willing to hear it out. If you want to argue that the constitution itself needs to be completely rewritten from scratch, I'm willing to hear your arguments (though they better be really good). However, you are arguing that the founding fathers meant something else, and since that's the argument, I'm here to say that's not true, and here's the evidence.
Oh, and you are also saying you don't think marriage is a "right". In the sense that any one individual can't force ANOTHER to marry them, I agree. However between two consenting people? Why wouldn't it be a right? The big question is, does the expression of any "right" infringe on another's right in a clear and self-evident way? If so, it's not a right, if not, it IS a right. That's how I'd judge it. Basically you'll need to come up with some way in which specific people are directly harmed by two consenting people of the same sex getting married. If you can't, it's covered by the 9th amendment.
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Basically, this is meant to show that just because a right isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution as protected doesn't mean the people don't have it. That's kind of "rough" and open to interpretation, but that's clearly their intention. The meaning is clear, the government can't make laws prohibiting activities without due cause, and the only cause that's really due is whether or not it infringes on another's rights.
I thought I'd add more history to this to make the original intentions clear. When the Bill of Rights was first proposed, people were afraid that specifically enumerating a set of rights would imply that if it isn't listed, it isn't a right. The ninth was intended to make clear that the amendments are intended to set in stone what already should be considered unconstitutional by way of the main articles of the constitution.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/...tss11.html
Quote:It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
Read the whole thing, it's very enlightening, and makes clear to me the purpose of states once again (not just as "independent nations to be left to their own devices" but as possible challengers to any unjust law government may pass, and visa versa).
Fair treatment of all equally under the law is clear. Yes, originally the 14th was intended for black people as (aside from declaring them all citizens) a needed means to protect blacks from oppressive laws that targeted blacks specifically, in many cases reducing them to near-slave status de-facto if not by law. It's perfectly reasonable to extend this though, as their intention in wording it that way was to resolve any FUTURE conflicts they didn't foresee, future groups being targeted by oppressive specific laws. This is made all the more clear by the 9th, which states that just because gays aren't mentioned as being free to do as they will doesn't mean it isn't protected.
I should add one more important thing about your not considering marriage a "right". Your argument is that it's due to the licenses and existing restrictions making it a whole different thing right? Well, by that logic, what's the harm in anti-miscegenation laws? Clearly no rights are being violated if you don't see marriage as a right, so for consistency's sake, do you consider it perfectly acceptable to ban a white and black couple from marriage? If not, why not? Explain the difference.
The hits just keep coming.
Quote:Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people. To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.
This is from the Federalist Papers.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1404/1404-h/1404-h.htm
These papers are not legal documents, but they are the clearest source of information on the original intent of the writers of the constitution available. Recently there's been some anger over "activist judges" overturning the "will of the people". That quote does not sit alone. Read all of it. If they had wanted a complete democracy, we'd be like Athens. However, they felt that the "will of the masses" was simply too subject to passing whims to be left unchecked. Among the many checks and balances is that the vast bulwark of the various branches of government is a massive barrier to complete and total "will of the people". It's tyranny of the majority, and while that exact phrase isn't in the papers, that's what they are attempting to get across. This is to be avoided. To that end, this is the reason for the electoral college. Sorry ABF, I've changed my mind on this. The reason for the college as a barrier against random voting in of Yogi Bear at the last minute is a worthwhile necessity.
I should add that I don't consider the founding fathers to be perfect gods. If you want to argue that they were wrong, I'm willing to hear it out. If you want to argue that the constitution itself needs to be completely rewritten from scratch, I'm willing to hear your arguments (though they better be really good). However, you are arguing that the founding fathers meant something else, and since that's the argument, I'm here to say that's not true, and here's the evidence.
"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)