The right's dangerous legal argument

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
The right's dangerous legal argument
1537
Thu, 03-05-2009 - 9:46pm

Appearing for the supporters of Prop 8, Kenneth Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor, said the people hold the right to modify the state constitution by adding or subtracting protections for civil rights.


Court appears ready to uphold Prop. 8



Full length fiction: worlds undone


"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson


"You think you know, sir!" ~ Cornflake Girl ~ Tori Amos.


Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Thu, 04-02-2009 - 1:35pm
LDS hung someone on a fence to die?
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Thu, 04-02-2009 - 1:46pm
Right...a stretch to connect the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. LOL!
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Thu, 04-02-2009 - 1:48pm
So much for the state of education in this country. ROFL!!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2009
Thu, 04-02-2009 - 1:55pm

Yes, it is.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2009
Thu, 04-02-2009 - 1:58pm

Yeah, I agree.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Thu, 04-02-2009 - 2:12pm

I apologize, I thought posting the actual words of the preamble; here, again:We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...would have been clear.

They're very clear...that liberty, mentioned in the preamble of the Constitution, is the same "right" the founders stated in the Declaration that was endowed by GOD.

>>> Let me explain further.

Oh goody.

>>> That while the founding fathers thought our inalianable rights were endowed by our creator, in this nation WE THE PEOPLE are who establishes them.

Um...er...nope. That these rights are UNALIENABLE means that they are conferred by GOD...not "established" by "we the people."

>>> They understood full well that you can be endowed by your creator with rights all day long and have the state remove them from you.

Um...no...not so much...

inalienable |inˈālēənəbəl|
adjective
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor

>>> They sought to establish a system wherein those rights were not abrogated by the state -- exactly the opposite of what California just did.

And again, that they are described as UNALIENABLE precisely means that they cannot be "taken away," especially by the state, which, according to the Declaration of Independence was established to SECURE these rights.

BTW, a quick peek at the text of the Declaration will show you that "marriage" was not among the unalienable rights or even a "right" established by the Constitution.

>>> It is we the people of the United States who establish justice, who insure domestic tranquility, who provide for the commond defense, who promote the general welfare and who secure the blessings of liberty.......we don't leave that up to God.

"We the people" establish a government to secure the rights/blessings that we acknowledge are endowed by GOD.

>>> In fact we make it quite clear, in the very foundation of the law of our land that the government of this nation is run by the people of this nation, not by God.

And the President made himself and his office subordinate by swearing his oath on a Bible and to GOD.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Thu, 04-02-2009 - 3:33pm

>>> Secular law prohibits gays from equality in some parts of the country right now, but not in others.

Where is it that gays are being oppressed?

>>> Secular law reversed the god inspired call to own slaves and to prohibit interacial marriage, and it will do the same in this case.

I wasn't aware that God called on people to own slaves or to prohibit interracial marriages. Can you cite the examples of God saying this?

>>> History bears watching.

Sure does.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Thu, 04-02-2009 - 4:48pm
LOL!
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Thu, 04-02-2009 - 4:51pm
I agree, it's terribly confusing...especially when the same word means something completely different from one document to the other. LOL! At least according to the liberal translation.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-22-2009
Thu, 04-02-2009 - 4:56pm

>>> It was done federally previously, to repeal the bans against interacial marriage.

The justices didn't have to overturn a state constitution, or the people's legal right to amend it. Methinks they might not be less inclined to take that step.

>>> It will be done fedrally soon, and the same will happen with the silly bans against gays acessing equality.

I'm sure many people in California felt that way last May, but then...

Pages