*** Marriage Ruling in Federal Court

[puckjim]

[quote name="R K"]





You could come to that conclusion but where Marriage is concerned the Court will not.



Marriage is not a Constitutional Right. Funny though the Bill of Rights was an actual after thought by the Framers. I would love to see Madison or any of the rest right now. They'd probably shoot themselves in the head.[/quote]



The Bill of Rights was also somewhat controversial, because some, like Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers, believed that people in the future might think that only the rights listed are the ones that should be protected. By enumerating specific rights, his worry was denial of other rights.

 

[Guest]

[quote name="puckjim"]



The Bill of Rights was also somewhat controversial, because some, like Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers, believed that people in the future might think that only the rights listed are the ones that should be protected. By enumerating specific rights, his worry was denial of other rights.[/quote]



HAHA Jim is reading Wiki. Do you know how they solved Hamiltons concerns?



It was primarily controversial because it was an after thought. The Federalist Papers have been used 229 times in the past as to find intent. They were created to explain to New York why it must Ratify the Constitution.

 

[winos5]

[quote name="R K"]





You could come to that conclusion but where Marriage is concerned the Court will not.



Marriage is not a Constitutional Right. Funny though the Bill of Rights was an actual after thought by the Framers. I would love to see Madison or any of the rest right now. They'd probably shoot themselves in the head.[/quote]



I prefer to think they would marvel that the document had served the country so well, and protected the rights of so many, over so many years. But to each their own.

 

[Guest]

[quote name="winos5"][/b]



I prefer to think they would marvel that the document had served the country so well, and protected the rights of so many, over so many years. But to each their own.[/quote]



I agree with you. I was pretty much saying that sarcastically. To them having a population over 300 million still using their frame work for the most part would in deed be a marvel. They'd probably still shoot themselves in the head after learning they didn't have any more slaves.

 

[puckjim]

[quote name="R K"]



HAHA Jim is reading Wiki. Do you know how they solved Hamiltons concerns?



It was primarily controversial because it was an after thought. The Federalist Papers have been used 229 times in the past as to find intent. They were created to explain to New York why it must Ratify the Constitution.[/quote]



I did see that in Wikipedia, but I was already aware of his position, and the ultimate resolution of his concerns.



They teach U.S. History at other colleges, you know.

 

[mikita's helmet]

[quote name="Mikita's Helmet"]The Court in Loving v. Virginia, the interracial marriage case, held that:





These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.



Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.[/quote]



Like, Loving, The District court in Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al held at p. 135 that Prop 8 violates the the Fourteenth Amendment:



Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.



CONCLUSION



Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out *** men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than

enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against *** men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.



https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv ... -ORDER.pdf

 

[sth]

RK may be right that the constitution may not have intended for marriage to be an issue. But having just taken a grad school con law class that studied Loving v. Virginia the court has already decided. The USC set a precedent in Loving that the Federal Government can get involved in a marriage case if it feels due process is being denied. I think a fair argument can be made that denying *** citizens the right to marry because they are *** denies their due process rights. If that is true the precedent in the Loving case applies. I think the court will either take the case and strike it down or remand it to the state court to dodge the issue. I think there is no chance the court would take the case and uphold the ban. But RK is the lawyer I'm just going for a Public Administration degree so I tip my hat to him.

 

[winos5]

US Government 101 should be required curriculum in high school and higher education institutions for all.



My wife probably has a better understanding of how US government works after obtaining her naturalized citizenship than the average high school/koledge grad

 

[Guest]

[quote name="sth"]RK may be right that the constitution may not have intended for marriage to be an issue. But having just taken a grad school con law class that studied Loving v. Virginia the court has already decided. The USC set a precedent in Loving that the Federal Government can get involved in a marriage case if it feels due process is being denied. I think a fair argument can be made that denying *** citizens the right to marry because they are *** denies their due process rights. If that is true the precedent in the Loving case applies. I think the court will either take the case and strike it down or remand it to the state court to dodge the issue. I think there is no chance the court would take the case and uphold the ban. But RK is the lawyer I'm just going for a Public Administration degree so I tip my hat to him.[/quote]



I'm not a Lawyer I just have a degree in Poly Sci with a specialization in Constitutional Law.



I seriously doubt the Court will even hear this case. Hell I could be wrong.

 

[Guest]

[quote name="puckjim"]



I did see that in Wikipedia, but I was already aware of his position, and the ultimate resolution of his concerns.



They teach U.S. History at other colleges, you know.[/quote]



US History and doing constant brief after brief are two different things my friend. Hey I'd love for everything to be in the Constitution.



I'm still trying to figure out how my PISS is not my PERSON.

 

[mikita's helmet]

[quote name="sth"]RK may be right that the constitution may not have intended for marriage to be an issue. But having just taken a grad school con law class that studied Loving v. Virginia the court has already decided. The USC set a precedent in Loving that the Federal Government can get involved in a marriage case if it feels due process is being denied. I think a fair argument can be made that denying *** citizens the right to marry because they are *** denies their due process rights. If that is true the precedent in the Loving case applies. I think the court will either take the case and strike it down or remand it to the state court to dodge the issue. I think there is no chance the court would take the case and uphold the ban. But RK is the lawyer I'm just going for a Public Administration degree so I tip my hat to him.[/quote]



Do you have a law degree, RK?

 

[noon]

I cited Loving v Virginia on page 1 and now winos5 has a couple of times, too. Marriage is most assuredly constitutionally protected under our constitutional jurisprudence. Back to my question when I opened the topic -- has anyone actually READ the fucking decision? If not, and you want to argue about it, I suggest you do so before spouting off. It's very empirical, methodical in its approach, and well-written. And I do have a doctorate of jurisprudence.

 

[mikita's helmet]

[quote name="R K"]



I'm not a Lawyer I just have a degree in Poly Sci with a specialization in Constitutional Law.



I seriously doubt the Court will even hear this case. Hell I could be wrong.[/quote]



I've heard that the 9th circuit will most likely affirm and that if the Supreme Court grants cert, William Kennedy is likely to join the 4 more liberal justices on the Court and affirm. Mere speculation, of course.

 

[Guest]

[quote name="Mikita's Helmet"]



Do you have a law degree, RK?[/quote]



BA in Political Science, Specializing in Constitutional Law, BA in Journalism and an MPA in Public Administration.

 

[mikita's helmet]

[quote name="noon"]I cited Loving v Virginia on page 1 and now winos5 has a couple of times, too. Marriage is most assuredly constitutionally protected under our constitutional jurisprudence. Back to my question when I opened the topic -- has anyone actually READ the fucking decision? If not, and you want to argue about it, I suggest you do so before spouting off. It's very empirical, methodical in its approach, and well-written. And I do have a doctorate of jurisprudence.[/quote]



I have a J.D., too.



There's a link to Perry in my prior post.

 

[sth]

[quote name="R K"]



I'm not a Lawyer I just have a degree in Poly Sci with a specialization in Constitutional Law.



I seriously doubt the Court will even hear this case. Hell I could be wrong.[/quote]

Oh ok I have a degree in history with a minor in poly sci from the vaunted Montana State University Billings.

 

[winos5]

[quote name="noon"]I cited Loving v Virginia on page 1 and now winos5 has a couple of times, too. Marriage is most assuredly constitutionally protected under our constitutional jurisprudence. Back to my question when I opened the topic -- has anyone actually READ the fucking decision? If not, and you want to argue about it, I suggest you do so before spouting off. It's very empirical, methodical in its approach, and well-written. And I do have a doctorate of jurisprudence.[/quote]



QFT^



And, yes I read most of it.



Edit: I'm not a lawyer, didn't stat at a holiday in Express and don't play one on TV or these boards.

 

[puckjim]

[quote name="R K"]



BA in Political Science, Specializing in Constitutional Law, BA in Journalism and an MPA in Public Administration.[/quote]



Were you on track to go to law school?

 

[Guest]

[quote name="Mikita's Helmet"]



I've heard that the 9th circuit will most likely affirm and that if the Supreme court grants cert, William Kennedy is likely to join the 4 more liberal justices on the Court. Mere speculation, of course.[/quote]



That was in the discussion panel last night. I tend to think the Court will remand it back to the States. I disagree Joe. I am a firm believer it's a States Right.



Joe is the Lawyer.



And yes Jim I did take the LSAT and was on my way to NorthWestern until my lovely wife informed me she was Pregnant.

 

[Guest]

[quote name="sth"]

Oh ok I have a degree in history with a minor in poly sci from the vaunted Montana State University Billings.[/quote]



Mine were from the Vaunted Southern Illinois University LOL!