@admiral_nimitz are you still up for a game? G1940 with a bid for Allies?
Play by forum.
Anyone care to take over AACalc?
-
Gamer, declaring a law unconstitutional is not legislating from the bench. The Iowa judges said that the law prohibiting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
-
Gamer, declaring a law unconstitutional is not legislating from the bench. The Iowa judges said that the law prohibiting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
I know that declaring a law unconstitutional is not legislating from the bench.
But tell me this: How does striking down a law prohibiting same-sex marriage make it mandatory for everyone in the State to recognize same-sex marriage as a legal right? Is same-sex marriage the default right if there is no law?
Our State had to come out with special income tax rules and forms to give same-sex couples the same tax treatment as husband and wife couples. This caused major tax prep compatibility issues with the Federal tax system, where that marriage is not recognized (just a side note, to demonstrate that by “striking down a law”, somehow they made a new one).
Calvin, before the 1998 or whatever year it was law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, same-sex couples were not recognized as married by the law. So when the Supreme Court strikes down that law as unconstitutional, would you please explain to me how the law is different now than before 1998?
They legislated from the bench, and that is extremely offensive to me because it’s unconstitutional, making them hypocrites and breaking their sworn oaths. Of course, it’s also extremely offensive to me that they gave homos the same rights as legitimately married people, but that’s beside the point.
We voted their hind ends off the bench, and we’ve got 4 more to go, when they’re up for election. We’ll teach judges not to make new laws that go against the will of the people.
-
Well, if the court declared that it’s unconstitutional to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, then it does imply they should be allowed to marry. Did the judges make the new tax laws or did the legislature?
@gamerman01:Of course, it’s also extremely offensive to me that they gave homos the same rights as legitimately married people.
Of course it is.
-
Well, if the court declared that it’s unconstitutional to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, then it does imply they should be allowed to marry. Did the judges make the new tax laws or did the legislature?
Explain to me how gay couples were not recognized when I was a kid in the 80’s, then in the 90’s congress made a defense of marriage act that specifically defined marriage as between a man and a woman (basically accomplishing nothing except to keep courts from going against the will of the people), and now presumably it’s that act that’s being struck down by the courts as unconstitutional and so we would be back where we were before the 90 something act, right? But instead we suddenly have gay couples with 100% of the rights of married couples, whereas striking down that law (which was wrong because it’s NOT unconstitutional) is not legalizing marriage, it’s simply stating that it’s unconstitutional to have a law that “strictly” defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
By your logic, a cow should be able to marry a dog and get health insurance at the married rate.
This is all beside the point. The reason smart people like judges are ruling the way they are is that they are controlled by the forces of darkness, and they do not follow the forces of light. We are quite simply living in a world that is a battlezone between the forces of good and evil. For decades now, people have tried to go to moral relativism (your good is not my good) (and I expect to see posts from these people if they read this stuff). All of these people (moral relativists) are denying the truth that all that is Good comes from God, and that God defines what is Good and what is not. It’s really quite simple, but people make it complicated because they’re denying God and trying to feel OK about it.
Let’s see how many minutes this lasts until the mods delete it. :-)
-
No, the purpose of the Judicial branch is to enforce the law. They should not be interpreting things into the law that are not expressly stated in the law.
For instance, let’s say a law was passed that only red apples could be sprayed with pesticides in the country of Ik.
A judge should not be then premitted to say that Squirrels located in a zoo should be sprayed with perfume because the law is not fair and squirrels were not mentioned so the law must be unbiased.
This is an example of what, on a routine basis, happens in our courts today. Albeit, I will agree that maybe not to that insane extent. I exaggerated to make the point.
I do, however, agree that the written, voted on and legally legislated laws of a country should be maleable enough for that same judge to have said that if the squirrel happened to be on the tree at the moment the insectiside was sprayed on the apples, that the action was still legal. The squirrel, after all, choose, no matter how willingly or not, to be on the tree at that time.
An “energetic” executive is there to veto laws that are passed legislatively. (the president, for instance, could not over turn said judge’s proclamation from the bench because he does not have over sight of the judicial branch.)
The justices (only on the Supreme Court) can declare a law unconstitutional. All other justices are there to enforce the law by proclaiming someone’s guilt and dictating an appropriate punishment. Not to “interpret” the law. Laws are “interpreted” by the legislative branch. Heck, even in the name of the branch it says “Legislate”. Only the legislative branch may write, interpret and pass laws. Only the executive can investigate and veto laws. Only the judicial branch enforce laws.
In all events, the will of the people (The Constitution of the People, primarily) should be enforced by the bench, investigated by the executive and legilstated by the legislature.
In regards to same-sex marriage, this is a highly polarizing issue. Historically, I would have said it’s akin to allowing NAMBLA (National American Man Boy Love Alliance or similar) to allow to marry since both are sexually deviant behaviors in my mind. But again, that is also highly polarizing.
I, honestly, feel it is more appropriate, and much easier to shy away from politics, if we use a nonsensical example, such as the one above.
A case of a non-nonsensical examble would be a judge determining it is illegal to murder someone because of the color of their skin. The civil rights movement is not valid to use as a nonsensicle situation for two reasons:
-
It actually happened, thus is plausible, not nonsensicle.
-
Murder is already and always has been illegal in this country.
The issue is not so much judges legislating from the bench so much as judges who do so are generally the ones that are protected by state constitutions (and extention of the federal constitution) from being removed from power and can only be kept from gaining more power.
If the people were allowed to remove any justice who did not enforce the law in a manner that the people wanted, then this would be a non-issue. Since they are protected from the will of the people, ostensibly so they can rule “fairly” and “without bias”, they they need to endeavor, doubly so, to make sure that their rulings are fair AND (inclusive and) in line with the will of the people.
If the people of a district wanted to rule that women must shave their armpits before going to the beach, and since it is common practice in this country to shave their armpits anyway, then a judge would be violating the trust of his position if he declared that women must not ever shave any parts of their body. (This is akin to gamer’s analogy of same-sex marriage.)
For the record, I am all in favor of getting government out of ALL marriages. Let couples go to court and get a civil union agreement there and let established, endorsed, religious institutions - such as Islam, Judism, Christianity, Catholocism and (if applicable) Wiccanism handle the religious ceremony of marriage.
In this way you will never have a homosexual couple sue a church because they would not perform a marriage ceremony. Likewise, homosexual couples can have equal standing with married couples in the eyes of the government because both hetero and homo sexual couples will have to have a civil union in order to have said recognition by the government.
Why do we need justices to upturn the apple cart for this? It’s rather simple to solve and much more equitable. After all, the side that wants homosexual marriage is also the side that routinely screams “seperation of church and state” (which for the record is taken WAY out of context). So why not take government completely out of the church’s business in this regard?
-
-
How is separation of church and state taken out of context?
-
You need to read the letter from the Danbury Baptist Church and then read the entire letter from President Thomas Jefferson to really know what was going on.
Thomas Jefferson was not saying that church should have no sway over the affairs of government in his letter. What he was saying was that there was a firmly established law/precedent that the government could not sanction a religion, interfere with a religion or have any other significant impact on religion (which is why Church status means you do not pay taxes) etc. You see, the Baptists were concerned that Jefferson’s religious views would impact them negatively and he was trying to reassure them that there was a wall of seperation preventing the government from interfering in religious affairs.
This has been twisted and distroted into a meaning it did not really convey. Today it is taken to mean that church is barred from government, but government can interfere with church (ie, one cannot pray in school because it is a government institution and there is a wall of seperation preventing any religious activity from being performed on government property.) This is in direct and blatant violation of what Jefferson meant. Let us remember, Jefferson was a highly religious person, it was just of Deism and not religion. (Switch would really enjoy Jefferson’s religious standings.)
Here is a quote about Jefferson’s religion:
Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the god of deism (the term “Nature’s God” used by deists of the time). With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
Okay, yes, it’s from an anti-religious organization, ostensibly. However, you can see why the Danbury Baptists were worried and why Jefferson wanted to reassure them of their religious freedoms.
It’s also very plain to see, when the actual letters are read, that Jefferson, in no way, wanted to infer that religion should be prohibited from government, rather that government was prohibited from religion.
-
FYI, SOCAS does not mean that you can’t pray in public schools; only that the school can’t force someone to pray or lead in prayers. if a student want to pray, he or she must do so individually.
-
@Cmdr:
Thomas Jefferson was not saying that church should have no sway over the affairs of government in his letter. What he was saying was that there was a firmly established law/precedent that the government could not sanction a religion, interfere with a religion or have any other significant impact on religion (which is why Church status means you do not pay taxes) etc. You see, the Baptists were concerned that Jefferson’s religious views would impact them negatively and he was trying to reassure them that there was a wall of seperation preventing the government from interfering in religious affairs.
This has been twisted and distroted into a meaning it did not really convey. Today it is taken to mean that church is barred from government, but government can interfere with church (ie, one cannot pray in school because it is a government institution and there is a wall of seperation preventing any religious activity from being performed on government property.) This is in direct and blatant violation of what Jefferson meant. Let us remember, Jefferson was a highly religious person, it was just of Deism and not religion. (Switch would really enjoy Jefferson’s religious standings.)
Exactly. Separation of church and state in the 1700’s never meant that the government should have nothing to do with religion. Just look around in Washington D.C. at all the Biblical references etched in stone in many of our government buildings, including the Supreme Court.
Yet it seems that an awful lot of people today think that the separation of Church and State means you can’t pray in school, can’t have a nativity scene in front of a courthouse, etc. People also don’t understand what the freedom of speech, religion, the press, etc, means anymore. It’s pathetic.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you want (don’t get caught talking about assassinating a government official).
Anyway, in Iowa, it’s very simple.
- The government wouldn’t recognize a same-sex marriage (80’s and before), and neither would an insurance company.
- The legislature passed an act that said marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman (sometime in the 90’s) (which is like begging people to challenge it)
- Supreme Court of Iowa strikes down this law. Somehow (don’t understand this part) that made same-sex marriages legally recognized in Iowa (legislature did not pass any laws to this effect, now or ever).
My logical conclusion then is that our 7 Supreme Court judges somehow made it happen that same-sex marriages must be recognized in Iowa (right down to the Income tax law being changed). This is not the function of the Judicial Branch, to effectively make new laws, especially laws that the majority of people in Iowa don’t want.
54% of our voters voted to remove them from their jobs. All 7 judges decided the same way, so we have 4 more to remove, when they come up for vote. As someone said, this is extremely rare. Well, our judges were extremely out of line, and they’re getting extreme treatment - fired directly by the voters. This is a major victory for the people, and should be celebrated nationwide even by people who want legally protected same-sex marriages, because the people were actually able to directly influence their government - even the untouchable judicial branch.
-
FYI, SOCAS does not mean that you can’t pray in public schools; only that the school can’t force someone to pray or lead in prayers. if a student want to pray, he or she must do so individually.
Yes, I understand that, but I have students in my classrooms who felt forced out of public schools because people, including employees, pressured them not to pray in school. So while the letter of the law says one thing, the effect has been to make people think that you shouldn’t pray in school at all.
How long until they remove “In God we Trust” from all our money? Who put it there in the first place? Did they violate Sep of Church and State? This just illustrates that these people are clueless as to what Sep of Church and State even means, and they are wreaking havoc on our society. The vocal minority.
-
As far as my understanding, separation of church and state, when set up in the 1770’s, meant that the government would not set up a State Church, as they had in England. Nothing more.
-
FYI, SOCAS does not mean that you can’t pray in public schools; only that the school can’t force someone to pray or lead in prayers. if a student want to pray, he or she must do so individually.
Yes, I understand that, but I have students in my classrooms who felt forced out of public schools because people, including employees, pressured them not to pray in school. So while the letter of the law says one thing, the effect has been to make people think that you shouldn’t pray in school at all.
How long until they remove “In God we Trust” from all our money? Who put it there in the first place? Did they violate Sep of Church and State? This just illustrates that these people are clueless as to what Sep of Church and State even means, and they are wreaking havoc on our society. The vocal minority.
I believe it was put there in 1863, probably to assert that God was on the North’s side in the Civil War. I think that motto should not be there(1/6 of Americans are atheists) but I’m not sure if it qualifies as a violation since it’s not forcing anyone to practice any religion.
-
As far as my understanding, separation of church and state, when set up in the 1770’s, meant that the government would not set up a State Church, as they had in England. Nothing more.
The problem is that if you allow churches to influence government, you’ll essentially have a state church. Even if all religions/sects were represented equally, this would still make the government’s official position be that the religious are superior to the nonreligious.
-
As far as my understanding, separation of church and state, when set up in the 1770’s, meant that the government would not set up a State Church, as they had in England. Nothing more.
The problem is that if you allow churches to influence government, you’ll essentially have a state church. Even if all religions/sects were represented equally, this would still make the government’s official position be that the religious are superior to the nonreligious.
I never said churches should influence government.
The Government’s official position in 1776 was that religious is superior to nonreligious. Just read the Constitution and Declaration.
-
I believe it was put there in 1863, probably to assert that God was on the North’s side in the Civil War. I think that motto should not be there(1/6 of Americans are atheists) but I’m not sure if it qualifies as a violation since it’s not forcing anyone to practice any religion.
Wasn’t sure how long it has been there - that is interesting.
However, majority rules in Democracies, so 1/6 is not enough to take it off the money.
-
I believe it was put there in 1863, probably to assert that God was on the North’s side in the Civil War. I think that motto should not be there(1/6 of Americans are atheists) but I’m not sure if it qualifies as a violation since it’s not forcing anyone to practice any religion.
Wasn’t sure how long it has been there - that is interesting.
However, majority rules in Democracies, so 1/6 is not enough to take it off the money.
I know it’s probably not coming off for a LONG time. However, I do see it as a little discriminatory. It sort of implies that the nonreligious are not “real Americans.”
-
I know it’s probably not coming off for a LONG time. However, I do see it as a little discriminatory. It sort of implies that the nonreligious are not “real Americans.”
:roll:
Well maybe I think it’s discrimination that George and Abe get to be on TWO different pieces of money. And why isn’t there a person of a minority race on money? (Oh wait, actually, there is)
And it’s not fair that FDR got 4 terms. Life isn’t fair, Calvin. And if someone doesn’t like how their money says “In God we trust” on it, I can help them with that. Just give it all to me, and then you won’t be carrying it around any longer.
-
And you’re changing the subject.
Do you not see my point, that our Iowa Supreme Court Judges acted outside the “sacred” separation of powers foundation that our Country’s laws are laid upon? How they singlehandedly made Iowa the 3rd nation in the land to legalize gay marriage? A team of 7 people making law, and a law that flew in the face of what the majority of Iowans even wanted?? Can you not see this?
-
One of the main functions of a constitution is to enshrine certain legal principles so that they are beyond the will of the majority.
Arguably, this function is most important when it comes to minority rights, because minority rights will by definition otherwise be very vulnerable to derogation by the will of the majority.
This in turn is something that I see as indispensable to the Freedom that Americans cherish so much. America is a beacon to the world of everyone being free to have and express their political views, their religious views, etc.
As soon as the majority can decide to take away rights from a minority, then you have lost the foundation of your freedom.
There is a limit to freedom of course - one cannot be allowed to harm others through the exercise of one’s freedom.
And that, I think, is where the real issue about same sex marriage is found. Some thing that such marriage IS harmful to society, and others do not.
Just back to my earlier point: if Germany in the 1930s had had a strong judiciary, and religious and minority rights enshrined in its constitution , and widespread respect for the rule of law (what is now missing in Afghanistan and is being lost in the US to bipartisan conflict), the holocast could not have happened. The courts, if they were doing their job, would have struck don the antisemitic laws, and the German people, if they had a proper understanding of the importance of minority rights and respect for the rule of law, would have supported that.
Now - sex with children, with animals - those are harmful behaviours. Tolerating or recognizing consensual adult same sex relationships does not mean you also have to accept those things.
Go to law school. It will change your mind.
-
Calvin:
I do not feel that if you allow individuals to practice their religion, even if they are government employees, it will lead to a theocracy. In my mind the entire idea seems ludicrous, but maybe I can explain why I feel as such.
1) Laws written to protect the interests of non-Christians (whether they be Jewish, Muslim or whatever) look great on paper. However, due to the legislation that has happened over the years, from the Bench, what once protected people now punishes those who were supposed to have been protected against.
ie: If I decide, as a teacher, to pray alloud in my homeroom, when students happen to be present, I will end up just as fired as if I had hung a cross on the wall and said anyone not a christian will get an F.
Likewise, judges have been forced to take the 10 Commandments out of their courtrooms. The city of Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 was forced to remove a cross from their town insignia. The corss at Mt. Soledad, since it over looks public lands, has been routinely attacked and is, I believe, to this day still covered in a plywood box. All of this, and more and more and more, are results of certain individuals, thinking only of themselves (I believe) taking the words of President Jefferson out of context and using them to attack religion, instead of protecting both government and religion, and, by extension, our Natural Rights as human beings.
Also, I think I should point out, we do not live in a democracy. We live in a Democratic-Republic. If we, say, were allowed to vote on every piece of legislation from our computers or at a polling office, then we would be a democracy. But as it stands now, 261 Congressmen + 67 Senators + 1 President can over ride the will of the people and ignore millions of Americans - if they so choose. There is no problem with this, per-se, since we can “vote the bastards out” every two years, what is the problem is when an Appealate Court Judge, or Federal Judge decides to change the law because they have a personal bias. The problem is, we cannot vote those people out of office, like we can if our congressmen, senators and president do not listen to us. (Evidence: 11/2/2010, the American poeple declared with almost a unified voice that the country was moving in the wrong direction and ‘voted the bastards out’
pretty universally across the nation.)
Otherwise, I agree with frood. The Constitution of the United States of America was and is established to protect the autonomy of the citizenry in this country and to establish a government that will continue this autonomy.
The problem is not with the Constitution, it’s with certain individuals (elected or not) violating the Constitution and those individuals in power that allow this violation to continue without redress.
Yes, there are certain things government has to do against the will of the people. A poly-sci instructor for a class I was in liked to say “If you put 7 men and 1 woman in a room, they will vote to legalize rape.” First, that’s patently not true. Men have morals, even if it takes us women to make them realize that they have them. Secondly, the government then, seeing a clear and evident threat to the autonomy of an individual and seeing that ending this threat would not adversely effect the autonomy of those attempting to rape the individual, would be morally, ethically and legally duty pound to step in and end the threat.
But we are not talking about that, are we? We are talking about one person thwarting the will of millions of people in clear violation of his or her sacred duty to do their job and only their job. They were not elected Congressman. They were not elected Senator. They are no were near elected President! Hell, even the Supreme Court needs 5 out of 9 justices to agree to change a law. But one guy, in an unelected position, wholy protected from the wrath of the population he offends (in as much as he cannot be unseated by a challenger in an election) decides to change the law, even if the people change their state constitution, he or she decides to change the law anyway.
That is unconstitutional and, being such, is by definition unAmerican. Those individuals, in my opinion (and I believe the law, actually) should be arrested immediately and imprisoned. Then all their rulings should be reviewed for anti-American bias by a panel of their peers before he is tried for his crimes. (You need to gather all the evidence.)
If that were the case, there would be no more legislating from the bench. Without legislating from the bench, people would have to change the law the legal way. By getting enough congressmen, senators and maybe even the presidency on their side to legislate a new law to supercede the old law, to sign the new law into law and then enjoy the new law. This is how the government was structured. If the people decide they do not like the law, they can then unseat the congressmen, senators and maybe even the president, have the new crew change the law and sign it into law. Or, the Constitution of the United States of America can be changed, like they did with Prohibition and repeal of Prohibition.
Suggested Topics
