turtlespeed 212 #76 November 3, 2010 Which state is that?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #77 November 3, 2010 Quote Which state is that? Iowa, duh! Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #78 November 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteSo the fact that the law was declared unconstitutional should make it still be in force? Rush, I realize you're angry about the court stating that same-sex marriages could take place, but it was the only possible result of a law forbidding them being struck down. If a city has a 10mph speed trap set up and the judge declares it unconstitutional, does that mean that people have to keep going 10mph there? Wendy P. No I am saying it shold not be in force That is why I stated that there is an argument to stop the state from marrying same sex couples At least until it passes another law aimed at fixing what the SC said was brokenFirstly, the law (any law) is proscriptive in that it delineates what might NOT be done. Things that are not forbidden are by definition allowed. The law, for example forbids murder; there is no need to write into the law a requirement that you have to allow people to live, even if you happen to not like them. In this case there is no constitutional basis for forbidding same-sex marriage, and so by definition it is permitted. If the court rules that a law is unconstitutional and strikes it down, but (according to you) that unconstitutional law stays in effect until the legislature fixes it, then what incentive would the legislature have to ever re-write the law? They could more easily achieve their original unconstitutional aim by never taking up the law again, and just leave things in the unresolved state. Also, what about a situation where there is no way to rephrase a law to make it constitutional, if the whole purpose of the legislation is in itself unconstitutional? Your view effectively gives governments free reign to commit unconstitutional acts and deprive people of their legal rights. I'm surprised you would want to allow governments the power to ignore the constitution. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #79 November 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy does the court declaring a law invalid mean that it still has to be followed? Wendy P. It doesn't, it means that NOTHING is legal until the paramaters are defined again. How so? The legislature crafted a law that the court found unconstitutional. Said law was struck down pending a constitutional amendment that allows it. If your state government passed a law stating that gun ownership must be restricted to .22 caliber and smaller, and the courts found this in violation of the constitution, are you suggesting that all guns should become illegal until the constitution can be amended to restrict them to .22 caliber and smaller? Blues, Dave If my state was stupid enough to pass a law like that in the first place, then th inhabitants of that state should be held to that standard, yes.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #80 November 3, 2010 QuoteBut all they can do is order the state to fix the law based on the ruling that states why they invalidated it not true in the case of an unconstitutional determination - if struck down, then the law goes away. The legislature is bound to write a new one, or change the constitution to allow the old law to be re-introduced. "your law is illegal and I'm deleting it" true in the case of a law that is ambiguously defined and needs to be clarified, but isn't unconstitutional - "your law sucks and can be 'interpreted' in many ways - go rework it and we'll interpret as best we can until you fix your crap" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #81 November 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhy does the court declaring a law invalid mean that it still has to be followed? Wendy P. It doesn't, it means that NOTHING is legal until the paramaters are defined again. How so? The legislature crafted a law that the court found unconstitutional. Said law was struck down pending a constitutional amendment that allows it. If your state government passed a law stating that gun ownership must be restricted to .22 caliber and smaller, and the courts found this in violation of the constitution, are you suggesting that all guns should become illegal until the constitution can be amended to restrict them to .22 caliber and smaller? Blues, Dave If my state was stupid enough to pass a law like that in the first place, then th inhabitants of that state should be held to that standard, yes. It seems to me that the better court ruling would be "It is unconstitutional to restrict firearm ownership to .22 caliber and smaller, therefore, such a restriction may not be enforced until the constitution is amended to allow for it." Alternately, "It is unconstitutional to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, therefore, such a restriction may not be enforced until the constitution is amended to allow for it." Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #82 November 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhy does the court declaring a law invalid mean that it still has to be followed? Wendy P. It doesn't, it means that NOTHING is legal until the paramaters are defined again. How so? The legislature crafted a law that the court found unconstitutional. Said law was struck down pending a constitutional amendment that allows it. If your state government passed a law stating that gun ownership must be restricted to .22 caliber and smaller, and the courts found this in violation of the constitution, are you suggesting that all guns should become illegal until the constitution can be amended to restrict them to .22 caliber and smaller? Blues, Dave If my state was stupid enough to pass a law like that in the first place, then th inhabitants of that state should be held to that standard, yes. It seems to me that the better court ruling would be "It is unconstitutional to restrict firearm ownership to .22 caliber and smaller, therefore, such a restriction may not be enforced until the constitution is amended to allow for it." Alternately, "It is unconstitutional to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, therefore, such a restriction may not be enforced until the constitution is amended to allow for it." Blues, Dave About as much sense as two men wanting to marry each other.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #83 November 3, 2010 Quote About as much sense as two men wanting to marry each other. Oh admit it, you want half my stuffs. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #84 November 3, 2010 Quote Quote About as much sense as two men wanting to marry each other. Oh admit it, you want half my stuffs. Blues, Dave Well - I'll take your better half.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #85 November 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteWhere is the new definition of marriage now? The court doesn not have the right to dictate that. That is what legislation is for. The definition of marriage is in the same state now that it was before the unconstitutional law was enacted. The court did not define marriage, they simply told the legislators that they would need to amend the constitution in order to enact a law that runs contrary to current equal protection provisions. Blues, Dave A state supreme court has no authority to amend a Constitution. the court has to abide by that constitution and make rulings as to its meanings when not clear In the Iowa case this is a state law as Andy commented t"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #86 November 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo the fact that the law was declared unconstitutional should make it still be in force? Rush, I realize you're angry about the court stating that same-sex marriages could take place, but it was the only possible result of a law forbidding them being struck down. If a city has a 10mph speed trap set up and the judge declares it unconstitutional, does that mean that people have to keep going 10mph there? Wendy P. No I am saying it shold not be in force That is why I stated that there is an argument to stop the state from marrying same sex couples At least until it passes another law aimed at fixing what the SC said was brokenFirstly, the law (any law) is proscriptive in that it delineates what might NOT be done. Things that are not forbidden are by definition allowed. The law, for example forbids murder; there is no need to write into the law a requirement that you have to allow people to live, even if you happen to not like them. In this case there is no constitutional basis for forbidding same-sex marriage, and so by definition it is permitted. If the court rules that a law is unconstitutional and strikes it down, but (according to you) that unconstitutional law stays in effect until the legislature fixes it, then what incentive would the legislature have to ever re-write the law? They could more easily achieve their original unconstitutional aim by never taking up the law again, and just leave things in the unresolved state. Also, what about a situation where there is no way to rephrase a law to make it constitutional, if the whole purpose of the legislation is in itself unconstitutional? Your view effectively gives governments free reign to commit unconstitutional acts and deprive people of their legal rights. I'm surprised you would want to allow governments the power to ignore the constitution. Don No I am saying it should not be in effect In the Iowa the SC amended the law by and order"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #87 November 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteBut all they can do is order the state to fix the law based on the ruling that states why they invalidated it not true in the case of an unconstitutional determination - if struck down, then the law goes away. The legislature is bound to write a new one, or change the constitution to allow the old law to be re-introduced. "your law is illegal and I'm deleting it" true in the case of a law that is ambiguously defined and needs to be clarified, but isn't unconstitutional - "your law sucks and can be 'interpreted' in many ways - go rework it and we'll interpret as best we can until you fix your crap" I think you said it better than I In the iowa case the court not only struck down the law, it amended a law to include same sex partners It wrote law"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #88 November 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhere is the new definition of marriage now? The court doesn not have the right to dictate that. That is what legislation is for. The definition of marriage is in the same state now that it was before the unconstitutional law was enacted. The court did not define marriage, they simply told the legislators that they would need to amend the constitution in order to enact a law that runs contrary to current equal protection provisions. Blues, Dave A state supreme court has no authority to amend a Constitution. the court has to abid by that constitution In the Iowa case this is a state law as Andy commented t Whiskey tango foxtrot oscar Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #89 November 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhere is the new definition of marriage now? The court doesn not have the right to dictate that. That is what legislation is for. The definition of marriage is in the same state now that it was before the unconstitutional law was enacted. The court did not define marriage, they simply told the legislators that they would need to amend the constitution in order to enact a law that runs contrary to current equal protection provisions. Blues, Dave A state supreme court has no authority to amend a Constitution. the court has to abid by that constitution In the Iowa case this is a state law as Andy commented t Whiskey tango foxtrot oscar Blues, Dave Do you think the US Supreme court can declare a part of the US constitution unconstitutional?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #90 November 3, 2010 Quote Do you think the US Supreme court can declare a part of the US constitution unconstitutional? Not really. I suppose they could find that two parts are incompatible, and I imagine they've previously had to resolve such discrepancies, perhaps in allowing DUI checkpoints. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #91 November 3, 2010 QuoteQuote Do you think the US Supreme court can declare a part of the US constitution unconstitutional? Not really. I suppose they could find that two parts are incompatible, and I imagine they've previously had to resolve such discrepancies, perhaps in allowing DUI stops without cause. Blues, Dave Same with the Iowa SC They can say an Iowa Law is not constitutional as they did with the marriage statue but, they can not state any in the Iowa Constitution is unconstitutional The US SC can though, I think"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,123 #92 November 3, 2010 Can you please explain exactly what the court did that pissed you off? Sometimes you're saying it's because they went against the constitution, sometimes it's because they "made law" (which they can't do, you're right). It seems to me that they found that a law that had been passed was unconstitutional. It wasn't a constitutional amendment. By finding that law unconstitutional, that law no longer was valid, and anything it forbids is legal to do. The constitution says that anything that isn't specifically forbidden is allowed. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #93 November 3, 2010 QuoteIn the iowa case the court not only struck down the law, it amended a law to include same sex partners. It wrote law from what I can tell, it just struck down the unconstitutional portion/restriction - if they did amend for clarification then it shouldn't have been necessary at that point - since, by virtue of eliminating the unconstitutional restriction, the default would have been to NOT block any kind of marriage I'll have to see the words before and after to try and figure out what you are trying to say here because you didn't read what I was saying correctly from what I can tell. Short answer - If the court struck down any restriction that is unconstitutional, then the marriages should not be restricted. If they screwed up administrating that by adding unnecessary verbage, then the marriage still shouldn't be restricted. (note that NOWHERE do I write the word "allow" - I say "don't restrict" our laws can't allow something that's already inherent. In doing so, we get too many laws) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,123 #94 November 3, 2010 What did they say was unconstitutional in the Iowa Constitution? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #96 November 3, 2010 Quote Quote About as much sense as two men wanting to marry each other. Oh admit it, you want half my stuffs. Blues, Dave I think we all know how Turtle feels about the sanctity of marriage Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #97 November 3, 2010 QuoteCan you please explain exactly what the court did that pissed you off? Sometimes you're saying it's because they went against the constitution, sometimes it's because they "made law" (which they can't do, you're right).. . . The constitution says that anything that isn't specifically forbidden is allowed. thanks, I'm confuse too I think Marc is saying: 1 - the SC struck down a law that specifically prohibits gay marriage and: 2 - they amended a different law to specifically state gay marriage is "allowed" In my mind - #2 is not necessary after #1 happened - in fact, not necessary at all - law doesn't grant rights So if he's upset about #1, I disagree with him (striking down an unconstitutional law is perfectly acceptable) If he's upset about #2, I agree with him (they should not write law) Frankly, if there is a law on the books that "allows" monogamous, heterosexual marriage, I'd find that totally unnecessary and not in line with how we view rights. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #98 November 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Do you think the US Supreme court can declare a part of the US constitution unconstitutional? Not really. I suppose they could find that two parts are incompatible, and I imagine they've previously had to resolve such discrepancies, perhaps in allowing DUI stops without cause. Blues, Dave Same with the Iowa SC They can say an Iowa Law is not constitutional as they did with the marriage statue but, they can not state any in the Iowa Constitution is unconstitutional The US SC can though, I think This is the first suggestion I've heard that the Iowa supreme court stated the Iowa Constitution is unconstitutional. Where did this originate? I'm having a lot of difficulty following your argument. And yes, I believe the US SC can find the Iowa constitution to be contrary to the US constitution. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #99 November 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Do you think the US Supreme court can declare a part of the US constitution unconstitutional? Not really. I suppose they could find that two parts are incompatible, and I imagine they've previously had to resolve such discrepancies, perhaps in allowing DUI stops without cause. Blues, Dave Same with the Iowa SC They can say an Iowa Law is not constitutional as they did with the marriage statue but, they can not state any in the Iowa Constitution is unconstitutional The US SC can though, I think This is the first suggestion I've heard that the Iowa supreme court stated the Iowa Constitution is unconstitutional. Where did this originate? I'm having a lot of difficulty following your argument. And yes, I believe the US SC can find the Iowa constitution to be contrary to the US constitution. Blues, Dave It came from you I was talking about an Iowa law You posted something about the Iowa constitution"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #100 November 3, 2010 QuoteWhat did they say was unconstitutional in the Iowa Constitution? Wendy P. This has nothing to do with the Iowa Constitution but rather the Iowa marriage law. Comments were made here by some stating (at least it seemed so to me) that the Iowa Supreme Court could overturn or invalide something in the Iowa Constitution It can not Now The ISC stated that the iowa law allowing only one man and one women to marry was not legal, not valid not what ever for what ever reason. For the purpose of this topic the reason is not needed So, back to it The ISC struck down the states marriage law The most they should be able to do is order the legislater to fix it based on the grounds it used invalidate it Instead, they ordered the state to marry same sex couples They should not be able to do that Invalidate? Yes Make law? NO"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
