• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

Junebug said:
You realize what you are doing, right? This is like saying that prohibitions on same sex marriage are okay because no one is born wanting to marry a person of their same sex. That's obviously true, but if, sexuality is not chosen, it is also quite beside the point. The issue is the person's sexuality, not their choice to get married.

The logical consequences of your position, then, is that polyamory is chosen. Is that your view?
Click to expand...

People are born with the biological wiring to be attracted to people of the same sex, with the logical conclusion that one day it's likely that they will want to marry them. Restricting the ability to get married to one's desired partner to only those who biologically are attracted to those of the opposite sex is discriminating based upon an inherent biological characteristic over which the person has no control.

The polyamory situation is completely different because it's not biological. These people don't have a biological wiring that makes them only want to marry multiple people. Polyamory is not somebody's sexuality - it is a choice about the type of relationships you would like to have in your life. Just like two straight men, one who choses to get married and the other who does not, do not have different sexual identities.
 
Last edited:
if some dumbass wants to deal with more than one wife then more power to him.
 
Yeah, I'm not fighting that fight. I'm not against it and I'm not an advocate for it.
 
I'm not going to continue arguing about something that we both don't think the law requires
 
I think my real, and unfortunate given my future profession, issue is that I think basing a system of law off a document that's over 200 years old is beyond inane when we're looking into "rights provided at the time the Constitution was written."

We have serious issues as a society that the Constitution never, and couldn't have, contemplated yet we are for the most part insistent on continuing to base our rule of law wholly off this document.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I think my real, and unfortunate given my future profession, issue is that I think basing a system of law off a document that's over 200 years old is beyond inane when we're looking into "rights provided at the time the Constitution was written."

We have serious issues as a society that the Constitution never, and couldn't have, contemplated yet we are for the most part insistent on continuing to base our rule of law wholly off this document.
Click to expand...

We could just go with majority rule (mob rule) and see how that works out. If you do not base the laws on the constitution, what would you base them on? Go with whatever is in vogue at the time?

You must have a much greater appreciation for your fellow man than I do.
 
The Constitution basically reinforces majority rule.
 
knowell said:
We could just go with majority rule (mob rule) and see how that works out. If you do not base the laws on the constitution, what would you base them on? Go with whatever is in vogue at the time?

You must have a much greater appreciation for your fellow man than I do.
Click to expand...

I have a greater appreciation for fellow man to determine 2015 issues in 2015 than I do for the fellow man from 1770's and 1780's who wrote the Constitution similarly situated as to "whatever [was] in vogue at th[at] time" to determine salient issues in 2015.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I have a greater appreciation for fellow man to determine 2015 issues in 2015 than I do for the fellow man from 1770's and 1780's who wrote the Constitution similarly situated as to "whatever [was] in vogue at th[at] time" to determine salient issues in 2015.
Click to expand...

I don't. Think about all the discriminatory laws that have been felled in the last 50 years because of the Constitution. Without the Constitution, we would have virtual if not actual bans on abortion in many states, no gay marriage in most states, a severe curtailing of the rights of Latinos and immigrants (see: Arizona), etc. Lord knows how far the PATRIOT Act would have gone in the post-9/11 hysteria if there were literally no constitutional limits.

300 years later, the Constitution is still protecting marginalized people from the tyranny of the majority. It's not like the Constitution is just full of things that were "in vogue at the time." The underlying themes of protecting the rights of individuals against the government are still fundamentally important today.
 
Last edited:
MysteryMen said:
300 years later, the Constitution is still protecting marginalized people from the tyranny of the majority. It's not like the Constitution is just full of things that were "in vogue at the time." The underlying themes of protecting the rights of individuals against the government are still fundamentally important today.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the SCOTUS is not applying the actual constitutional standards to change this though. The court redefined the traditional notion of marriage without a legislature's action and did so by merely expanding "fundamental right" to marriage to same-sex rights. I agree with Junebug that the Court is just working around the constitutional requirements on the matter. That's why I'm in favor of abandoning our reliance on the Constitution and instead adopting a more fluid notion of fundamental rights and what deserves equal protection. Admittedly I don't know how we can do this so that the legislature doesn't have rampant rule but I think keeping our separation of powers as they are and then working on the Constitution's modernity is a good start. Another good start which wouldn't be too difficult or require as much gridlock and time as my last idea would be to change the standard from "discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent of the legislature" to "discriminatory effect." This is the standard in Canada and most of Europe as far as I'm aware regarding laws which are discriminatory.

I realize this is an unpopular opinion.
 
MysteryMen said:
I don't. Think about all the discriminatory laws that have been felled in the last 50 years because of the Constitution. Without the Constitution, we would have virtual if not actual bans on abortion in many states, no gay marriage in most states, a severe curtailing of the rights of Latinos and immigrants (see: Arizona), etc. Lord knows how far the PATRIOT Act would have gone in the post-9/11 hysteria if there were literally no constitutional limits.

300 years later, the Constitution is still protecting marginalized people from the tyranny of the majority. It's not like the Constitution is just full of things that were "in vogue at the time." The underlying themes of protecting the rights of individuals against the government are still fundamentally important today.
Click to expand...

People were marginalized and oppressed under that Constitution. Discriminatory laws existed under the Constitution.

The Constitution only matters up to its interpretation. And that depends on the political leans of those who interpret it.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
People were marginalized and oppressed under that Constitution. Discriminatory laws existed under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Nobody's arguing that it's perfect. It obviously allowed for slavery, and the 2nd Amendment continues to block meaningful gun control. But to act like it's unnecessary today is ridiculous.

Really, where would we be without the Constitution, especially in regards to a number of intrusive laws passed by state legislatures? Courts would have no power to strike them down. In many cases, the Constitution is the only check on what would otherwise be massive government overreach.
 
Last edited:
That's assuming there's nothing there to replace the Constitution. I think it should be more fluid. I understand how the system is supposed to work (constitution sets backbone and legislature can change within those confines, can change constitution if you need to) but there's no way in hell anyone is going to be able to change anything in the Constitution on an actual issue anytime soon. I realize the argument is "then it shouldn't be changed" but the alternative is you just get an activist court who pretends to follow the Constitution and the standards set out but really don't.
 
Until there's a better option that would actually be realistic to implement, I'm #TeamConstitution
 
Junebug said:
I have to say, I find it pretty amusing that your defense of constitutionalism has nothing to do with, you know, the constitution itself. But carry on.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion...certainly not one shared by a majority of the Supreme Court
 
Junebug said:
No question. But the 14th Amendment changed that.

This is a point that is often forgotten in the criticism of originalism. Originalism doesn't just ask what the founders intended. Particularly in cases involving race, it also asks what the framers of the 14th Amendment intended. To the extent the 14th Amendment effected a wholesale restructuring of our form of government (and it did), that needs to be part of the analysis as well.
Click to expand...

I don't want to live in a country based on simply a 14th Amendment view of race.
 
Yet the Supreme Court can rule that those exigencies are unconstitutional based on their interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top