and somehow this thread has become about pot? This is why we aren't all rushing to legalize marijuana. Because secretly America enjoys sending stoners to jail, or at least fining them here and there.
It came up, so it's being discussed. Gay marriage is now settled, marijuana legalization is as good a subject as any to follow.
As someone who considers himself to be a strict, original intent Â
interpreter of the Constitution, I'd say that the 10th amendment was the guiding principle here until the passage of the 14th, which changed things immensely.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now Â
Ah, OK. I haven't advocated decriminalization/legalization as a path to economic gains. I do think gains can be achieved, but the bigger positives are the reduction in the obscene amounts of resources that are piled into the WoD (War on Drugs), reduction in the overall crime rate (up to 70% of crime here is directly or tangentially associated with drugs), and the positive affect on people's lives by not having to serve ridiculous sentences and then having the felony millstone hung around their necks.
I hear you. And I'm all about legalizing weed (that's strange coming from someone in my position, huh?) and see the benefits of it in the area you are speaking of.
By the way, how will legalizing weed impact our national obesity rate?...;) I heard that you do get some major munchies as well as being too high to work out.
You know, you're really a nasty fellow under all the good fellowship :).
I view those two factors as positives, at least in my case; I could stand to put on a few pounds! Look at it this way, fatties are slow to begin with. Get them stoned and we can scoop them up off the streets a la "Soylent Green" and place then in concentration camps run by the fitness addicts here.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now Â
You know, you're really a nasty fellow under all the good fellowship :).
I view those two factors as positives, at least in my case; I could stand to put on a few pounds! Look at it this way, fatties are slow to begin with. Get them stoned and we can scoop them up off the streets a la "Soylent Green" and place then in concentration camps run by the fitness addicts here.
I like the way you think!
And don't worry, I'm just as a big of an asshole in real life as I'm on BBI.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'd leave coke and the rest of the hard drugs on back burner for now Â
You know, you're really a nasty fellow under all the good fellowship :).
I view those two factors as positives, at least in my case; I could stand to put on a few pounds! Look at it this way, fatties are slow to begin with. Get them stoned and we can scoop them up off the streets a la "Soylent Green" and place then in concentration camps run by the fitness addicts here.
I like the way you think!
And don't worry, I'm just as a big of an asshole in real life as I'm on BBI.
Don't beat yourself up. As Chevy Chase said to Judge Smails, "You're a terrific slouch!"
RE: RE: RE: RE: I find it odd that social programs from countries with populations Â
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
I don't think it would disentangle the concurrent jurisdictions and agencies involved (there's also incentive to keep drugs illegal for many agencies local and federal who line their coffers off of drug arrests) - I think it would just enlarge different agencies and create a bureaucratic nightmare. Government is awful with Health Services. Also how we treat our people.
I am 100% in favor of a reassessment of how we handle drugs and drug offenses. The entire concept of rehabilitation needs to be rehabbed. I just do not think you can scale a program designed to impact a small proportion of a small population across a country 30x larger that is not nearly as liberal as many Western and Northern Euro countries. The percentage of people impacted is not likely to be the same either, so scalability would be unequal to proportion of population. Different philosophies and economic needs. Population age is also a factor. Portugal is a very young (and beautiful) country.
It would be nice, however. I'd be in favor of a workable program but start in e states- the supposed Petri dishes of democracy.
Puff puff pass ;-)
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I find it odd that social programs from countries with populations Â
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
I don't think it would disentangle the concurrent jurisdictions and agencies involved (there's also incentive to keep drugs illegal for many agencies local and federal who line their coffers off of drug arrests) - I think it would just enlarge different agencies and create a bureaucratic nightmare. Government is awful with Health Services. Also how we treat our people.
I am 100% in favor of a reassessment of how we handle drugs and drug offenses. The entire concept of rehabilitation needs to be rehabbed. I just do not think you can scale a program designed to impact a small proportion of a small population across a country 30x larger that is not nearly as liberal as many Western and Northern Euro countries. The percentage of people impacted is not likely to be the same either, so scalability would be unequal to proportion of population. Different philosophies and economic needs. Population age is also a factor. Portugal is a very young (and beautiful) country.
It would be nice, however. I'd be in favor of a workable program but start in e states- the supposed Petri dishes of democracy.
Puff puff pass ;-)
I think we're essentially in agreement that there needs to be fundamental changes made in this area. By the way, the percentage of addicts/users in Portugal was WAY higher than the percentage here.
I absolutely agree, however, that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to try to can one system and institute another. Bureaucracies are harder to kill than rats, and are more prolific!
I rather like the state-level approach. It addresses scalability and provides concrete, assessable results that can be replicated. Good idea!
What a momentous day. Aside from it being a great day for so many people, I'm personally happy for those of my friends (majority of them veterans or current in the military), who should have always had the right to marry those they love.
What a momentous day. Aside from it being a great day for so many people, I'm personally happy for those of my friends (majority of them veterans or current in the military), who should have always had the right to marry those they love.
It is the refusal of a state government to recognize same sex marriage that called into question. This decisions deems that unconstitutional. How is this different than previous decisions that deemed other state laws unconstitutional based on one's civil rights being denied?
Not really - the question of full faith and credit regarding existing same sex marriages was one issue that may have been properly decided in this case, but not creating a new fundamental right that should be done by the Congress or State legislature. Granted the issues in this case are characteristically intertwined.
This is a right being conferred, not being protected, and there isn't a source of power conferred upon the judiciary to create law - only to judge it. I have the same objections to several in a line of cases that expands the power of the judiciary and takes away power of the states. The legislature is the proper venue for this issue. I think Kennedy's opinion is far too sweeping in scope.
Good outcome, continued bad precedent. Just my takeaway.
Your argument that this is naked judicial legislation is definitely defensible. But the dissenters in this case making that argument have done exactly the same thing in other cases, including the creation of a second amendment right to own a gun outside of a state militia, insisting that the takings and due process clauses limit punitive damages, and interpreting the eleventh amendment to bar suits by citizens against their own states.
Judges always claim to be "umpires" who "neutrally" interpret the law. But few do, regardless of their ideology or politics. It's one reason, along with the fact that the document is just ridiculously outdated, that I think we need at least another ten, maybe fifteen, new amendments.
I don't fall into the camp that because one side is activist the other should be too. I do see a distinction in your examples in that there were enumerated clauses that needed interpreting textually and I'd argue that Scalia's opinion in the 2nd amendment case was at least based on the written language of the document. Punitive damages were envisioned by the framers and there is sound public policy in favor of limiting damage awards, so that's an argument to fall back on in interpreting meaning. State Sovereign immunity also doesn't bar a citizen from suing a State completely. The State may consent to the suit or a citizen can sue the State in another State's court. You can also sue a State official in their official capacity - that's how most of these cases come up as I'm sure you know.
These may not be great arguments, but minimally there is some rational basis to fall back on because those topics are within the Court's purview of interpreting law and not legislating. If today's opinion was a challenge based on a discriminatory law preventing lgbt people from getting married, as opposed to the lack of the right to get married, I'd say the court has a better argument under 14A as an equal protection issue but not a substantive due process issue.
Thanks for the level headed discussion.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I find it odd that social programs from countries with populations Â
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
I don't think it would disentangle the concurrent jurisdictions and agencies involved (there's also incentive to keep drugs illegal for many agencies local and federal who line their coffers off of drug arrests) - I think it would just enlarge different agencies and create a bureaucratic nightmare. Government is awful with Health Services. Also how we treat our people.
I am 100% in favor of a reassessment of how we handle drugs and drug offenses. The entire concept of rehabilitation needs to be rehabbed. I just do not think you can scale a program designed to impact a small proportion of a small population across a country 30x larger that is not nearly as liberal as many Western and Northern Euro countries. The percentage of people impacted is not likely to be the same either, so scalability would be unequal to proportion of population. Different philosophies and economic needs. Population age is also a factor. Portugal is a very young (and beautiful) country.
It would be nice, however. I'd be in favor of a workable program but start in e states- the supposed Petri dishes of democracy.
Puff puff pass ;-)
I think we're essentially in agreement that there needs to be fundamental changes made in this area. By the way, the percentage of addicts/users in Portugal was WAY higher than the percentage here.
I absolutely agree, however, that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to try to can one system and institute another. Bureaucracies are harder to kill than rats, and are more prolific!
I rather like the state-level approach. It addresses scalability and provides concrete, assessable results that can be replicated. Good idea!
it will change religious institutions here in America....probably ending the religious exemption and all that comes with that. It does appear The Court has decided that consenting adults who love each other should have access to marriage.
The opinion was very limiting on its force over religious institutions. The only changes you'll see is if the members force the change which would be totally appropriate.
So you think gay rights activists will stop right now? Of course not, they will seek challenges in every institution they feel diminishes their new found rights. That will be "totally appropriate" in their minds. Ultimately the religious exemption will certainly fall victim to that. Even Don Verretta suggested that when arguing this case before the court.
it will change religious institutions here in America....probably ending the religious exemption and all that comes with that. It does appear The Court has decided that consenting adults who love each other should have access to marriage.
The opinion was very limiting on its force over religious institutions. The only changes you'll see is if the members force the change which would be totally appropriate.
So you think gay rights activists will stop right now? Of course not, they will seek challenges in every institution they feel diminishes their new found rights. That will be "totally appropriate" in their minds. Ultimately the religious exemption will certainly fall victim to that. Even Don Verretta suggested that when arguing this case before the court.
Activists are entitled to do what they want to do and Religious establishments are free to do what they want to do and are protected in doing so. The opinion is pretty strict on that. But small businesses, on the other hand May be Yelpd to death. Bakeries, photogs, DJs, reception halls...there's no need to accommodate religious beliefs of private citizens if LGBT people are a new suspect class with appropriate legislation behind it.
This decision is certainly the first in a long line of issues on the topic that will need to be resolved down the road. We may actually get a new Amendment out of this.
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
It limits the opinion to State action while allowing religious institutions to continue teaching and preaching as they see fit.
I do agree there very well may be a shit fit, butReligious exemptions are numerous and enshrined by law (no pun intended).
I just hope the Activists take the win gracefully (no pun intended).
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I find it odd that social programs from countries with populations Â
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
I don't think it would disentangle the concurrent jurisdictions and agencies involved (there's also incentive to keep drugs illegal for many agencies local and federal who line their coffers off of drug arrests) - I think it would just enlarge different agencies and create a bureaucratic nightmare. Government is awful with Health Services. Also how we treat our people.
I am 100% in favor of a reassessment of how we handle drugs and drug offenses. The entire concept of rehabilitation needs to be rehabbed. I just do not think you can scale a program designed to impact a small proportion of a small population across a country 30x larger that is not nearly as liberal as many Western and Northern Euro countries. The percentage of people impacted is not likely to be the same either, so scalability would be unequal to proportion of population. Different philosophies and economic needs. Population age is also a factor. Portugal is a very young (and beautiful) country.
It would be nice, however. I'd be in favor of a workable program but start in e states- the supposed Petri dishes of democracy.
Puff puff pass ;-)
I think we're essentially in agreement that there needs to be fundamental changes made in this area. By the way, the percentage of addicts/users in Portugal was WAY higher than the percentage here.
I absolutely agree, however, that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to try to can one system and institute another. Bureaucracies are harder to kill than rats, and are more prolific!
I rather like the state-level approach. It addresses scalability and provides concrete, assessable results that can be replicated. Good idea!
Cough, cough. Thanks!
We are in agreement. Appreciate the conversation.
Same here. Nice not to have to deal with the usual guff.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
So there is a lot of logic in this sentiment. Fundamentally the Constitution has to mean something other than which policy is favored most by 5 or more justices. If the Constitution isnt dictating "constitutional" decisions then it isnt a governing law, it is a mirror that lets the viewer see himself in it.
However, the problem with treating the Constitution as a set of fixed governing instructions is that the document plainly isnt set up that way. Analytically, it's nice and tidy to say "If the people who passed Amendment X didnt have a problem with laws prohibiting Y, then the Constitution doesnt have a problem either". Two problems with that. First, any time you try to interpret legislative intent from beyond the statute itself, you run into problems. Do the Federalist papers tell us what the Bill of Rights means? Why? A tiny fraction of the white men of age who voted to ratify the constitution wrote them. So beyond the words of the bill, how do you know what the people passing an amendment agreed on? Does one Congressman's floor speech tell you what Congress understood a bill to mean?
Second, more fundamentally, indeed dispositive to me, is the loosey-goosey language of the relevant amendments. Im a lawyer, and I read a statute that says "the statute of limitations is 3 years for Claim X" and I know I have to bring a claim within 3 years. But I look at the Constitution and there are so many broad and undefined concepts. No person shall be "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". And this doozy (every fucking beautiful word of it):
Quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That's some real content-free gobbledegook right there. These concepts have no fixed definitions. Compare it to the very clear guarantee of say the 3rd Amendment ("No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.") -- you know what you're getting with #3. The intent of the framers was IMO very clear -- no one could agree on an exact list of rights and indeed no one even thought that such a list was a good idea (indeed, the whole point of the 9th amendment is to makes sure that no asshole reads the constitution as an exclusive list of rights, and interestingly and vaguely refers to non-constitutional rights "retained by the people" seemingly apart from those "reserved to the states" in #10). These are aspirational guarantees of rights that each generation would have to help define. And so that's how I think the Constitution works. My guarantee of due process of law, liberty, privileges and immunities, and nameless other rights "retained by the people" are a concept of freedom that is always evolving.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
Go ask my rabbi if he'll marry a jew and a non-jew. And then stop by the female catholic priest to ask her if she'll do the same.
What is different? The Reconstruction Amendments were specifically designed to combat discrimination against African Americans. They fell into disuse but they remained the law of the land. There were no logical leaps necessary to get there.
At the time those Amendments were passed inter-racial marriage was banned, and the amendments say nothing of a right to inter-racial marriage. And I seriously doubt at the time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 anybody believed that would guarantee a right to interracial marriage - which remained "constitutional" for another 100 years. In addition to the fact that laws banning interracial marriage apply "equally" to all races.
It's only "different" because you view it differently.
But you talk about evolving concepts of freedom... Â
why do five individuals get to decide what is or isn't the reigning conception of freedom? Since when is a very insular group of people, all of very similar legal training and of largely similar experience, qualified to discern the concept of freedom, or of decency, to which we have evolved?
As I said I am pleased with the outcome. I have voted for it, advocated for it (to the extent I have time to advocate for anything), etc etc. It is an important and very positive change, IMO, for this country. But had fifty states voted for this change, or had Congress said that a marriage validly consummated in one state is valid in every other state, my happiness in this outcome would be unalloyed.
What is different? The Reconstruction Amendments were specifically designed to combat discrimination against African Americans. They fell into disuse but they remained the law of the land. There were no logical leaps necessary to get there.
At the time those Amendments were passed inter-racial marriage was banned, and the amendments say nothing of a right to inter-racial marriage. And I seriously doubt at the time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 anybody believed that would guarantee a right to interracial marriage - which remained "constitutional" for another 100 years. In addition to the fact that laws banning interracial marriage apply "equally" to all races.
It's only "different" because you view it differently.
Anti-miscegenation statutes were largely a result of the race-conscious late-19th and early 20th centuries. Whether the country was socially ready for large-scale interracial marriage in the wake of the Civil War, the legal prohibitions to it largely came later.
RE: But you talk about evolving concepts of freedom... Â
why do five individuals get to decide what is or isn't the reigning conception of freedom? Since when is a very insular group of people, all of very similar legal training and of largely similar experience, qualified to discern the concept of freedom, or of decency, to which we have evolved?
It's a fair question. That's the brilliance of John Marshall's power grab in Marbury v. Madison (which I think was correctly decided). If you dont want judges decision that other laws must bow to the Constitution, you shouldnt have drafted the Supremacy Clause. On a more practical level, it's not just the Court that guarantees our rights. Congress guarantees your rights too. Look at the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. As our system has developed, whichever branch guarantees the individual the most rights against the state wins. Not too shabby.
Anti-miscegenation statutes were largely a result of the race-conscious late-19th and early 20th centuries. Whether the country was socially ready for large-scale interracial marriage in the wake of the Civil War, the legal prohibitions to it largely came later.
That's just patently false.
Quote:
At first, in the 1660s, the first laws in Virginia and Maryland regulating marriage between whites and blacks only pertained to the marriages of whites with black (and mulatto) slaves and indentured servants. In 1664, Maryland enacted a law which criminalized such marriages -- the 1681 marriage of Irish-born Nell Butler to an African slave was an early example of the application of this law. Virginia (1691) was the first English colony in North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry, followed by Maryland in 1692. This was the first time in American history that a law was invented that restricted access to marriage partners solely on the basis of "race", not class or condition of servitude.[9] Later these laws also spread to colonies in the Thirteen Colonies with fewer slaves and free blacks, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Moreover, after the independence of the United States had been established, similar laws were enacted in territories and states which outlawed slavery.
What is different? The Reconstruction Amendments were specifically designed to combat discrimination against African Americans. They fell into disuse but they remained the law of the land. There were no logical leaps necessary to get there.
At the time those Amendments were passed inter-racial marriage was banned, and the amendments say nothing of a right to inter-racial marriage. And I seriously doubt at the time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 anybody believed that would guarantee a right to interracial marriage - which remained "constitutional" for another 100 years. In addition to the fact that laws banning interracial marriage apply "equally" to all races.
It's only "different" because you view it differently.
The 14th Amendment DOES guarantee the fundamental right to Marriage. Regardless of whether or not it was race neutral when written. As race is a suspect class, the power of the court to overturn laws discriminating against marriage based on that classification is sound. All people are equal, discrimination on the basis of race is unconstitutional, therefore contrary laws are unconstitutional. That's not granting an affirmative right - it's removing an unconstitutional barrier.
The 14th Amendment DOES guarantee the fundamental right to Marriage. Regardless of whether or not it was race neutral when written. As race is a suspect class, the power of the court to overturn laws discriminating against marriage based on that classification is sound. All people are equal, discrimination on the basis of race is unconstitutional, therefore contrary laws are unconstitutional. That's not granting an affirmative right - it's removing an unconstitutional barrier.
Today's ruling does not follow that logic.
The 14h Amendment never mentions marriage, nor race, never uses the words "suspect class." Here is what the relevant section says:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What is so different in the eyes of the 14th Amendment about discriminating against someone because of their race or their sexual orientation?
(G-d, how many times can you write that in a day?)
A picture of the rainbow flag saying "This flag is free speech" and a picture of Confederate flag saying "This flag is not?"
Why is Free Speech so difficult to understand. It protects the rights of individuals from government. The Confederate flag can be flown by individuals, on cars, on clothing, etc. as protected by the 1st Amendement. It is the flying of that flag by a government office that is in question. That is a huge fundamental difference.
(G-d, how many times can you write that in a day?)
A picture of the rainbow flag saying "This flag is free speech" and a picture of Confederate flag saying "This flag is not?"
Why is Free Speech so difficult to understand. It protects the rights of individuals from government. The Confederate flag can be flown by individuals, on cars, on clothing, etc. as protected by the 1st Amendement. It is the flying of that flag by a government office that is in question. That is a huge fundamental difference.
Way too much basic logic in your post Matt, sadly many wouldn't get it
The 14th Amendment DOES guarantee the fundamental right to Marriage. Regardless of whether or not it was race neutral when written. As race is a suspect class, the power of the court to overturn laws discriminating against marriage based on that classification is sound. All people are equal, discrimination on the basis of race is unconstitutional, therefore contrary laws are unconstitutional. That's not granting an affirmative right - it's removing an unconstitutional barrier.
Today's ruling does not follow that logic.
The 14h Amendment never mentions marriage, nor race, never uses the words "suspect class." Here is what the relevant section says:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What is so different in the eyes of the 14th Amendment about discriminating against someone because of their race or their sexual orientation?
The logic is the same.
No, it's not and I'm not sure you're so familiar with the law if this is your argument.
Fundamental rights are those protected by SDP and EP through the 14th Amendment. The majors are right to travel, vote, marry and use contraception. There are others like first amendment rights incorporated through the 14th amendment.
When those LIBERTY interests are infringed, you must pick a standard by which to base a judgment on, which is related to the classification of the group being discriminated against. Race is one of a few a "suspect" classes and receives the highest protection - strict scrutiny - which is a very high bar to cover.
Sexuality is not a "suspect" class (although after today that might be different) - heck even gender nor age or wealth are - and has a lower burden.
"Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage. I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. " — Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.
———
"I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman. People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court." — Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Republican presidential contender.
———
"While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, their ruling is now the law of the land. I call on Congress to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected. The government must never force Christians to violate their religious beliefs." — Dr. Ben Carson, Republican presidential candidate.
———
"As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage."— Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination.
———
"If accepted by Congress and this president, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment." — Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.
———
"So while we celebrate the progress won today, we must stand firm in our conviction to keep moving forward. For too many LGBT Americans who are subjected to discriminatory laws, true equality is still just out of reach."— Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democratic presidential contender.
but parsing the difference between race and sexuality is pretty weak and suggests to me more of a personal bias than a legal basis. You may feel that the constitution allows for discrimination against one but not the other. I'm not gonna try and argue that one way or the other. But either way that discrimination is no longer allowed and that's a good thing.
Anti-miscegenation statutes were largely a result of the race-conscious late-19th and early 20th centuries. Whether the country was socially ready for large-scale interracial marriage in the wake of the Civil War, the legal prohibitions to it largely came later.
That's just patently false.
Quote:
At first, in the 1660s, the first laws in Virginia and Maryland regulating marriage between whites and blacks only pertained to the marriages of whites with black (and mulatto) slaves and indentured servants. In 1664, Maryland enacted a law which criminalized such marriages -- the 1681 marriage of Irish-born Nell Butler to an African slave was an early example of the application of this law. Virginia (1691) was the first English colony in North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry, followed by Maryland in 1692. This was the first time in American history that a law was invented that restricted access to marriage partners solely on the basis of "race", not class or condition of servitude.[9] Later these laws also spread to colonies in the Thirteen Colonies with fewer slaves and free blacks, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Moreover, after the independence of the United States had been established, similar laws were enacted in territories and states which outlawed slavery.
Wiki - ( New Window )
The first anti-miscegenation statute in Virginia was from colonial times, but the law expressly overturned in Loving was drafted in 1924. Many states had such laws, to be sure (or reintroduced them after Reconstruction), but the second attempt to ban them nationwide via Amendment occurred in 1912-1913 and several states who didn't have such statutes passed them contemporaneously (including Mass, which passed a measure preventing non-residents from marrying there if such a marriage would be unlawful in their home states).
but parsing the difference between race and sexuality is pretty weak and suggests to me more of a personal bias than a legal basis. You may feel that the constitution allows for discrimination against one but not the other. I'm not gonna try and argue that one way or the other. But either way that discrimination is no longer allowed and that's a good thing.
I agree it's a good and I'm happy there is equality for most. But that's not the point. I have no bias against LBGT and am happy about the for them.
However, the law is the law and while you may not have studied it, I did. And I certainly won't accept some baseless accusation of a personal bias when this discussion revolves around legal matters and not your opinion.
You can go through the thread and see all of my arguments are about the LEGAL basis for The ruling. If you want to wade into these waters perhaps you should bone up on your con law.
but parsing the difference between race and sexuality is pretty weak and suggests to me more of a personal bias than a legal basis. You may feel that the constitution allows for discrimination against one but not the other. I'm not gonna try and argue that one way or the other. But either way that discrimination is no longer allowed and that's a good thing.
I agree it's a good and I'm happy there is equality for most. But that's not the point. I have no bias against LBGT and am happy about the for them.
However, the law is the law and while you may not have studied it, I did. And I certainly won't accept some baseless accusation of a personal bias when this discussion revolves around legal matters and not your opinion.
You can go through the thread and see all of my arguments are about the LEGAL basis for The ruling. If you want to wade into these waters perhaps you should bone up on your con law.
practice. It really is not that far fetched of an Idea that one day it could be legalized. Who says marriage has to be a one to one practice. The pursuit of Life, Liberty and Property, and happiness could also be one to many that a state cannot interrupt.
But since the federal government has now ruled for the first time on Marriage..they in effect have taken that power from the states so the next ruling on Polygamy will go right to federal jurisdiction if and when it happens.
In comment 12345199 Rich Houston-NYG-WR-1971 said:
Quote:
practice. It really is not that far fetched of an Idea that one day it could be legalized. Who says marriage has to be a one to one practice. The pursuit of Life, Liberty and Property, and happiness could also be one to many that a state cannot interrupt.
But since the federal government has now ruled for the first time on Marriage..they in effect have taken that power from the states so the next ruling on Polygamy will go right to federal jurisdiction if and when it happens.
Today was a great day though..very long time
You literally are the worst poster on BBI. So much stupid that it hurts the eyes whenever you post.
We already have laws against bigamy that are firmly rooted in all facets of law and society and it's been tried and defended.
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
What link doesn't it have?
Gay marriage legalization is based on the concept that the government can't infringe on people's rights to be happy and their right to define their marriage. So now I might want to define my marriage with 5 other people instead of 1. Who are you to tell me I can't?
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
Go ask my rabbi if he'll marry a jew and a non-jew. And then stop by the female catholic priest to ask her if she'll do the same.
Your rabbi can argue "I'll be perfectly happy to marry practitioners of my faith." The mosque that says "We won't marry two men" can't use that argument if both men say "We are both Muslims, we invoke our right to disagree with the imam on homosexuality, but as Muslims, we demand equal treatment and a marriage in this mosque."
fstubbs ..you hit the nail on the head as to what I was trying to Â
His ad hominem attacks on Kennedy undermine his dissent. His argument basically boils down to, "Hey, I'm not a bigot - I'm just trying to turn the clock back a little bit. And by the way, Kennedy sucks and he can't write."
I think Roberts struck the right chord, basically: This decision is a really nice result for a lot of good people who deserve to be happy. It's just a really nice result that was beyond our constitutional authority.
Whether you agree with him or not, his constructionism is a lot more digestible than Scalia's.
It came up, so it's being discussed. Gay marriage is now settled, marijuana legalization is as good a subject as any to follow.
Quote:
Ah, OK. I haven't advocated decriminalization/legalization as a path to economic gains. I do think gains can be achieved, but the bigger positives are the reduction in the obscene amounts of resources that are piled into the WoD (War on Drugs), reduction in the overall crime rate (up to 70% of crime here is directly or tangentially associated with drugs), and the positive affect on people's lives by not having to serve ridiculous sentences and then having the felony millstone hung around their necks.
I hear you. And I'm all about legalizing weed (that's strange coming from someone in my position, huh?) and see the benefits of it in the area you are speaking of.
By the way, how will legalizing weed impact our national obesity rate?...;) I heard that you do get some major munchies as well as being too high to work out.
You know, you're really a nasty fellow under all the good fellowship :).
I view those two factors as positives, at least in my case; I could stand to put on a few pounds! Look at it this way, fatties are slow to begin with. Get them stoned and we can scoop them up off the streets a la "Soylent Green" and place then in concentration camps run by the fitness addicts here.
I view those two factors as positives, at least in my case; I could stand to put on a few pounds! Look at it this way, fatties are slow to begin with. Get them stoned and we can scoop them up off the streets a la "Soylent Green" and place then in concentration camps run by the fitness addicts here.
I like the way you think!
And don't worry, I'm just as a big of an asshole in real life as I'm on BBI.
Quote:
You know, you're really a nasty fellow under all the good fellowship :).
I view those two factors as positives, at least in my case; I could stand to put on a few pounds! Look at it this way, fatties are slow to begin with. Get them stoned and we can scoop them up off the streets a la "Soylent Green" and place then in concentration camps run by the fitness addicts here.
I like the way you think!
And don't worry, I'm just as a big of an asshole in real life as I'm on BBI.
Don't beat yourself up. As Chevy Chase said to Judge Smails, "You're a terrific slouch!"
Quote:
In comment 12344525 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12344509 glowrider said:
Quote:
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
I don't think it would disentangle the concurrent jurisdictions and agencies involved (there's also incentive to keep drugs illegal for many agencies local and federal who line their coffers off of drug arrests) - I think it would just enlarge different agencies and create a bureaucratic nightmare. Government is awful with Health Services. Also how we treat our people.
I am 100% in favor of a reassessment of how we handle drugs and drug offenses. The entire concept of rehabilitation needs to be rehabbed. I just do not think you can scale a program designed to impact a small proportion of a small population across a country 30x larger that is not nearly as liberal as many Western and Northern Euro countries. The percentage of people impacted is not likely to be the same either, so scalability would be unequal to proportion of population. Different philosophies and economic needs. Population age is also a factor. Portugal is a very young (and beautiful) country.
It would be nice, however. I'd be in favor of a workable program but start in e states- the supposed Petri dishes of democracy.
Puff puff pass ;-)
Quote:
In comment 12344555 glowrider said:
Quote:
In comment 12344525 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12344509 glowrider said:
Quote:
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
I don't think it would disentangle the concurrent jurisdictions and agencies involved (there's also incentive to keep drugs illegal for many agencies local and federal who line their coffers off of drug arrests) - I think it would just enlarge different agencies and create a bureaucratic nightmare. Government is awful with Health Services. Also how we treat our people.
I am 100% in favor of a reassessment of how we handle drugs and drug offenses. The entire concept of rehabilitation needs to be rehabbed. I just do not think you can scale a program designed to impact a small proportion of a small population across a country 30x larger that is not nearly as liberal as many Western and Northern Euro countries. The percentage of people impacted is not likely to be the same either, so scalability would be unequal to proportion of population. Different philosophies and economic needs. Population age is also a factor. Portugal is a very young (and beautiful) country.
It would be nice, however. I'd be in favor of a workable program but start in e states- the supposed Petri dishes of democracy.
Puff puff pass ;-)
I think we're essentially in agreement that there needs to be fundamental changes made in this area. By the way, the percentage of addicts/users in Portugal was WAY higher than the percentage here.
I absolutely agree, however, that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to try to can one system and institute another. Bureaucracies are harder to kill than rats, and are more prolific!
I rather like the state-level approach. It addresses scalability and provides concrete, assessable results that can be replicated. Good idea!
Cough, cough. Thanks!
Second that!
Quote:
In comment 12344417 Matt M. said:
Quote:
It is the refusal of a state government to recognize same sex marriage that called into question. This decisions deems that unconstitutional. How is this different than previous decisions that deemed other state laws unconstitutional based on one's civil rights being denied?
Not really - the question of full faith and credit regarding existing same sex marriages was one issue that may have been properly decided in this case, but not creating a new fundamental right that should be done by the Congress or State legislature. Granted the issues in this case are characteristically intertwined.
This is a right being conferred, not being protected, and there isn't a source of power conferred upon the judiciary to create law - only to judge it. I have the same objections to several in a line of cases that expands the power of the judiciary and takes away power of the states. The legislature is the proper venue for this issue. I think Kennedy's opinion is far too sweeping in scope.
Good outcome, continued bad precedent. Just my takeaway.
Your argument that this is naked judicial legislation is definitely defensible. But the dissenters in this case making that argument have done exactly the same thing in other cases, including the creation of a second amendment right to own a gun outside of a state militia, insisting that the takings and due process clauses limit punitive damages, and interpreting the eleventh amendment to bar suits by citizens against their own states.
Judges always claim to be "umpires" who "neutrally" interpret the law. But few do, regardless of their ideology or politics. It's one reason, along with the fact that the document is just ridiculously outdated, that I think we need at least another ten, maybe fifteen, new amendments.
I don't fall into the camp that because one side is activist the other should be too. I do see a distinction in your examples in that there were enumerated clauses that needed interpreting textually and I'd argue that Scalia's opinion in the 2nd amendment case was at least based on the written language of the document. Punitive damages were envisioned by the framers and there is sound public policy in favor of limiting damage awards, so that's an argument to fall back on in interpreting meaning. State Sovereign immunity also doesn't bar a citizen from suing a State completely. The State may consent to the suit or a citizen can sue the State in another State's court. You can also sue a State official in their official capacity - that's how most of these cases come up as I'm sure you know.
These may not be great arguments, but minimally there is some rational basis to fall back on because those topics are within the Court's purview of interpreting law and not legislating. If today's opinion was a challenge based on a discriminatory law preventing lgbt people from getting married, as opposed to the lack of the right to get married, I'd say the court has a better argument under 14A as an equal protection issue but not a substantive due process issue.
Thanks for the level headed discussion.
Quote:
In comment 12344569 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12344555 glowrider said:
Quote:
In comment 12344525 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12344509 glowrider said:
Quote:
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
I don't think it would disentangle the concurrent jurisdictions and agencies involved (there's also incentive to keep drugs illegal for many agencies local and federal who line their coffers off of drug arrests) - I think it would just enlarge different agencies and create a bureaucratic nightmare. Government is awful with Health Services. Also how we treat our people.
I am 100% in favor of a reassessment of how we handle drugs and drug offenses. The entire concept of rehabilitation needs to be rehabbed. I just do not think you can scale a program designed to impact a small proportion of a small population across a country 30x larger that is not nearly as liberal as many Western and Northern Euro countries. The percentage of people impacted is not likely to be the same either, so scalability would be unequal to proportion of population. Different philosophies and economic needs. Population age is also a factor. Portugal is a very young (and beautiful) country.
It would be nice, however. I'd be in favor of a workable program but start in e states- the supposed Petri dishes of democracy.
Puff puff pass ;-)
I think we're essentially in agreement that there needs to be fundamental changes made in this area. By the way, the percentage of addicts/users in Portugal was WAY higher than the percentage here.
I absolutely agree, however, that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to try to can one system and institute another. Bureaucracies are harder to kill than rats, and are more prolific!
I rather like the state-level approach. It addresses scalability and provides concrete, assessable results that can be replicated. Good idea!
Cough, cough. Thanks!
We are in agreement. Appreciate the conversation.
Yes I grew up in that era. These last 3 cases the Roberts court decided will fundamentally change America.
Quote:
it will change religious institutions here in America....probably ending the religious exemption and all that comes with that. It does appear The Court has decided that consenting adults who love each other should have access to marriage.
The opinion was very limiting on its force over religious institutions. The only changes you'll see is if the members force the change which would be totally appropriate.
So you think gay rights activists will stop right now? Of course not, they will seek challenges in every institution they feel diminishes their new found rights. That will be "totally appropriate" in their minds. Ultimately the religious exemption will certainly fall victim to that. Even Don Verretta suggested that when arguing this case before the court.
Quote:
In comment 12344431 Bake54 said:
Quote:
it will change religious institutions here in America....probably ending the religious exemption and all that comes with that. It does appear The Court has decided that consenting adults who love each other should have access to marriage.
The opinion was very limiting on its force over religious institutions. The only changes you'll see is if the members force the change which would be totally appropriate.
So you think gay rights activists will stop right now? Of course not, they will seek challenges in every institution they feel diminishes their new found rights. That will be "totally appropriate" in their minds. Ultimately the religious exemption will certainly fall victim to that. Even Don Verretta suggested that when arguing this case before the court.
Activists are entitled to do what they want to do and Religious establishments are free to do what they want to do and are protected in doing so. The opinion is pretty strict on that. But small businesses, on the other hand May be Yelpd to death. Bakeries, photogs, DJs, reception halls...there's no need to accommodate religious beliefs of private citizens if LGBT people are a new suspect class with appropriate legislation behind it.
This decision is certainly the first in a long line of issues on the topic that will need to be resolved down the road. We may actually get a new Amendment out of this.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
Quote:
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
It limits the opinion to State action while allowing religious institutions to continue teaching and preaching as they see fit.
I do agree there very well may be a shit fit, butReligious exemptions are numerous and enshrined by law (no pun intended).
I just hope the Activists take the win gracefully (no pun intended).
Quote:
In comment 12344645 glowrider said:
Quote:
In comment 12344569 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12344555 glowrider said:
Quote:
In comment 12344525 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12344509 glowrider said:
Quote:
Smaller than the many U.S. States are held up as models for a successful program. Be it drugs, guns or sex. And I'm in favor of all of those.
What does population size have to do with an effective drug policy? Surely the dollars spent to unsuccessfully combat it are proportional.
How do you come to that conclusion? The incidental and collateral costs of the U.S. Drug war are exponentially higher than smaller countries and are far more complex due to the interwoven branches of govt. A country like Portugal has ~10.5 million people and their social programs address a much smaller portion of the population and can be administrated much more directly by Federal and local governments. That' allows far more direct intervention and management and better monitoring.
A better corollary would be, perhaps, if a State were to adopt a program and administer it directly. But we have National drug policy and too many people in the system. there wouldn't be adequate oversight and if there were the costs would be astronomical.
But decriminalization would untangle, to a great degree the complexities engendered by the current failed policies. And hell, costs are already astronomical, both in dollars, associated criminal activity, and the impact on lives.
The situations can be analogous. What seems to be the limiting factor in your view is a difference in size. I have to believe that Portugal's approach is scalable.
I don't think it would disentangle the concurrent jurisdictions and agencies involved (there's also incentive to keep drugs illegal for many agencies local and federal who line their coffers off of drug arrests) - I think it would just enlarge different agencies and create a bureaucratic nightmare. Government is awful with Health Services. Also how we treat our people.
I am 100% in favor of a reassessment of how we handle drugs and drug offenses. The entire concept of rehabilitation needs to be rehabbed. I just do not think you can scale a program designed to impact a small proportion of a small population across a country 30x larger that is not nearly as liberal as many Western and Northern Euro countries. The percentage of people impacted is not likely to be the same either, so scalability would be unequal to proportion of population. Different philosophies and economic needs. Population age is also a factor. Portugal is a very young (and beautiful) country.
It would be nice, however. I'd be in favor of a workable program but start in e states- the supposed Petri dishes of democracy.
Puff puff pass ;-)
I think we're essentially in agreement that there needs to be fundamental changes made in this area. By the way, the percentage of addicts/users in Portugal was WAY higher than the percentage here.
I absolutely agree, however, that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to try to can one system and institute another. Bureaucracies are harder to kill than rats, and are more prolific!
I rather like the state-level approach. It addresses scalability and provides concrete, assessable results that can be replicated. Good idea!
Cough, cough. Thanks!
We are in agreement. Appreciate the conversation.
Same here. Nice not to have to deal with the usual guff.
The idea that a majority in a pool of nine can override the majority in a pool of 320 million and can divine as fundamental rights that clearly weren't contemplated as such 230 or even 150 years ago should strike every last one of us as at least problematic. This is essentially legislation by Court, in the absence of legislatures willing to do the same. And gone is the necessity of persuading one's fellow citizens, so long as you can persuade the justices and those whose opinions matter to them.
So there is a lot of logic in this sentiment. Fundamentally the Constitution has to mean something other than which policy is favored most by 5 or more justices. If the Constitution isnt dictating "constitutional" decisions then it isnt a governing law, it is a mirror that lets the viewer see himself in it.
However, the problem with treating the Constitution as a set of fixed governing instructions is that the document plainly isnt set up that way. Analytically, it's nice and tidy to say "If the people who passed Amendment X didnt have a problem with laws prohibiting Y, then the Constitution doesnt have a problem either". Two problems with that. First, any time you try to interpret legislative intent from beyond the statute itself, you run into problems. Do the Federalist papers tell us what the Bill of Rights means? Why? A tiny fraction of the white men of age who voted to ratify the constitution wrote them. So beyond the words of the bill, how do you know what the people passing an amendment agreed on? Does one Congressman's floor speech tell you what Congress understood a bill to mean?
Second, more fundamentally, indeed dispositive to me, is the loosey-goosey language of the relevant amendments. Im a lawyer, and I read a statute that says "the statute of limitations is 3 years for Claim X" and I know I have to bring a claim within 3 years. But I look at the Constitution and there are so many broad and undefined concepts. No person shall be "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". And this doozy (every fucking beautiful word of it):
That's some real content-free gobbledegook right there. These concepts have no fixed definitions. Compare it to the very clear guarantee of say the 3rd Amendment ("No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.") -- you know what you're getting with #3. The intent of the framers was IMO very clear -- no one could agree on an exact list of rights and indeed no one even thought that such a list was a good idea (indeed, the whole point of the 9th amendment is to makes sure that no asshole reads the constitution as an exclusive list of rights, and interestingly and vaguely refers to non-constitutional rights "retained by the people" seemingly apart from those "reserved to the states" in #10). These are aspirational guarantees of rights that each generation would have to help define. And so that's how I think the Constitution works. My guarantee of due process of law, liberty, privileges and immunities, and nameless other rights "retained by the people" are a concept of freedom that is always evolving.
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
Go ask my rabbi if he'll marry a jew and a non-jew. And then stop by the female catholic priest to ask her if she'll do the same.
Quote:
In comment 12344187 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
What is different? The Reconstruction Amendments were specifically designed to combat discrimination against African Americans. They fell into disuse but they remained the law of the land. There were no logical leaps necessary to get there.
At the time those Amendments were passed inter-racial marriage was banned, and the amendments say nothing of a right to inter-racial marriage. And I seriously doubt at the time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 anybody believed that would guarantee a right to interracial marriage - which remained "constitutional" for another 100 years. In addition to the fact that laws banning interracial marriage apply "equally" to all races.
It's only "different" because you view it differently.
As I said I am pleased with the outcome. I have voted for it, advocated for it (to the extent I have time to advocate for anything), etc etc. It is an important and very positive change, IMO, for this country. But had fifty states voted for this change, or had Congress said that a marriage validly consummated in one state is valid in every other state, my happiness in this outcome would be unalloyed.
Quote:
In comment 12344394 Tesla said:
Quote:
In comment 12344187 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
What is different? The Reconstruction Amendments were specifically designed to combat discrimination against African Americans. They fell into disuse but they remained the law of the land. There were no logical leaps necessary to get there.
At the time those Amendments were passed inter-racial marriage was banned, and the amendments say nothing of a right to inter-racial marriage. And I seriously doubt at the time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 anybody believed that would guarantee a right to interracial marriage - which remained "constitutional" for another 100 years. In addition to the fact that laws banning interracial marriage apply "equally" to all races.
It's only "different" because you view it differently.
Anti-miscegenation statutes were largely a result of the race-conscious late-19th and early 20th centuries. Whether the country was socially ready for large-scale interracial marriage in the wake of the Civil War, the legal prohibitions to it largely came later.
It's a fair question. That's the brilliance of John Marshall's power grab in Marbury v. Madison (which I think was correctly decided). If you dont want judges decision that other laws must bow to the Constitution, you shouldnt have drafted the Supremacy Clause. On a more practical level, it's not just the Court that guarantees our rights. Congress guarantees your rights too. Look at the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. As our system has developed, whichever branch guarantees the individual the most rights against the state wins. Not too shabby.
Quote:
Anti-miscegenation statutes were largely a result of the race-conscious late-19th and early 20th centuries. Whether the country was socially ready for large-scale interracial marriage in the wake of the Civil War, the legal prohibitions to it largely came later.
That's just patently false.
Wiki - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12344394 Tesla said:
Quote:
In comment 12344187 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
What is different? The Reconstruction Amendments were specifically designed to combat discrimination against African Americans. They fell into disuse but they remained the law of the land. There were no logical leaps necessary to get there.
At the time those Amendments were passed inter-racial marriage was banned, and the amendments say nothing of a right to inter-racial marriage. And I seriously doubt at the time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 anybody believed that would guarantee a right to interracial marriage - which remained "constitutional" for another 100 years. In addition to the fact that laws banning interracial marriage apply "equally" to all races.
It's only "different" because you view it differently.
The 14th Amendment DOES guarantee the fundamental right to Marriage. Regardless of whether or not it was race neutral when written. As race is a suspect class, the power of the court to overturn laws discriminating against marriage based on that classification is sound. All people are equal, discrimination on the basis of race is unconstitutional, therefore contrary laws are unconstitutional. That's not granting an affirmative right - it's removing an unconstitutional barrier.
Today's ruling does not follow that logic.
The 14th Amendment DOES guarantee the fundamental right to Marriage. Regardless of whether or not it was race neutral when written. As race is a suspect class, the power of the court to overturn laws discriminating against marriage based on that classification is sound. All people are equal, discrimination on the basis of race is unconstitutional, therefore contrary laws are unconstitutional. That's not granting an affirmative right - it's removing an unconstitutional barrier.
Today's ruling does not follow that logic.
The 14h Amendment never mentions marriage, nor race, never uses the words "suspect class." Here is what the relevant section says:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What is so different in the eyes of the 14th Amendment about discriminating against someone because of their race or their sexual orientation?
The logic is the same.
A picture of the rainbow flag saying "This flag is free speech" and a picture of Confederate flag saying "This flag is not?"
Why is Free Speech so difficult to understand. It protects the rights of individuals from government. The Confederate flag can be flown by individuals, on cars, on clothing, etc. as protected by the 1st Amendement. It is the flying of that flag by a government office that is in question. That is a huge fundamental difference.
A picture of the rainbow flag saying "This flag is free speech" and a picture of Confederate flag saying "This flag is not?"
Why is Free Speech so difficult to understand. It protects the rights of individuals from government. The Confederate flag can be flown by individuals, on cars, on clothing, etc. as protected by the 1st Amendement. It is the flying of that flag by a government office that is in question. That is a huge fundamental difference.
Way too much basic logic in your post Matt, sadly many wouldn't get it
Quote:
The 14th Amendment DOES guarantee the fundamental right to Marriage. Regardless of whether or not it was race neutral when written. As race is a suspect class, the power of the court to overturn laws discriminating against marriage based on that classification is sound. All people are equal, discrimination on the basis of race is unconstitutional, therefore contrary laws are unconstitutional. That's not granting an affirmative right - it's removing an unconstitutional barrier.
Today's ruling does not follow that logic.
The 14h Amendment never mentions marriage, nor race, never uses the words "suspect class." Here is what the relevant section says:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What is so different in the eyes of the 14th Amendment about discriminating against someone because of their race or their sexual orientation?
The logic is the same.
No, it's not and I'm not sure you're so familiar with the law if this is your argument.
Fundamental rights are those protected by SDP and EP through the 14th Amendment. The majors are right to travel, vote, marry and use contraception. There are others like first amendment rights incorporated through the 14th amendment.
When those LIBERTY interests are infringed, you must pick a standard by which to base a judgment on, which is related to the classification of the group being discriminated against. Race is one of a few a "suspect" classes and receives the highest protection - strict scrutiny - which is a very high bar to cover.
Sexuality is not a "suspect" class (although after today that might be different) - heck even gender nor age or wealth are - and has a lower burden.
What the court did today was out of bounds.
———
"I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman. People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court." — Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Republican presidential contender.
———
"While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, their ruling is now the law of the land. I call on Congress to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected. The government must never force Christians to violate their religious beliefs." — Dr. Ben Carson, Republican presidential candidate.
———
"As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage."— Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination.
———
"If accepted by Congress and this president, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment." — Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.
———
"So while we celebrate the progress won today, we must stand firm in our conviction to keep moving forward. For too many LGBT Americans who are subjected to discriminatory laws, true equality is still just out of reach."— Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democratic presidential contender.
That looks delicious.
Quote:
In comment 12344867 Tesla said:
Quote:
Anti-miscegenation statutes were largely a result of the race-conscious late-19th and early 20th centuries. Whether the country was socially ready for large-scale interracial marriage in the wake of the Civil War, the legal prohibitions to it largely came later.
That's just patently false.
Quote:
At first, in the 1660s, the first laws in Virginia and Maryland regulating marriage between whites and blacks only pertained to the marriages of whites with black (and mulatto) slaves and indentured servants. In 1664, Maryland enacted a law which criminalized such marriages -- the 1681 marriage of Irish-born Nell Butler to an African slave was an early example of the application of this law. Virginia (1691) was the first English colony in North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry, followed by Maryland in 1692. This was the first time in American history that a law was invented that restricted access to marriage partners solely on the basis of "race", not class or condition of servitude.[9] Later these laws also spread to colonies in the Thirteen Colonies with fewer slaves and free blacks, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Moreover, after the independence of the United States had been established, similar laws were enacted in territories and states which outlawed slavery.
Wiki - ( New Window )
The first anti-miscegenation statute in Virginia was from colonial times, but the law expressly overturned in Loving was drafted in 1924. Many states had such laws, to be sure (or reintroduced them after Reconstruction), but the second attempt to ban them nationwide via Amendment occurred in 1912-1913 and several states who didn't have such statutes passed them contemporaneously (including Mass, which passed a measure preventing non-residents from marrying there if such a marriage would be unlawful in their home states).
I agree it's a good and I'm happy there is equality for most. But that's not the point. I have no bias against LBGT and am happy about the for them.
However, the law is the law and while you may not have studied it, I did. And I certainly won't accept some baseless accusation of a personal bias when this discussion revolves around legal matters and not your opinion.
You can go through the thread and see all of my arguments are about the LEGAL basis for The ruling. If you want to wade into these waters perhaps you should bone up on your con law.
Quote:
but parsing the difference between race and sexuality is pretty weak and suggests to me more of a personal bias than a legal basis. You may feel that the constitution allows for discrimination against one but not the other. I'm not gonna try and argue that one way or the other. But either way that discrimination is no longer allowed and that's a good thing.
I agree it's a good and I'm happy there is equality for most. But that's not the point. I have no bias against LBGT and am happy about the for them.
However, the law is the law and while you may not have studied it, I did. And I certainly won't accept some baseless accusation of a personal bias when this discussion revolves around legal matters and not your opinion.
You can go through the thread and see all of my arguments are about the LEGAL basis for The ruling. If you want to wade into these waters perhaps you should bone up on your con law.
Are you an attorney?
Oh piss off.
And then, there's post-birth abortion.
But since the federal government has now ruled for the first time on Marriage..they in effect have taken that power from the states so the next ruling on Polygamy will go right to federal jurisdiction if and when it happens.
Today was a great day though..very long time
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
But since the federal government has now ruled for the first time on Marriage..they in effect have taken that power from the states so the next ruling on Polygamy will go right to federal jurisdiction if and when it happens.
Today was a great day though..very long time
You literally are the worst poster on BBI. So much stupid that it hurts the eyes whenever you post.
What possible correlation does polygamy and gay marriage have? Aren't you more interested in beastiality?
What link doesn't it have?
Gay marriage legalization is based on the concept that the government can't infringe on people's rights to be happy and their right to define their marriage. So now I might want to define my marriage with 5 other people instead of 1. Who are you to tell me I can't?
this is untrue -- many on this thread have brought up Loving V Virginia 1967 ruling -which was about States not recognizing interracial marriages
It really isn't hard to understand
Marriage at it's heart is a legal contract between two people
"a mutual agreement that the law treats as binding as a consequence of the parties"
By denying same sex couples the right to this contract you are violating the 14th amendment which gives everyone equal protection .
under the law.
In other words if a man and woman can enter into a marriage contract then why can't a same sex couple do the same?
Quote:
Can you imagine churches and synagogues and mosques refusing to perform gay marriages? Refusing to recognize the marriages as being legal? The activists would go completely ballistic. They would demand that they be stripped of favorable tax treatment. The argument would be that "proper" protection does not include the exemption. That small paragraph does not really limit anything.
Go ask my rabbi if he'll marry a jew and a non-jew. And then stop by the female catholic priest to ask her if she'll do the same.
Your rabbi can argue "I'll be perfectly happy to marry practitioners of my faith." The mosque that says "We won't marry two men" can't use that argument if both men say "We are both Muslims, we invoke our right to disagree with the imam on homosexuality, but as Muslims, we demand equal treatment and a marriage in this mosque."
I think Roberts struck the right chord, basically: This decision is a really nice result for a lot of good people who deserve to be happy. It's just a really nice result that was beyond our constitutional authority.
Whether you agree with him or not, his constructionism is a lot more digestible than Scalia's.