Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Yakk · 11-15-2005, 11:14 AM

I was under the impression that the Attourny General of Texas was a partisan, elected, political office? The opinions of a political figure on a matter of politics should be assumed to be political opinions, not expert opinions.

Note that the constitutional amendment, as written, does not ban marriage -- it simply prevents the state of Texas from recognizing the state of marriage. Removing marriage from the domain of the state is one way of protecting it. This is not inconsistent with the legislative history.

Not taking the word of the constitution as their guild would be legistlating from the bench. It isn't the job of the judges to say "they didn't mean to write what they wrote, because that would be stupid. We'll pretend they wrote something that makes sense".

Are you proposing that if a constituation amendment that stated
"Blue is Blue."
if it contained a legislative history that indicated that the purpose of the amendment was to ban any party other than the democratic party from holding office, that the judges of the state should ignore the text and follow the nebulous "legislative intent"?

The intent of a law should not trump the text of a law.

If the amendment was ambiguous, then the judge should examine legislative intent to determine what is going on, and where the boundries are.

In what way does marriage differ from marriage? Where is the ambiguity that the judge should clear up? Should the judge simply rewrite the law as idiotic and make up new legislation, and pretend that the state passed that amendment instead of the one they did pass?

Marriage is quite clearly identical to marriage. As such, Texas may not recognize marriage, or Texas may cease to pretent to be a constitutional republic.

11-15-2005, 11:14 AM	#44 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	I was under the impression that the Attourny General of Texas was a partisan, elected, political office? The opinions of a political figure on a matter of politics should be assumed to be political opinions, not expert opinions. Note that the constitutional amendment, as written, does not ban marriage -- it simply prevents the state of Texas from recognizing the state of marriage. Removing marriage from the domain of the state is one way of protecting it. This is not inconsistent with the legislative history. Not taking the word of the constitution as their guild would be legistlating from the bench. It isn't the job of the judges to say "they didn't mean to write what they wrote, because that would be stupid. We'll pretend they wrote something that makes sense". Are you proposing that if a constituation amendment that stated "Blue is Blue." if it contained a legislative history that indicated that the purpose of the amendment was to ban any party other than the democratic party from holding office, that the judges of the state should ignore the text and follow the nebulous "legislative intent"? The intent of a law should not trump the text of a law. If the amendment was ambiguous, then the judge should examine legislative intent to determine what is going on, and where the boundries are. In what way does marriage differ from marriage? Where is the ambiguity that the judge should clear up? Should the judge simply rewrite the law as idiotic and make up new legislation, and pretend that the state passed that amendment instead of the one they did pass? Marriage is quite clearly identical to marriage. As such, Texas may not recognize marriage, or Texas may cease to pretent to be a constitutional republic. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.