Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Laws have never been applied retroactively unless they were stated to be applied retroactively beforehand.
|
well this is totally false. All one needs to do is look up cases that were affected by the Lautenberg amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
But, like I said, good luck with the 14th Amendment challenge. I don't see that going very far, especially with DOMA in the way. And then there's the fact that Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas will almost certainly vote against any such arguments brought forth by gay rights advocates
|
They'd have to be fools if they do, unless they can come up with a very convincing opinion laying out why equal protection doesn't apply in this particular instance....other than the standard 'we disagree' sentence. Doing so would basically render the USSC irrelevant and people and states would tell the feds to finally fuck off.
---------- Post added at 08:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
a con-con?
|
con-con is short for constitutional convention.
---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
And I agree. Too bad for you marriage isn't a right.
|
say what? and you can prove that it isn't? for instance, you can show in any state constitution that it says you can only marry who the state says you can?