Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
This is so filled with silly contradictions I am not going to waste time going point by point ("true freedom means accepts others beliefs" but not accepting gay marriage?)
But are you really arguing that people should not be allowed to bring their case in front of a federal court to determine the constitutionality of the issue? That going to court to debate a law's constitutionality is "self righteous bullshit?"
|
No, I believe if the voters vote for something unconstitutional it should be challenged.
But I asked on what grounds, what part of the Constitution does this law passed by voters break.... and there was no reply.
I don't see ANYONE on here arguing where it breaks the Constitution. I do however, see people calling voters names, talking about voters ignorance and so on.
In order for something to be "unconstitutional" it has to break a law or laws in the Constitution... no one has yet told me what law or laws it breaks. Thus, until that happens this is nothing more than people crying and wanting their way.
As for "only 52% voted for it"...... ummm how many states did Obama or McCain win by a margin less? How many laws have been passed by the same or lesser margin in Congress.
The big question is if you agreed with this bill and someone started calling the voters names or started stating support for it to be settled in courts even though they have no clue and couldn't tell you what basis they have to fight the law's constitutionality..... what would you say?
So either the voters are always stupid or they aren't which is it? Can't have it both ways. The system we have is a system of faults but it is the best system that has ever existed. Whether the majority agrees with your "views" or not.
---------- Post added at 01:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinn
I must be looking at it from a different angle than you, because I think it doesn't take much of a Constitutional scholar to notice the inherent contradiction between a Constition which says "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" and a state law which denies 1,138 rights to some of its citizens on the basis of their sexuality. Hardly sounds like 'equal protection.'
|
Now, we have a true argument.
What rights does it violate? Don't need to give me all 1,138... tell me 5 rights that it violates, where people are not treated with equal protection.