Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Prop 8 (relevant? oh yes.)

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Prop 8 (relevant? oh yes.)

    ‎"Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8."

    Mmmm.....
    You don't have to like the gays to like liberty.

    Now, when do we get some of those rulings based on due process and EPC?

  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    It's absolutely relevant to open carry based on the law denying civil rights to some of the population. This was a no-brainer case for me to call. It obviously violates equal protection in the exact way that the Plessy v. Ferguson case violated equal protection. Separate but equal is not equal.

    Can't wait to see the courts ruling on the same scenario soon with guns in place of marriage. Won't be long now.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    I just saw on the news that Arnold and Jerry agreed with the ruling.
    Nothing from Meg yet.
    Last edited by Gundude; 08-04-2010 at 08:26 PM.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  4. #4
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    It's absolutely relevant to open carry based on the law denying civil rights to some of the population. This was a no-brainer case for me to call. It obviously violates equal protection in the exact way that the Plessy v. Ferguson case violated equal protection. Separate but equal is not equal.

    Can't wait to see the courts ruling on the same scenario soon with guns in place of marriage. Won't be long now.
    Now that we have incorporation, it will be interesting to see whether the 9th Circuit evaluates future gun cases based upon an analogy to First Amendment cases such as was the case in the recent 3rd Circuit decision or via analogy to privacy rights.

    It is a good time to be a libertarian!


    John

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by heliopolissolutions View Post
    ‎You don't have to like the gays to like liberty.

    Now, when do we get some of those rulings based on due process and EPC?
    Surely you jest? I don't see a gun owner getting the same respect that the gays have as far as getting it to court this soon.

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    The enactment of the 14th amendment had nothing to do with gays and lesbians. It's context was very appropriate to the assured application of the 2nd amendment to slaves. This is another example of legal malpractice from a liberal judge.

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    The enactment of the 14th amendment had nothing to do with gays and lesbians. It's context was very appropriate to the assured application of the 2nd amendment to slaves. This is another example of legal malpractice from a liberal judge.
    By that logic Plessy v. Ferguson was decided correctly. I'm afraid I must disagree. The fourteenth amendment says nothing about its context. I does say that the laws shall be applied equally. A law saying that only white men were allowed to be married would be unconstitutional under the 14th. A law saying that Chinese people can't testify against whites (a law that existed in CA in the 20th century) would also be unconstitutional under the 14th.

    Can I get a citation for the context of the 14th being related to the 2nd?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204
    Maybe there is a lesson here.

    Maybe we just need to force our issue down everybody's throat - so to speak.

    Gun rights parade? Gun meet and greets on a regular basis? Hey, what about the "gun agenda" or "gun movement"?

    I have met and talked to some gun owners who DONT even know open carry is legal in California. One of them even has two safe full of firearms.

    We always say we gun owners are in the millions. But where are we really?

    0.02

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    By that logic Plessy v. Ferguson was decided correctly. I'm afraid I must disagree. The fourteenth amendment says nothing about its context. I does say that the laws shall be applied equally. A law saying that only white men were allowed to be married would be unconstitutional under the 14th. A law saying that Chinese people can't testify against whites (a law that existed in CA in the 20th century) would also be unconstitutional under the 14th.

    Can I get a citation for the context of the 14th being related to the 2nd?
    The context of the 14th can be used to understand how it is to be applied. See McDonald v. Chicago. SCOTUS used the context of the 14th to apply the 2nd in this case. SCOTUS also used the context of the 2nd to understand the 2nd in DC v. Heller. Context has defining meaning. It is ludicrous to apply the 14th in the Prop 8 case. This is a case of political judicialism.

  10. #10
    Regular Member flagellum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    The context of the 14th can be used to understand how it is to be applied. See McDonald v. Chicago. SCOTUS used the context of the 14th to apply the 2nd in this case. SCOTUS also used the context of the 2nd to understand the 2nd in DC v. Heller. Context has defining meaning. It is ludicrous to apply the 14th in the Prop 8 case. This is a case of political judicialism.
    I am curious to know, in your opinion, what negatives will come of prop 8 being overturned? All I see is an increase in Liberty.
    "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
    -- Charles A. Beard
    XD(m) 9mm

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    The enactment of the 14th amendment had nothing to do with gays and lesbians. It's context was very appropriate to the assured application of the 2nd amendment to slaves. This is another example of legal malpractice from a liberal judge.
    What civil rights law, legislation, act of congress, privilege or immunity or ? should have been used in the decision on this proposition?
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    The context of the 14th can be used to understand how it is to be applied. See McDonald v. Chicago. SCOTUS used the context of the 14th to apply the 2nd in this case. SCOTUS also used the context of the 2nd to understand the 2nd in DC v. Heller. Context has defining meaning. It is ludicrous to apply the 14th in the Prop 8 case. This is a case of political judicialism.
    Huh? You're using two SCOTUS cases specifically about the second amendment to prove that the 14th amendment applies only to guns? What about Brown v. Board of Education? That's about schools but the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment applied heavily in that ruling.

    Or what about Gitlow v. New York, a case which utilized the fourteenth amendment's incorporation clause to apply the right to freedom of speech to the states?

    The citizen portion of the fourteenth amendment is clearly not about guns, take any case related to that portion and it will be about anything but firearms.

    The due process clause applies our right to life, liberty, and property directly against the states (despite the fact that it exists already in the fifth amendment). While it could certainly be argued that our right to life, liberty and property exist thanks to the second amendment, it is used to prevent our government from infringing on any of our rights. Take Roe v. Wade for instance, the third holding directly cites the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.

    Maybe wikipedia is the wrong place to look? I would assume that it would be there if the fourteenth existed to apply the second amendment to freed slaves. I would also imagine that something would have been done about the continued denial of firearms to blacks after the fourteenth amendment was passed. It's kind of a huge failure of an amendment if it failed to have any impact at all until the mid 20th century.
    Last edited by bigtoe416; 08-06-2010 at 01:11 AM.

  13. #13
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    Huh? You're using two SCOTUS cases specifically about the second amendment to prove that the 14th amendment applies only to guns? What about Brown v. Board of Education? That's about schools but the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment applied heavily in that ruling.

    Or what about Gitlow v. New York, a case which utilized the fourteenth amendment's incorporation clause to apply the right to freedom of speech to the states?

    The citizen portion of the fourteenth amendment is clearly not about guns, take any case related to that portion and it will be about anything but firearms.

    The due process clause applies our right to life, liberty, and property directly against the states (despite the fact that it exists already in the fifth amendment). While it could certainly be argued that our right to life, liberty and property exist thanks to the second amendment, it is used to prevent our government from infringing on any of our rights. Take Roe v. Wade for instance, the third holding directly cites the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.

    Maybe wikipedia is the wrong place to look? I would assume that it would be there if the fourteenth existed to apply the second amendment to freed slaves. I would also imagine that something would have been done about the continued denial of firearms to blacks after the fourteenth amendment was passed. It's kind of a huge failure of an amendment if it failed to have any impact at all until the mid 20th century.
    Wikipedia?! Only low life dirty scum accuse others of going to wikipedia without proof! This is obviously too personal of a topic for you to discuss when you have to get insulting!

    When you think you can discuss the issues without the personal attacks, let me know.

  14. #14
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by flagellum View Post
    I am curious to know, in your opinion, what negatives will come of prop 8 being overturned? All I see is an increase in Liberty.
    An increase in liberty would be the government not to involve themselves in the issuances of marriage licenses at all! What I object to is activist judges taking issues out of context to further polical agendas. The ends do not justify the means by which such judges attempt to change society's topography and norms.

  15. #15
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    What civil rights law, legislation, act of congress, privilege or immunity or ? should have been used in the decision on this proposition?
    None. There is no legal justification to overturn this proposition.

  16. #16
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty
    Wikipedia?! Only low life dirty scum accuse others of going to wikipedia without proof! This is obviously too personal of a topic for you to discuss when you have to get insulting!

    When you think you can discuss the issues without the personal attacks, let me know.
    Surely you jest...?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    An increase in liberty would be the government not to involve themselves in the issuances of marriage licenses at all!
    Well we agree on that.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    The enactment of the 14th amendment had nothing to do with gays and lesbians. It's context was very appropriate to the assured application of the 2nd amendment to slaves. This is another example of legal malpractice from a liberal judge.
    Ronald Regean tried to appoint him but he was deemed too conserative. George H Bush appointed him in 1989. I didn't know Republicans appointed liberal judges.
    Last edited by Gundude; 08-06-2010 at 02:17 AM.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542
    I guess we can buy up all the protest signs and artfully change the 'gay' in them to 'gun'.

    Love the glitter on the 'gay rights are human rights' pickets, now all we need is some protesters.

    As the local Pink Pistols chapter leader, I know that there are plenty of lgbt folks who are sticking up for us UOCers.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, Ca.
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    The recent ruling left me confused. I guess this means now that a person in America has the right to marry one or more people (polygamy). In addition, I guess it means an adult can marry a minor.

    Equal rights. Right ?
    Actually in cases with extenuating circumstances a adult can marry and minor, (if i remember right) even worse the legal age in Hawaii used to be 14 (if i remember right)

  20. #20
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    My great great grandmother was married at 12 yrs old.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  21. #21
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638
    I never said the 14th only applies to guns. Read my posts.

    Natural law tells us that a male and a female of the species come together to procreate. It is a natural process that a man and a woman come together. The practice of marriage, as we have come to traditionalize it, has come from this concept of a coming together under a natural process. One man and one woman marriage is deeply rooted in our nation's history. This is "marriage" as our nation has defined it. This was the overwhelmingly held view of the concept of marriage at the time the Constitution was written and when the 14th was written.

    This is not the deeply rooted definition of marriage that the justice used in overturning Prop 8. The justice has to igore our historical practice and redefine marriage in order to get to get his decision to filter through the 14th.

    In Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), SCOTUS decision, the syllabus notes,

    The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable.
    Justice White writes,

    It is obvious to us that neither of these formulations would extend a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy. Proscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots. See generally Survey on the Constitutional Right to Privacy in the Context of Homosexual Activity, 40 U.Miami L.Rev. 521, 525 (1986). Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law, and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults. See Survey, U.Miami L.Rev. supra, at 524, n. 9. Against this background, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious.

    Nor are we inclined to take a more expansive view of our authority to discover new fundamental rights imbedded in the Due Process Clause. The Court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution. That this is so was painfully demonstrated by the face-off between the Executive and the Court in the 1930's, which resulted in the repudiation of much of the substantive gloss that the Court had placed on the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. There should be, therefore, great resistance to expand the substantive reach of those Clauses, particularly if it requires redefining the category of rights deemed to be fundamental. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily takes to itself further authority to govern the country without express constitutional authority. The claimed right pressed on us today falls far short of overcoming this resistance.
    Finally, Prop 8 reiterates the traditionally held, deeply rooted definition of marriage in this country:

    Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
    This proposition does not prohibit any individual from exercising this long held, deeply rooted family institution of marriage.

    I think that some will point to Lawrence v. Texas, but that case involved an issue of privacy, not of a relationship of family. (Besides, this proves my point that SCOTUS is getting more liberal with Kennedy giving the opinion, Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, O'Connor concurring. Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas dissenting.)

    Getting back to guns, I find it interesting that in McDonald v. Chicago, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Sotomeyer dissented. And in D.C. v. Heller, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Souter dissented. Your typical line up of liberal justices.

  22. #22
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post
    In Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)
    Two things:

    1) Bowers was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas
    2) As you noted, both Bowers and Lawrence addressed privacy rights concerning sexual conduct, NOT the fundamental right of marriage (otherwise, this case would not have been needed)

    Finally, I would like to note that over 40% of the children being born today are out of wedlock, 1 out of ever 5 people have been divorced at least once, celebrities and politicians screw everything that moves ... and it is gay couples who WANT to get married that are destroying traditional marriage??? I don't think so.

    Having said that, we need to focus on more gun rights for more people!


    John

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by Administrator View Post
    Finally, I would like to note that over 40% of the children being born today are out of wedlock, 1 out of ever 5 people have been divorced at least once, celebrities and politicians screw everything that moves ... and it is gay couples who WANT to get married that are destroying traditional marriage??? I don't think so.
    John
    It may not be the ultimate destruction, but it certainly degrades the institution for the devout. A parallel could be drawn to the Amish religion, if say a 10% of them sued over prohibitions of cars, televisions, etc, and the supreme court ruled they could not be denied the same access within their settlements that all Americans enjoyed in their communities. So in comes all the modern conveniences, and there goes the whole Amish experience for the other 90% who will be forced to cohabitate in an environment they specifically avoided.
    All of those factors you mentioned are also generally rejected by the majority of traditional family proponents. Children are being born out of wedlock because traditional family values have been belittled, degraded, and dismissed in America. I should also point out the big percentage of unwed mothers are imports ala immigration and border jumping, so that should not be held against American traditional family followers. Soon, your family will be the state, and court rulings will be your father and mother, with the exception of the biological aspect of it. Right now, courts have intruded so heavily into the institution of marriage that it is getting hardly recognizable. It's not forever now, so don't choose carefully or work hard at it; It's not between you and your spouse, it's between you, your spouse, and the California family code.
    Last edited by AyatollahGondola; 08-07-2010 at 05:05 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •