Investor's Business Daily calls for Pelosi's resignation

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

leave drilling to the states but not same-sex marriage?

One is a civil rights/constitutional concern and one is not. Drilling is an economic activity that is going to take place within a state. It's outside of federal jurisdiction.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

One is a civil rights/constitutional concern and one is not. Drilling is an economic activity that is going to take place within a state. It's outside of federal jurisdiction.

Wait... which one is a constitutional concern?

I don't think the US Constitution even has the word "marriage" in it, or "drilling."

Also, marriage is an economic activity that takes place within a state*, shouldn't they both be viewed the same way?

*unless it happens in DC?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Wait... which one is a constitutional concern?

I don't think the US Constitution even has the word "marriage" in it, or "drilling."

Also, marriage is an economic activity that takes place within a state*, shouldn't they both be viewed the same way?

*unless it happens in DC?

The US supreme court found that seperate but equal clauses are inherantly unequal. You can not choose to give an economic advantage or provide the benefit of something, like marriage, to one group and exclude another group. That is the unconstitutional part. Since the constitution is the supreme law of the land it applies to all states and all persons.

federal jurisdiction is limited in the US. In most cases the states have legal authority. the states all have thier own criminal code, they all have thier own regulations regarding commerce and such. The Fed has control over matters in volving foriegn governments and anything that involves matters that cross state lines. IE if you are a child molester in one state, it's a state matter. if you carry the child across state lines, it's federal.

There is a clause in the constitution called the commerce clause that basically says the fed can only regulate economic activity if there is a significant affect on interstate commerce.

You can not force a state to allow a private company to drill on it's land.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The US supreme court found that seperate but equal clauses are inherantly unequal. You can not choose to give an economic advantage or provide the benefit of something, like marriage, to one group and exclude another group. That is the unconstitutional part. Since the constitution is the supreme law of the land it applies to all states and all persons.

When did the U.S. Supreme Court do this?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but gay marriage is still illegal in all but two states and polygamy isn't legal anywhere in the U.S.
"You can not choose to give an economic advantage or provide the benefit of something, like marriage, to one group and exclude another group."
By that logic, the economic benefit of marriage shouldn't be given by the government (any level) at all. It's going to unfair towards some group.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

When did the U.S. Supreme Court do this?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but gay marriage is still illegal in all but two states and polygamy isn't legal anywhere in the U.S.
"You can not choose to give an economic advantage or provide the benefit of something, like marriage, to one group and exclude another group."
By that logic, the economic benefit of marriage shouldn't be given by the government (any level) at all. It's going to unfair towards some group.

The basic premise that seperate but equal is inherantly unequal was set in one of the most famous US supreme court civil rights cases of all time. Brown vs Board of Ed. back in 1954. In this case, the state was providing a benefit, education, to white students, and the state created a seperate system for blacks. Since the supreme court found that you must provide equal treatment under the law, and that two seperate institutions, one for whites and one for blacks was inherantly unequal, they ruled that the state must integrate the schools. If you decide you are going to provide some economic benefit, you can't deny some people participation soley based on race, religion, creed, etc. I don't see how you can avoid applying this ruling to the state provided insittution of marriage. There are tax benefits and legal rights that are bestowed on a couple when they get married. You can't grant those rights to straight people and then say that because these other people over here are gay that they can't participate.

Brown v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The basic premise that seperate but equal is inherantly unequal was set in one of the most famous US supreme court civil rights cases of all time. Brown vs Board of Ed. back in 1954. In this case, the state was providing a benefit, education, to white students, and the state created a seperate system for blacks. Since the supreme court found that you must provide equal treatment under the law, and that two seperate institutions, one for whites and one for blacks was inherantly unequal, they ruled that the state must integrate the schools. If you decide you are going to provide some economic benefit, you can't deny some people participation soley based on race, religion, creed, etc. I don't see how you can avoid applying this ruling to the state provided insittution of marriage. There are tax benefits and legal rights that are bestowed on a couple when they get married. You can't grant those rights to straight people and then say that because these other people over here are gay that they can't participate.

Brown v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brown v. Board of Education has nothing to do with marriage, but even as an analogy it still isn't apt. There is no similar Plessy "separate but equal" rule for marriages. Homosexuals and (Polygamers?) don't have state sponsored marriage that is poorly funded and clearly not equal.

Also, you completely left out why the Supreme Court decreed that "separate but equal" in is inherently unequal. The courts based their decision not on the Constitution (like they are supposed to) but rather on sociological studies (dishonest ones at that!) Arguing that segregated schools were inherently unequal, since the very act of separating the races in education scarred black students with a sense of inferiority that negatively impacted their ability to learn. *Racist*

Ignoring the fact that giving tax benefits and rights to people simply because they are married is itself discriminatory, the law(s) don't necessarily exclude gay people but instead confines both gay and straight people alike. Both groups have to marry a member of the opposite sex to receive said benefits. Obviously, straight people will be fine with this, but unlike the "separate but equal" rules gay people can get married and receive the exact same benefits as a straight person as long as they marry a member of the opposite sex (they just don't want to). Likewise, two straight men cannot get married just like two gay men cannot. The "separate but equal" argument isn't fitting as the system isn't unequal but rather limiting, limiting people to someone else's definition of marriage.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Brown v. Board of Education has nothing to do with marriage, but even as an analogy it still isn't apt. There is no similar Plessy "separate but equal" rule for marriages. Homosexuals and (Polygamers?) don't have state sponsored marriage that is poorly funded and clearly not equal.

Also, you completely left out why the Supreme Court decreed that "separate but equal" in is inherently unequal. The courts based their decision not on the Constitution (like they are supposed to) but rather on sociological studies (dishonest ones at that!) Arguing that segregated schools were inherently unequal, since the very act of separating the races in education scarred black students with a sense of inferiority that negatively impacted their ability to learn. *Racist*

Ignoring the fact that giving tax benefits and rights to people simply because they are married is itself discriminatory, the law(s) don't necessarily exclude gay people but instead confines both gay and straight people alike. Both groups have to marry a member of the opposite sex to receive said benefits. Obviously, straight people will be fine with this, but unlike the "separate but equal" rules gay people can get married and receive the exact same benefits as a straight person as long as they marry a member of the opposite sex (they just don't want to). Likewise, two straight men cannot get married just like two gay men cannot. The "separate but equal" argument isn't fitting as the system isn't unequal but rather limiting, limiting people to someone else's definition of marriage.

I know that the particular ruling had nothing to do with marriage, but the principle can be applied elsewhere. It sets a precedant. I don't agree with you about the gay men can still get married thing. It's patently ridiculous. It's like saying that a black person can get married but only if they marry a white person.

By the way, thier decision WAS based on the constitution.
Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since this application of the 14th applied to Brown vs Board of Ed, It clearly applies to marriage as an institution within the state.

It's is very clear actually

e Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that voting is a "fundamental right" on the same plane as marriage (Loving v. Virginia), privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)), or interstate travel (Shapiro v. Thompson (1969)). For any abridgment of those rights to be constitutional, the Court has held, the legislation must pass strict scrutiny.[28] Thus, on this account, equal protection jurisprudence may be appropriately applied to voting rights.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I know that the particular ruling had nothing to do with marriage, but the principle can be applied elsewhere. It sets a precedant. I don't agree with you about the gay men can still get married thing. It's patently ridiculous. It's like saying that a black person can get married but only if they marry a white person.

Absolutely Wrong. Now, if marriage was legally defined as between white people and black people (similar to how, states currently define it as between man and woman) then the assessment you made would be correct. But it isn't.

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

By the way, thier decision WAS based on the constitution.
Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since this application of the 14th applied to Brown vs Board of Ed, It clearly applies to marriage as an institution within the state.

Chief Justice, Earl Warren:
To separate [children in grade and high schools] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone…. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

I didn't know that "feelings of inferiority" were a Constitutional issue. They even went further to explain why they overturned the Plessy decision, on the grounds that they previously did not know of the sociological information that "modern authority" has about the effects of segregation. And that the separate but equal requirements put forth in Plessy could not possibly be met in the case of education.

Furthermore, you're entire argument is based on the false premise that the government's interference in the state schools was acceptable. It's a well known fact that the court brazenly defied all precedent in its decision. But even the court said it only applied to educational matters - you're attempt to extend this decision, that was meant exclusively for eduction, to marriage is illogical.

Also (a completely different point), the Fourteenth Amendment is an extremely controversial amendment that was never properly ratified to begin with. You may not want to base you're entire argument off of it.

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It's is very clear actually

Yes, it's clear that marriage in America is a state issue. Just read your quote. (Loving v Virginia) (Griswold v. Connecticut)
The previous marriage decisions were made by state supreme courts, state supreme courts follow the state constitution, and marriage is defined within the state constitutes. Marriage isn't defined in the US Constitution, therefore marriage isn't a federal issue.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Absolutely Wrong. Now, if marriage was legally defined as between white people and black people (similar to how, states currently define it as between man and woman) then the assessment you made would be correct. But it isn't.



Chief Justice, Earl Warren:
To separate [children in grade and high schools] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone…. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

I didn't know that "feelings of inferiority" were a Constitutional issue. They even went further to explain why they overturned Plessy decision on the grounds that they did not know of the of the sociological information that "modern authority" about the effects of segregation. And that the seperate but equal requirements put forth in Plessy could not possibly be met in the case of education.

Furthermore, you're entire argument is based on the false premise that the government's interference in the state schools was acceptable. It's a well known fact that the court brazenly defied all precedent in its decision. But even the court said it only applied to educational matters - you're attempt to extend this decision, that was meant exclusively for eduction, to marriage is illogical.

Also (a completely different point), the Fourteenth Amendment is an extremely controversial amendment that was never properly ratified to begin with. You may not want to base you're entire argument off of it.



Yes, it's clear that marriage in America is a state issue. Just read your quote. (Loving v Virginia) (Griswold v. Connecticut)
The previous marriage decisions were made by state supreme courts, state supreme courts follow the state constitution, and marriage is defined within the state constitutes. Marriage isn't defined in the US Constitution, therefore marriage isn't a federal issue.

Marriage in general is a state issue, yes. However if a state grants the benefits of marriage in a way that does not provide "equal protection under the law" then it becomes federal because the constitution supercedes everything. Since marriage is one of the fundamental rights, and since the constitution applies here, it trumps the states... now if the states want to change, remove or add benefits for people who are married, they can do that. Just so long as they do it for everyone. If they want to stop granting any benefits at all they can do that, just so long as it applies equally to all.

[Dispatcher]

Originally Posted by 7960

I love the retaliatory negative rep

Alright children, if you can't play nice I'm gonna have to send you to your respective rooms.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Marriage in general is a state issue, yes. However if a state grants the benefits of marriage in a way that does not provide "equal protection under the law" then it becomes federal because the constitution supercedes everything. Since marriage is one of the fundamental rights, and since the constitution applies here, it trumps the states... now if the states want to change, remove or add benefits for people who are married, they can do that. Just so long as they do it for everyone. If they want to stop granting any benefits at all they can do that, just so long as it applies equally to all.

You're entire point is moot, as everyone can get married.

Furthermore, the Constitution only supercedes the states if it is within it's authority to do so (in the case of marriage - it clearly isn't).
Now, you could do it legally and correctly by amending the US constitution to include a "right to state sponsored marriage"* bill but currently marriage is well within the states rights.

* Personally, that is the exact opposite of what I want.

[Spideynw]

We should definitely empty the oil reserves, for whatever reason.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

You're entire point is moot, as everyone can get married.

Furthermore, the Constitution only supercedes the states if it is within it's authority to do so (in the case of marriage - it clearly isn't).
Now, you could do it legally and correctly by amending the US constitution to include a "right to state sponsored marriage"* bill but currently marriage is well within the states rights.

* Personally, that is the exact opposite of what I want.

yeah gay poeople can get married, all they have to do is stop being gay!
That would NEVER stand up in court. It's ridiculous. They can only marry who the state says they can? It doesn't work that way. By it's very definition marriage is between two people who choose to be together. If you tell someone that they can't choose the person they want to marry then what are you really doing?
I disagree. The constitution always supercedes whenever it specifically says something. Freedom of speech shall not be abridged. That supercedes all state laws. Equal protection under the law, that supercedes all state law. RIght to bear arms, supercedes all state law. It is the supreme law of the land. Now if the constitution is silent on a particular matter, the states have jurisdiction.
There is no need for an ammendment. The supreme court already recognizes that marriage is a fundamental right. Besides, this isn't REALLY about marriage at it's core. It's about the state granting special rights to one group and denying them to another. If you subcribe to the idea that people are born gay or straight ( as I do ) then you can't justify barring people who, by accident of birth were gay, from benefits that you freely give to all other people. It's no different than providing an education. We don't have a right to education either. Never the less, the states are providing a benefit, and they must do so equally. The same applies to the benefits of marriage.

[Angus_Aboot]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

yeah gay poeople can get married, all they have to do is stop being gay!

Wrong. It was never stated that they have to stop being gay. In fact, women getting gay husbands is fashionable in some areas.

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That would NEVER stand up in court. It's ridiculous. They can only marry who the state says they can? It doesn't work that way. By it's very definition marriage is between two people who choose to be together. If you tell someone that they can't choose the person they want to marry then what are you really doing?

Wrong again. They can marry whomever, they can only get state benefits by marrying within the legal definition.
Also, you're definition of marriage is not the definition of marriage, you're putting a box around what marriage is and isn't, just like the conservatives who say "By it's very definition marriage is between a man and a woman who choose to be together." You're box is just slightly larger.
You conservatives...

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I disagree. The constitution always supercedes whenever it specifically says something. Freedom of speech shall not be abridged. That supercedes all state laws. Equal protection under the law, that supercedes all state law. RIght to bear arms, supercedes all state law. It is the supreme law of the land. Now if the constitution is silent on a particular matter, the states have jurisdiction.

Wrong again, again (and contradictory)
The First Amendment explicitly states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment is a restriction on the power of the federal government, not a grant of power. It prevented the federal government from establishing a national religion, but it did not grant power to that government to interfere in the church-state relations decided upon by the states. The First Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law" pertaining to speech and religion, not that Virginia, Massachusetts, or Georgia, shall make no law. Which explains why states used public funds to support various churches.

Thomas Jefferson wrote Abigail Adams:
While we deny that Congress has a right to control the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the States, and their exclusive right to do so.

"It is the supreme law of the land. Now if the constitution is silent on a particular matter, the states have jurisdiction."

Once again, the constitution is silent on the matter of marriage (like drilling).

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

There is no need for an ammendment. The supreme court already recognizes that marriage is a fundamental right. Besides, this isn't REALLY about marriage at it's core. It's about the state granting special rights to one group and denying them to another. If you subcribe to the idea that people are born gay or straight ( as I do ) then you can't justify barring people who, by accident of birth were gay, from benefits that you freely give to all other people. It's no different than providing an education. We don't have a right to education either. Never the less, the states are providing a benefit, and they must do so equally. The same applies to the benefits of marriage.

Why do you even use the Constitution in you're argument, you don't care what it says? You only care what the Judges say.

You've contradicted yourself:
Previously, you stated that marriage is a "fundamental right," but now "It's no different than providing an education. We don't have a right to education either."
Regardless, you still make no sense. The state sponsored education is still as discriminatory as state sponsored marriage. Schools have age limits. - That's discrimination! By you're logic schools should allow everyone of every age (well, not everyone, just to the point where you think it's fair).

The benefits of marriage still apply equally.
Man+Woman=Benefits. It doesn't state explicitly what sexual orientation they must have. It's just that gay people don't gravitate towards the opposite sex.

[6SpeedTA95]

I think that she should step down or better yet, get voted out of office!

She along with a host of others have NO clue how the economy works and no clue how the oil/gas industry works as they've demonstrated time and again with their ridiculous asserations.

[C4Casey]

In this situation...this subject...drilling is the incorrect position to take. Drilling will make absolutely ZERO difference in the price of anything within the next 50 years. Why drill if there's no real point to it? You don't advise a crackhead to just go grow the cocaine himself when his dealer raises the price on him.

Zero difference? Really? Well, that's one of the more ignorant comments I've read on this post. The price of oil fell 7 bucks when the President simply removed an obstacle to more drilling. If you have more of something, then it's price will go down. If we have more oil, it's price will go down. True, drilling now will not have an immediate impact on supply, but the price is going up because people fear that the future supply of oil will be inadequate to suite our future needs. So if future supply goes up, then the current price of oil will go down. At the very least, it will stop oil prices from rising.