I'm surprised that no one has created a topic on this:

[Kyyla]

And it boggles my mind that you think there is some logical reasoning behind any moral belief. (And presumably, which does not have just another logical argument for the counter belief.)

As you propably know David Hume argued that morals can't be derived from pure logic. I think he was on to something. The point is there are no right or wrong morals, just different ones (I don't intend to debate this with anyone).

 

[Natoma]

I have 1 BILL-ion dollars and I'm going to take over the world with my homosexual wiles, then I'm going to destroy all heterosexuals.

I never said such a thing, or anything remotely close to that. All I did was point out the fact that these pro homosexual rulings are pieces of a larger political puzzle. The precedent they set is important to an egalitarian model and the ideal is a left wing aspiration which is primarily why I oppose the whole idea.

Exactly. We're plotting some evil maniacal scheme to rule the world. Muahahahahahahah! Muahahahahahahah!!! Ahahahahahahah! 1 BILL-ion dollars! Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Rule the world! Ever More! Squaaawwwwwkk!!! (You'd have to have been a duck tales fan to get that one)

 

[Natoma]

The Constitution is merely a guide.

Spoken like a true liberal.

And a damn-proud-to-be-one at that.

American principles are based on freedom and equality, not to mention others. The constitution was written to embody those principles in our laws. Those principles did not suddenly come forth because of the constitution. Amendments to the constitution can most certainly be in violation of the very principles of which the constitution is based.

A constitutional Amendment cannot be unconstitutional!.

I see you are now trying to change the debate. You are now trying to make this sort of "well, an amendment can be 'Unmerican'". Or an Amendment can violate a "principle", etc.

Not at all. If the constitution gets is principles from certain immutable aspects of human treatment itself, and you put an amendment into the constitution that violates those principles (freedom of speech/religion/etc, pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, due process, etc), it is most certainly violating the constitution and the principles that it was created to uphold in our land.

Again, the principles embodied in the constitution are not immutable, as you've stated. They are reflections of the principles that we hold in this society, which are at their very core freedom of speech, religion, etc, and equality, as well as others.

And every day there are circumstances where such freedoms are legally discarded. Can't yell "Fire" in a movie theater. Freedom of religion doesn't give me the "right" to kill people if that's what my religion says I should do, etc.

So people who wish to do this are "denied" certain things.

No. There is a difference between expressing your freedoms to the point where they endanger others. That is where the freedoms boundary comes into play. You are free to do whatever it is you wish to do to yourself. You are free to worship in any way you see fit. But you cannot impinge on other beings to the point where they endanger others or force your religious beliefs (killing others is good, so I must kill my neighbors) upon them.

There's an obvious difference.

 

[Sabastian]

I have 1 BILL-ion dollars and I'm going to take over the world with my homosexual wiles, then I'm going to destroy all heterosexuals.

I never said such a thing, or anything remotely close to that. All I did was point out the fact that these pro homosexual rulings are pieces of a larger political puzzle. The precedent they set is important to an egalitarian model and the ideal is a left wing aspiration which is primarily why I oppose the whole idea.

Exactly. We're plotting some evil maniacal scheme to rule the world. Muahahahahahahah! Muahahahahahahah!!! Ahahahahahahah! 1 BILL-ion dollars! Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Rule the world! Ever More! Squaaawwwwwkk!!! (You'd have to have been a duck tales fan to get that one)

Do you have a clue about what being an egalitarian means? Don't you see that all of your political aspirations are egalitarian in their nature?

 

[Geeforcer]

How can an amendment be unconstitutional? If amendment can not amended the Constitution in a manner that affectively annuls a part of the existing document, then how many Amendments would be worthless right now? For example doesn't the original Constitution call for senators to be elected by the state legislatures? Therefore, would not an amendment that provides for direct election of senators be "unconstitutional", as it contradicts the existing document? How many other amendments are "unconstitutional" by the same token?

Furthermore, if I were to buy into the notion of the unconstitutionality of amendments (thus deeming the Constitution unchangeable, for all intends an purposes), I still find the arguments along the lines of "Proposed amendment Z is unconstitutional because it contradicts existing amendment Y" highly dubious Why would amendment Z be unconstitutional, and not amendment Y? Who makes that determination? If a hypothetical new amendment 47 contradicts a hypothetical amendment 40, why would amendment 47 be unconstitutional, and not 40? Remember, any amendment can be unconstitutional... or does it only apply to amendments we do not like?

There are two fallacies in some of the argument in this thread. First, a ridiculous notion that amendments can be unconstitutional. Again, how many amendments would we have to get rid off right away to Constitution in line with unamended text?

Second fallacy is made within operating under the first one -calling one amendment unconstitutional because it contradicts some other amendment. Again, assuming constitutionality of amendments is not set in stone: You say to me that a new amendment is unconstitutional because it contradicts 15th amendment, and I retort that it's 15th amendment that is in fact unconstitutional because it contradicts the new amendment. Who is to make the determination on who is in fact right?

(Of course, I would then simply call 15th amendment unconstitutional because it contradicts unamanded Constitution. Two-way street.)

 

[Natoma]

The underlying tenet of the constitution is to uphold freedoms and equality. If an amendment is created that violates that foundation, it is indeed unconstitutional. That is all the constitution need adhere to. As I said before, the constitution is a guide to further achieve those ends. This does not make the constitution unchangeable.

And btw, the 15th amendment of the constitution in no way contradicts the unamended constitution as it merely expands the protections and freedoms to further uphold the basic tenets of what the constitution stands upon. Laws were created that made 4 black votes equivalent to 1 white vote. The 15th amendment said no, you can't do that. A vote is a vote, and you can't use race, color, or prior condition of servitude (read: slavery), as an excuse to dilute the value of that vote. No contradiction whatsoever. Also, The constitutional amendment (17) which allows the direct election of senators is in no way unconstitutional. It expands to the people directly the power to elect representatives. You assume that I'm saying any changes to the constitution are inherently unconstitutional, which is most certainly not what I'm espousing.

 

[Geeforcer]

The underlying tenet of the constitution is to uphold freedoms and equality. If an amendment is created that violates that foundation, it is indeed unconstitutional. That is all the constitution need adhere to. As I said before, the constitution is a guide to further achieve those ends. This does not make the constitution unchangeable.

I find this line of reasoning bizarre. Once amendment is ratified, it becomes the part of Constitution. It IS the Constitution. Constitution, by definition, is not unconstitutional. There is no one who can make a determination whether amendment is fit for Constitution or not, save for 2/3 Congress + 2/3 states or 3/4 constitutional convention. Once they amendment is ratified, it is deemed worthy to become a part of Constitution – and does. What you, or anyone else thinks at this point does not matter - it is the law of the land, and no one can say otherwise - save for the very same 2/3 Congress + 2/3 states.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Let's say it together: "shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution"..."shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution"..."shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution". No "if"s or "but" (or at least none relevant to your line of argument).

And btw, the 15th amendment of the constitution in no way contradicts the unamended constitution as it merely expands the protections and freedoms to further uphold the basic tenets of what the constitution stands upon. Laws were created that made 4 black votes equivalent to 1 white vote. The 15th amendment said no, you can't do that. A vote is a vote, and you can't use race, color, or prior condition of servitude (read: slavery), as an excuse to dilute the value of that vote. No contradiction whatsoever. Also, The constitutional amendment (17) which allows the direct election of senators is in no way unconstitutional. It expands to the people directly the power to elect representatives. You assume that I'm saying any changes to the constitution are inherently unconstitutional, which is most certainly not what I'm espousing.

I am sorry, you can't have it both ways. If amendments can in fact be unconstitutional, then pretty much every amendment after 10th is. You don't need to try and deduce what spirit Founding Fathers wrote the document in - you can just read it, black and white.

The aforementioned 17th Amendment is very much unconstitutional, following your logic (lack thereof).

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Clearly, a contradiction - amendment 17 changes the constitution, going against the intentions of its framers. Therefore, it would be unconstitutional - except that that's not how things work. Do you realize that your reasoning for why amendment is 17 constitutional, despite the fact that it clearly alters an important provision of the document while the proposed amendment is not basically adds up to "Natoma likes A XVII, therefore it is constitutional; Natoma doesn't like marriage amendment, therefore it's not constitutional"?

There is no point arguing this any further. If/when such amendment is ratified, you are more then welcome to prove me wrong by traveling to Washington and by the powers apparently vested into you declaring it unconstitutional. Make sure to warn me in advance of such trip – good comedy is hard to come by these days.

 

[Natoma]

Amendment 28: Only white men can vote.

Yea, that doesn't violate the spirit and the underlying principles of the constitution in any way shape or form.

And #17 doesn't go against the principles of the constitution. It expands them. There is a clear difference.

 

[RussSchultz]

Amendment 28: Only white men can vote.

Yea, that doesn't violate the spirit and the underlying principles of the constitution in any way shape or form.

Nobody said it didn't.

It just doesn't make it unconstitutional.

 

[Geeforcer]

Amendment 28: Only white men can vote.

Yea, that doesn't violate the spirit and the underlying principles of the constitution in any way shape or form.

You are confusing morality and legality.

And #17 doesn't go against the principles of the constitution. It expands them. There is a clear difference.

It does AGAINT the CONSTIUTION and by extensions, against the principles of people who wrote it. Again, it all comes down to YOU declaring things constitutional or not based of whether or not YOU like them. As I said, you are more then welcome to try doing that in a real world. See if it works. Tell us how it went.

 

[Natoma]

Fine. Until the day when marriage is constitutionally defined as a legal union between solely one man and one woman, the proposed amendment completely defies the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, as does the current DOMA.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The Constitution is merely a guide.

Spoken like a true liberal.

And a damn-proud-to-be-one at that.

Your poroblem, as with most "damn proud" liberals...is that you are too proud. Don't let the law or constitution get in the way with what you think is right.

Not at all. If the constitution gets is principles from certain immutable aspects of human treatment itself...

The Constitution's principles are put down in black and white.

...and you put an amendment into the constitution that violates those principles (freedom of speech/religion/etc, pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, due process, etc), it is most certainly violating the constitution and the principles that it was created to uphold in our land.

And as we know, there are COUNTLESS examples where such freedoms are forfeited or limited for one reason or another. Yes, I agree that "equality" and "freedom" are seen as the "guiding principles" of the constitution.

This doesn't mean jack-all if a constitutional amendment is ratified that says that all blue-eyed, blond-haired males can't vote. All that means is the for one reason or another (the reason being IRRELEVANT), it was decided that "well, in certain aspects, the benefit to society of not having blue-eyed males vote, outweighs the apparent unequal treatment."

This is very much like your argument supporting "diversity" as a valid reason for discrimination.

I disagree with that particular concept...but if the 28th amendment is passed which states "Diveristy is a valid reason to discriminate", then guess what? That particular discrimination is Constitutional. Despite the fact that it goes directly against the concept of "equality."

No. There is a difference between expressing your freedoms to the point where they endanger others.

Says who?

Who makes such decisions as to "when" or "why" some freedom can be repressed, or some equality not "granted?"

I'll tell you "who". The U.S. and State Governments, through ratification of an Amendment. Why? It doesn't matter why. All that matters is that enough people think it's a "good idea", that it has enough votes to pass.

That is where the freedoms boundary comes into play. You are free to do whatever it is you wish to do to yourself. You are free to worship in any way you see fit. But you cannot impinge on other beings to the point where they endanger others or force your religious beliefs (killing others is good, so I must kill my neighbors) upon them.

And therin lies the rub, doesn't it? Who are YOU to declare what is, and what is not, causing danger or harm to others or to society?

That's the point. YOU don't. When it comes to constitutional amendments...the PEOPLE decide. Not you personally, not the Predsident, not Supreme Court Justices.

But again, this is all beside the point. It doesn't matter WHAT the "reason" is for curtailing or limiting a freedom or "equality". All that matters is that enough people vote for it. That's all it takes for something to be legally constitutional.

[Natoma is] confusing morality and legality.

Yes, another common symptom of liberalism.

Fine.

Yay. He can be taught.

I'd still like to see the response from your "law contacts" on whether or not Supreme Court Justices can strike down a Constitutional Amendment as "unconstitutional."

Until the day when marriage is constitutionally defined as a legal union between solely one man and one woman, the proposed amendment completely defies the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, as does the current DOMA.

That is debatable of course. (Though of course, you couldn't possibly see it that way...) But at least that's a valid opinion to have.

 

[Silent_One]

Natoma wrote:

Fine.

Yay. He can be taught.

WOW!

 

[epicstruggle]

Amendment 28: Only white men can vote.

Yea, that doesn't violate the spirit and the underlying principles of the constitution in any way shape or form.

I actually tipped my chair over when I read that post. The original spirit of the constitution was that only white men could vote. So that amendment would truly be constitutional.

later,

 

[Natoma]

Never let it be said that I won't admit to being mistaken. However, I do take issue at this "time to bash the liberals" tirade that you're on now Joe, just because you "won" an argument. Liberals are so proud that we can't see the law or the constitution getting in the way of what we think is right?

Let me introduce you to Jim Crow, DOMA, Prohibition, anti-gay marriage amendment, Confederate Flag Day, The Communist Witch Hunts of the 50's aka McCarthyism, and the Patriot Act, for starters. All created and largely sponsored by whom? Conservatives. Yea, the constitution and a confusion of morality and legality certainly didn't get in the way of those little ditties.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Never let it be said that I won't admit to being mistaken. However, I do take issue at this "time to bash the liberals" tirade that you're on now Joe, just because you "won" an argument. Liberals are so proud that we can't see the law or the constitution getting in the way of what we think is right?

No, I did not say liberals are so proud. I said: "Your poroblem, as with most "damn proud" liberals...is that you are too proud. "

In other words your problem (not exclusively a liberal problem), is that you are TOO proud.

Let me introduce you to Jim Crow, DOMA....

As if I said there wasn't a problem with other folks, including conservitives, who are "too damn proud" for their own good?

 

[Natoma]

Yea it's so sad that that pride extends to trying to make this country a more free place for its citizens. Conservative pride extends to trying to make this country a more restrictive place for its citizens. If I and other liberals are going to be so proud that we're guilty of making mistakes while trying to make this a more free country, then color me guilty.

p.s.: Your "yes, another common symptom of liberalism" is yet another indictment into your true intent wrt your liberal commentary.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Yea it's so sad that that pride extends to trying to make this country a more free place for its citizens.

Nope, nothing sad about that at all.

What's sad, is believing that you have the right to go either go completely around the law, or go through channels "not in the spirit of the constitution" as you say, to do it.

You respect the constitution...but only those parts you agree with, right? If the marriage constitutional amendment passes, you'll respect the constitution...just not THAT part of it, right?

It is SO much easier to find a handful of activist judges who will twist and make-up constitutionality to fit their own personal agenda, than it is to get the supermajority of congress and states to ratify an amendment that lays down the law in black-and-white.

So, we have some dispute over the "constitutionality" of same-sex marriage? Just like the dispute over "voting rights?" Abortion? Are you worried (as conservatives are), that if you get the "wrong panel" of Supreme Court justices, they'll rule one way and not the other, on the constitutionality at this time? Of course, liberals are worried about this too...which is why we have such an unprecedented hold-up of federal court justices confirmations, with a new appointee being "fillibustered" almost monthly.

Simple solution. You lobby to have an amendment that defines marriage between "any two people" or "any group of people", and the conservatives will lobby for their amendment current one.
As I said, that's a much more difficult thing to achieve (in either direction)...and by design.

I ceratinly respect that approach more than relying on the SupremeCourt to handle issues of such apparently great importance.

 

[Natoma]

The original spirit of the constitution was that only white men could vote. So that amendment would truly be constitutional.

later,

You'll have to show that one to me, because I can't find that assertion anywhere in the constitution.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

p.s.: Your "yes, another common symptom of liberalism" is yet another indictment into your true intent wrt your liberal commentary.

p.p.s. What's my true intent? That I disagree with liberalism in general? And that I think much of it is shallow and rooted in socialism which I also disagree with on a fundamental level? Wow...you really nailed me there Natoma!