Toggle sidebar

News Article: Kentucky Clerk Is Due In Federal Court For Contempt Hearing

Jon said:
I completely agree, except in the areas of fundamental rights. This entire thing falls apart if the States don't have some common ground and as we've already seen different fundamental rights from one state to another simply doesn't work. There are plenty of cases that show this clearly. For instance the gay man who passed away on a trip home to Alabama years ago where his legal husband (wedded in a legal state) was barred from any decision making on funeral and even denied access to his husbands service, all perfectly legally the deceased parents and backed by force of law of the State. Can you imagine being pushed to the side in such a circumstance?
Click to expand...

U.S Constitution, Article IV, Section 1

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Click to expand...

U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Click to expand...

U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 2

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
Click to expand...

It is explicitly unconstitutional for states to violate rights which are considered fundamental.
 
Last edited:
Jon said:
I completely agree, except in the areas of fundamental rights. This entire thing falls apart if the States don't have some common ground and as we've already seen different fundamental rights from one state to another simply doesn't work. There are plenty of cases that show this clearly. For instance the gay man who passed away on a trip home to Alabama years ago where his legal husband (wedded in a legal state) was barred from any decision making on funeral and even denied access to his husbands service, all perfectly legally the deceased parents and backed by force of law of the State. Can you imagine being pushed to the side in such a circumstance?
Click to expand...

Ok but what about state taxes? Texas and Florida donot pay them but alabama does. So is that unconstitutional since state tax is not in the constitution. And is that a fundamental right?

The vagueness of the constitution is the problem. Because either side of any controversial subject practically can win because it can be interpreted a multitude of ways depending on the person
 
81usaf92 said:
Ok but what about state taxes? Texas and Florida donot pay them but alabama does. So is that unconstitutional since state tax is not in the constitution. And is that a fundamental right?

The vagueness of the constitution is the problem. Because either side of any controversial subject practically can win because it can be interpreted a multitude of ways depending on the person
Click to expand...

i don't see taxes or taxation as a fundamental right
 
Jon said:
yes, spelled out clearly in the 2nd amendment
Click to expand...

Should one state be forced to recognize the legal right to carry a gun registered in another state? The relevant case is the Pennsylvania woman who was arrested by the state of New Jersey for carrying a Pennsylvania-registered gun into New Jersey.

Also, would this extend to magazine restrictions as well? If a person has a legally registered gun with a large magazine size, shouldn't that person be able to carry that gun in jurisdictions that have limitations on magazine size?
 
Tide1986 said:
Should one state be forced to recognize the legal right to carry a gun registered in another state? The relevant case is the Pennsylvania woman who was arrested by the state of New Jersey for carrying a Pennsylvania-registered gun into New Jersey.

Also, would this extend to magazine restrictions as well? If a person has a legally registered gun with a large magazine size, shouldn't that person be able to carry that gun in jurisdictions that have limitations on magazine size?
Click to expand...

Yes
 
Jon said:
I completely agree, except in the areas of fundamental rights. This entire thing falls apart if the States don't have some common ground and as we've already seen different fundamental rights from one state to another simply doesn't work. There are plenty of cases that show this clearly. For instance the gay man who passed away on a trip home to Alabama years ago where his legal husband (wedded in a legal state) was barred from any decision making on funeral and even denied access to his husbands service, all perfectly legally the deceased parents and backed by force of law of the State. Can you imagine being pushed to the side in such a circumstance?
Click to expand...

I think accommodations could and should be made for people traveling through a state without affecting the sovereignty of that state. It would be the place of Congress to make such full faith and credit changes not 5 unelected judges. The idea that 5 unelected judges can make law that to benefit one group of people only to trample on existing freedoms clearly laid out in the constitution is ridiculous. I doubt anyone would imagine that the framers envisioned this. Congress had a role, just as the executive and judiciary has their roles. The bottom line is that congress' role is to make and amend the laws.
 
TRUTIDE said:
I think accommodations could and should be made for people traveling through a state without affecting the sovereignty of that state. It would be the place of Congress to make such full faith and credit changes not 5 unelected judges. The idea that 5 unelected judges can make law that to benefit one group of people only to trample on existing freedoms clearly laid out in the constitution is ridiculous. I doubt anyone would imagine that the framers envisioned this. Congress had a role, just as the executive and judiciary has their roles. The bottom line is that congress' role is to make and amend the laws.
Click to expand...

I see absolutely no ones rights being trampled on this issue since the Supreme Courts ruling. In fact the only rights being trampled were those who could not marry. I will say I do find it odd that I can go back to Loving v Virginia and Katenzenbach (sp?) and find people claiming exactly the same thing as you. 5 Unelected Judges can't tell me I have to serve XXXXXXX at my restaurant, 5 unlected judges can't tell me I have accept the races interbreeding......
 
Jon said:
I see absolutely no ones rights being trampled on this issue since the Supreme Courts ruling. In fact the only rights being trampled were those who could not marry. I will say I do find it odd that I can go back to Loving v Virginia and Katenzenbach (sp?) and find people claiming exactly the same thing as you. 5 Unelected Judges can't tell me I have to serve XXXXXXX at my restaurant, 5 unlected judges can't tell me I have accept the races interbreeding......
Click to expand...

yes, but no one on this thread is saying those exact things, so why don't you deal with the issue at hand
 
Jon said:
I see absolutely no ones rights being trampled on this issue since the Supreme Courts ruling. In fact the only rights being trampled were those who could not marry. I will say I do find it odd that I can go back to Loving v Virginia and Katenzenbach (sp?) and find people claiming exactly the same thing as you. 5 Unelected Judges can't tell me I have to serve XXXXXXX at my restaurant, 5 unlected judges can't tell me I have accept the races interbreeding......
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with gays having equal civil union rights, I just don't think action before education in social change is really good. I feel that compromise is a good way to start and have little resistance. Lets just take an example, if the president decided that in an effort to deter radical Islamic terror attacks that Ramadan should be a federal holiday. He also adds since Easter and Christmas are religious holidays recognized by the federal government and that Blacks and Mexicans have their own month then why not Islamic people. Would you be opposed??? Well if you think equality is right then no. So to enforce Ramadan correctly you would have to ban public eating and drinking for citizens. So would you fight that ruling if it was decreed by the Supreme Court justices that in respect for Islam that fast food joints and sit down resteraunts must be shut down during Ramadan, and public consumption of food or drink has fine to it, or would you prefer a rational compromise?
 
81usaf92 said:
I don't disagree with gays having equal civil union rights, I just don't think action before education in social change is really good. I feel that compromise is a good way to start and have little resistance. Lets just take an example, if the president decided that in an effort to deter radical Islamic terror attacks that Ramadan should be a federal holiday. He also adds since Easter and Christmas are religious holidays recognized by the federal government and that Blacks and Mexicans have their own month then why not Islamic people. Would you be opposed??? Well if you think equality is right then no. So to enforce Ramadan correctly you would have to ban public eating and drinking for citizens. So would you fight that ruling if it was decreed by the Supreme Court justices that in respect for Islam that fast food joints and sit down resteraunts must be shut down during Ramadan, and public consumption of food or drink has fine to it, or would you prefer a rational compromise?
Click to expand...

Holidays are not "enforced" so this is an absurd example.
 
81usaf92 said:
I don't disagree with gays having equal civil union rights, I just don't think action before education in social change is really good. I feel that compromise is a good way to start and have little resistance. Lets just take an example, if the president decided that in an effort to deter radical Islamic terror attacks that Ramadan should be a federal holiday. He also adds since Easter and Christmas are religious holidays recognized by the federal government and that Blacks and Mexicans have their own month then why not Islamic people. Would you be opposed??? Well if you think equality is right then no. So to enforce Ramadan correctly you would have to ban public eating and drinking for citizens. So would you fight that ruling if it was decreed by the Supreme Court justices that in respect for Islam that fast food joints and sit down resteraunts must be shut down during Ramadan, and public consumption of food or drink has fine to it, or would you prefer a rational compromise?
Click to expand...

no because that is different, it forces me and you to practice Islamic tradition on Ramadan by not eating during certain hours or shutting down businesses that serve food during those hours (though it does not as I ate at a really good muslim place near me during Ramadan but I'll go with your absurd example anyway) I have no argument with a Islamic history month. Easter is not a federal holiday, christmas is the only "religious" federal holiday that I am aware of. But Christmas does not require anything of me, if I have a business it can be open and I am not forced to change my behavior in any way. I honestly don't even know why you'd ask this. If I have consistently articulated anything in this thread, even without specifically saying it, it's that everyone should be free from others religion. Your bible and your god have no claims on me and I should be free from their rules. I will happily follow the law, man's law. But I have a problem with the Government or a Government official acting outside of US law. Your example shows very clearly though exactly what is wrong with what Kim Davis is doing. In both examples you have the Government or one of it's agents (Davis) trying to impose their religion on others which is exactly and specifically what the first amendment was designed to prevent.

I'll give you a real example that runs close to your absurd one. Growing up I moved often, every 2-3 years. One of the towns I lived in was very heavily Jewish, over 90%. As such we got many of the Jewish holidays off of public school as it made no sense to have 2-3 kids in each classroom while the others were in temple. I had no problem with it. In fact it was pretty great. I'd get a day to goof on Yom Kippur while all my buddies were stuck in a synagogue. If my kids went to this school I'd be cool with this too, as long as the State/County/District whatever didn't require synagogue attendance on this day.
 
35jVSH0.jpg
 
Jon said:
no because that is different, it forces me and you to practice Islamic tradition on Ramadan by not eating during certain hours or shutting down businesses that serve food during those hours (though it does not as I ate at a really good muslim place near me during Ramadan but I'll go with your absurd example anyway) I have no argument with a Islamic history month. Easter is not a federal holiday, christmas is the only "religious" federal holiday that I am aware of. But Christmas does not require anything of me, if I have a business it can be open and I am not forced to change my behavior in any way. I honestly don't even know why you'd ask this. If I have consistently articulated anything in this thread, even without specifically saying it, it's that everyone should be free from others religion. Your bible and your god have no claims on me and I should be free from their rules. I will happily follow the law, man's law. But I have a problem with the Government or a Government official acting outside of US law. Your example shows very clearly though exactly what is wrong with what Kim Davis is doing. In both examples you have the Government or one of it's agents (Davis) trying to impose their religion on others which is exactly and specifically what the first amendment was designed to prevent.

I'll give you a real example that runs close to your absurd one. Growing up I moved often, every 2-3 years. One of the towns I lived in was very heavily Jewish, over 90%. As such we got many of the Jewish holidays off of public school as it made no sense to have 2-3 kids in each classroom while the others were in temple. I had no problem with it. In fact it was pretty great. I'd get a day to goof on Yom Kippur while all my buddies were stuck in a synagogue. If my kids went to this school I'd be cool with this too, as long as the State/County/District whatever didn't require synagogue attendance on this day.
Click to expand...

If my example is so absurd, then US servicemen and women must not be US citizens and donot deserve equal rights because that is exactly what happens on Bagram Air Field in the time of Ramadan. That order is not an Afghani order, not a made up military order, but an order that comes straight from Pennsylvania Ave in Washington DC.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back