ACLU Asks Court To Strike Down Arkansas Parenting Ban

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
the Constitution does not cover marriage and adoption, therefore the Constitution says the States can do what they wish.

So you think the States could prohibit interracial couples from getting married or adoption children? You said that the states can "do what they wish" when dealing with marriage and adoption, but you are wrong. The States cannot violate the Consitution when dealing with ANYTHING. There is no circumstance where the States can violate the Constitutional principles of due process, equal protection under the law, or anything else in the Constitution. You are wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court says you are wrong. What says you are right? Some pro-slavery Civil War propoganda? Please let us know.

guest wrote:

<quoted text>
So you think the States could prohibit interracial couples from getting married or adoption children? You said that the states can "do what they wish" when dealing with marriage and adoption, but you are wrong. The States cannot violate the Consitution when dealing with ANYTHING. There is no circumstance where the States can violate the Constitutional principles of due process, equal protection under the law, or anything else in the Constitution. You are wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court says you are wrong. What says you are right? Some pro-slavery Civil War propoganda? Please let us know.

SHOULD the states bar interracial marriages? NO, can they (Constitutionally)? Yes, Adoption the same thing. In defining marriage the way the people want there is no violation of the Constitution, so your point is moot.

The supreme court has often ignored the Constitution, whats why we have a govenment penion plan, and other nanny state give-a-ways.

By the way there is no comparision of homosexaulity and slavery, so quit riding the coat tail of the Civil Rights Movement.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
SHOULD the states bar interracial marriages? NO, can they (Constitutionally)? Yes, Adoption the same thing. In defining marriage the way the people want there is no violation of the Constitution, so your point is moot.
The supreme court has often ignored the Constitution, whats why we have a govenment penion plan, and other nanny state give-a-ways.
By the way there is no comparision of homosexaulity and slavery, so quit riding the coat tail of the Civil Rights Movement.

Again, the U.S. Supreme Court says that you are wrong. There is no moot point in saying that interracial marriage bans are Unconstitutional. The States cannot violate the Constitution when dealing with anything. Again, what says that you are right? Please cite something. Some Civil War propoganda? Anything? And I never compared homosexuality and slavery, but if you want to talk about the States being able to do ANYTHING when dealing with marriage, then interracial marriage bans are completely and totally relevant Constitutionally. It proves you wrong. I guess in your opinion it would be Constitutional for the States to torture or execute married couples who separate? Or perhaps the State could Constitutionally force married couples who separate to participate in same-sex activities with persons of their choosing. After all, the States can do ANYTHING, without regard to the Constitution, when dealing with marriage, right? No.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
SHOULD the states bar interracial marriages? NO, can they (Constitutionally)? Yes, Adoption the same thing. In defining marriage the way the people want there is no violation of the Constitution, so your point is moot.
The supreme court has often ignored the Constitution, whats why we have a govenment penion plan, and other nanny state give-a-ways.
By the way there is no comparision of homosexaulity and slavery, so quit riding the coat tail of the Civil Rights Movement.

No chief, they can't. That was the holding of Loving v. Virginia.

You know little to nothing about constitutional law. Just because you are too stupid to understand the law doesn't make a court decision wrong.

That you do not understand this as a civil rights issue is disturbing, but hardly surprising.

guest wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, the U.S. Supreme Court says that you are wrong. There is no moot point in saying that interracial marriage bans are Unconstitutional. The States cannot violate the Constitution when dealing with anything. Again, what says that you are right? Please cite something. Some Civil War propoganda? Anything? And I never compared homosexuality and slavery, but if you want to talk about the States being able to do ANYTHING when dealing with marriage, then interracial marriage bans are completely and totally relevant Constitutionally. It proves you wrong. I guess in your opinion it would be Constitutional for the States to torture or execute married couples who separate? Or perhaps the State could Constitutionally force married couples who separate to participate in same-sex activities with persons of their choosing. After all, the States can do ANYTHING, without regard to the Constitution, when dealing with marriage, right? No.

Well I am relying on the Constitution not a bunch of political appointees.

Strel wrote:

<quoted text>
No chief, they can't. That was the holding of Loving v. Virginia.
You know little to nothing about constitutional law. Just because you are too stupid to understand the law doesn't make a court decision wrong.
That you do not understand this as a civil rights issue is disturbing, but hardly surprising.

The Constitution says otherwhise.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
The Constitution says otherwhise.

Only if you ignore the 14th Amendment. Of course, its inclusion pretty much eviscerates your claim.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
Well I am relying on the Constitution not a bunch of political appointees.

You are relying on nonsensical arguments that are not only directly contradicted by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, but also by the political appointees in the Federal Judiciary. The only ones who believe this tripe are the wingnut fringe -- where you clearly spend your time.

Strel wrote:

<quoted text>
No chief, they can't. That was the holding of Loving v. Virginia.
You know little to nothing about constitutional law. Just because you are too stupid to understand the law doesn't make a court decision wrong.
That you do not understand this as a civil rights issue is disturbing, but hardly surprising.

He sounds like a graduate of the Bryan Fischer School of Law.

Fischer read the 1st Amendment and all by himself he determined that since the first word is "Congress" it applies to and restricts ONLY the US Congress; not a governor, school board, state legislature, mayor - no one other than the US Congress.

http://youtu.be/Jka-mqPSduM...

Chief, like Fischer, either fails to realize or refuses to accept that our legal system is not limited to just the written Constitution and it's 27 amendments. They choose to ignore 200+ years of court rulings based on the Constitution.

Wow! I am appalled at some of the comments on here. This isn't about a gay or lesbian issue or even a liberal issue. This is about children who have no homes and float through the system all of their lives. Do any of you know how many kids there are in the system? Do any of you know how many of them end up going from home to home their entire lives? I can't tell you how many drug addicts and convicts I've met in my life that went from home to home their whole lives. These kids rarely grow up with love in their homes. These kids don't care about gay, straight, liberal, or conservative. These kids just want homes. We're not even talking about little kids here. The people who happen to be gay or lesbian aren't even asking for young ones. They are so willing to be parents that they are willing to take in the most troubled kids with the worst behavioral problems. I don't know about you mister DILLIGAF, but those kids are not easy to take care of. Those kids have been abused so badly that they are on the brink of killing people. Would you be willing to take care of one of those kids? Would you be willing to show that kid that he or she is loved by someone? So liberal or conservative, gay or straight... These kids are screaming out to be loved by anyone. How dare any man on this planet deny a kid any kind of opportunity just based on the way a person loves or who they love. That isn't liberal or conservative. That is just fundamental rights for kids who didn't choose to be without parents.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
The Constitution says otherwhise.

Show me where.
Also understand that the very same Constitution empowers the judicial branch to interpret it, as part of our wonderful system of checks and balances, to protect everyone's rights, not just those of the majority (of which you are no longer a member, by the way, on issues like this).
You do not grasp the law, at all, not even a tiny little bit. You should probably leave these issues to those of us who actually are educated in the law.

Get a Life 2 wrote:

Chief, like Fischer, either fails to realize or refuses to accept that our legal system is not limited to just the written Constitution and it's 27 amendments. They choose to ignore 200+ years of court rulings based on the Constitution.

That's waaaaaaaaay too complicated for them. They think stare decisis is what happens when you open the refrigerator and stare until you decide what you want to eat.

He's an idiot.

Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Only if you ignore the 14th Amendment. Of course, its inclusion pretty much eviscerates your claim.

are you saying that the 14th repealed the 10th without saying so??

Strel wrote:

<quoted text>
Show me where.
Also understand that the very same Constitution empowers the judicial branch to interpret it, as part of our wonderful system of checks and balances, to protect everyone's rights, not just those of the majority (of which you are no longer a member, by the way, on issues like this).
You do not grasp the law, at all, not even a tiny little bit. You should probably leave these issues to those of us who actually are educated in the law.

Sorry there is no interpertive powers granted to the Court, there are only powers to review cases as they apply to the Constitution, not bend the constitution to the cases.

Get a Life 2 wrote:

Chief, like Fischer, either fails to realize or refuses to accept that our legal system is not limited to just the written Constitution and it's 27 amendments. They choose to ignore 200+ years of court rulings based on the Constitution.

previous court rulings can and are routinely considered in decideng cases however the Constitution is the Governing and Final document, no other legal system is "supposed" to be considered no foreign courts or document, ONLY the Constitution.

Actually Fischer was correct, not only because thats the Way the Constitution was written but that is the way it was sold to the States.

Max wrote:

<quoted text>
You are relying on nonsensical arguments that are not only directly contradicted by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, but also by the political appointees in the Federal Judiciary. The only ones who believe this tripe are the wingnut fringe -- where you clearly spend your time.

But ABSOLUTLY suppoerted by the 10th Amendment.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
But ABSOLUTLY suppoerted by the 10th Amendment.

And absolutely violates the 14th Amendment -- so it really doesn't matter. The States might be able to tell people where to sit on the bus under the 10th, but since it violates the 14th, they can't do it. Simple, and since your whole idea is premised on ignoring part of the Constitution, it fails miserably.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
are you saying that the 14th repealed the 10th without saying so??

Read the 10th again, it only applies when something is not prohibited by the Constitution, the 14th amendment prohibits the states from unequal treatment. You remember a little thing called the Civil War right? You can't ignore the parts of history you don't like -- you lost, get over it.

chief22 wrote:

<quoted text>
are you saying that the 14th repealed the 10th without saying so??

Why would you think that, they are not even in conflict.