|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 24, 2011 8:54:10 GMT -5
It didn't make it okay, but no, before the 13th Amendment slaves did not have a civil right to be free. Thankfully we have not just the 13th Amendment but also the 14th, which is the basis of all the equal protection case law we have today.
The Courts don't concern themselves with what's "okay" or what your feelings are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 24, 2011 8:58:48 GMT -5
The moral side of the issue doesn't become irrelevant just because you say it doesn't interest you. You don't get to pick and choose which arguments we're allowed to present based on your own interests.
The point I've been trying to make is that being overly legalistic ultimately defeats the purpose of justice -- y'know, the thing upon which the courts were created to serve in the first place?
Long story short, we're saying that entering into a consensual polygamist marriage should be a civil right, as defined by the Supreme Court, just as freedom from slavery should have been a civil right for blacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 24, 2011 9:05:15 GMT -5
According to the forum rules, I can state which points I do not want to address and the other members must respect this.
I am only arguing that, unlike same-sex marriage, no argument under United States case law can be made that polygamous groups are due marriage rights as a matter of civil rights. That's it.
I'm not interested in discussing if polygamous marriage should be legislated as a matter of public policy, or if the Constitution should be amended so that polygamous marriage is a civil right. If that is what you want to talk about, then there are many other people in this thread who are willing to engage in that conversation with you.
The courts only concern themselves with the law. If you believe that legal courts following only the law rather than people's personal opinions is self-defeating, then your issue isn't with me, but with our federal judiciary. I don't make the rules; I'm just telling everyone what they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 24, 2011 9:06:54 GMT -5
It didn't make it okay, but no, before the 13th Amendment slaves did not have a civil right to be free. Thankfully we have not just the 13th Amendment but also the 14th, which is the basis of all the equal protection case law we have today. The Courts don't concern themselves with what's "okay" or what your feelings are. So... there was a time they didn't have a civil right, and then, they did, right? So you accept it is possible for new civil rights to be introduced when a suficient case can be made for them? |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 24, 2011 9:08:31 GMT -5
Yes of course! The Constitution can be amended to provide for additional civil rights. Or if you believe someone's civil rights are being denied, then you are welcome to make a legal argument using United States case law to back up your assertions.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 24, 2011 9:11:19 GMT -5
Yes of course! The Constitution can be amended to provide for additional civil rights. Or if you believe someone's civil rights are being denied, then you are welcome to make a legal argument using United States case law to back up your assertions. O...kay. So, what are we arguing about then? (at risk of a derail, I'll point out there is a great deal more to US law [and every country's law] than what is merely in the constitution. For example, I don't think the US constitution, or bill of rights, for that mater, mentions marriage at all. Though I'm happy to be corrected) |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 24, 2011 9:14:23 GMT -5
That's... pretty much what I've been saying this entire time. That new amendments can be added, provided one can make a sufficient case for them (which one certainly can in the area of polygamy). Thus, there is room for rational and moral arguments in the legal system.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 24, 2011 9:15:23 GMT -5
I am arguing that polygamous groups are not due the right to marry under the United States Constitution.
When confronted with a law that is accused of being unconstitutional, the courts are determining a "constitutional question." The Constitution, and the case law (the binding interpretation of the scope and nature of the Constitution's powers) ultimately determine if a law is unconstitutional. A law's constitutionality/unconstitutionality cannot be upheld via another law.
The U.S. Constitution does not mention marriage, therefore via the 10th Amendment is a matter for the States to decide. So long as state law regarding marriage does not offend other portions of the U.S. Constitution (esp. the 14th Amendment), it is valid.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 24, 2011 9:18:02 GMT -5
I am arguing that polygamous groups are not due the right to marry under the United States Constitution. Would you say ANYONE is due the right to marry under the US constitution? |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 24, 2011 9:20:52 GMT -5
You cannot use hypothetical amendments to the Constitution in a legal argument.
States are in control of writing their marriage laws. If these laws impair members of a suspect class then they are most likely unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. So for example, a state cannot ban interracial couples from getting married because "race" is a designated suspect class.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 24, 2011 9:22:46 GMT -5
You cannot use hypothetical amendments to the Constitution in a legal argument. Isn't "the constitution needs to be changed to allow a new right", by its very definition, a legal argument based on a hypothetical? |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 24, 2011 9:23:51 GMT -5
"The Constitution needs to be changed" is something to address to Congress and your state legislature. The courts have no role whatsoever in amending the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 24, 2011 9:30:54 GMT -5
You cannot use hypothetical amendments to the Constitution in a legal argument.. I never said you could? What I did say was that citizens would be perfectly within their rights to try to have the constitution amended to allow for polygamous marriage. Basically, the current state of the constitution shouldn't be treated as some kind of unalterable word of god. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 24, 2011 9:36:39 GMT -5
Oh, okay, so then we're perfectly in agreement on that point. I just don't want to discuss whether or not this should be done, as it is a completely different debate.
As the courts cannot amend the constitution, any argument before a court could not take into consideration "well the Constitution could be amended to provide for this." Again, something for the legislature.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 24, 2011 9:39:43 GMT -5
^^ I was referring to public consciousness as a whole, not the courts.
In any case, it seems this is entirely miscommunication.
|
|
