On Constitutional Amendments.

You may be overlooking the importance of Marbury v. Madison. The judicial branch is essential to the system of checks-and-balances. There is an elaborate set of rules for statutory interpretation when the plain language of the Constitution or a statute is vague or does not exactly cover some circumstance. I am sure that the framers never dreamed of gay marriage, or interracial marriage, or abortion rights ---- yet these were issues decided under the Constitution by non-elected judges who did the best they could to interpret and apply its meaning to the case at issue. An unanimous decision is rare.

 

No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to respond to this thread. There are a diversity of opinions. Obergefell v Hodges has five opinions on the same issue.

 

They are just waiting for the next election cycle. See you in 2016! Hahahaha!

- - - Updated - - -

But a more important question is which is the best ketchup? Heinz vs Hunts.

 

Marriage and abortion is not listed in the constitution as a power left to the federal government. Although I can understand the SSM decision better than the abortion one. At least the SCOTUS referred to the 14th amendment I believe

 

This is complete idiocy. Both democrats and republicans hate the constitution and individual rights. Only libertarians have any love for the constitution and the freedoms it recognizes. Republican and democrats all want to use the government to take away the rights of the people.

 

I was right with ya up until Hitler. Waste of a decent post.

 

Not sure which group that's referring to but....yep.

 

I know where you are coming from, I'm frustrated with taco trucks.

And I'm tired of waking up in the morning to the smell of refried beans every morning.

How I miss the smell of coffee and cordite in the morning.

 

Too bad for them it's not. I don't see anyone going to church to get a divorce. They go to a legal authority because, well, marriage is a law contract. How this keeps being ignored is beyond me.

 

Ain't this interesting.

You are familiar with the term "incorporation"?

You know when the Second Amendment was incorporated, right?

The federal government has illegally seized power it has not been granted.

Ours is a government of affirmative powers. FedGov has no powers other than what has been granted to it by the People in the Constitution. FedGov specifically has no power to regulate human consumption.

Only in a liberal's pipe dreams.

Right. That's how FedGov grabs power. Money is speech, remember?

Marriage is a privilege, not a right. SCOTUS just confirmed that, have you read the decision?

That's just idiotic. The Tenth preceded the antebellum South by nearly a century. The Tenth has nothing to do with segregation, and shame on you for even suggesting it does.

Blah blah blah. More liberal blather. An historian you're not. You've swallowed the revising and rewriting of history by those who wish to promote a political agenda. It's the lowest, basest, vilest, and most hideous form of politics there is.

There is no legal justification for many of the changes that took place during the Reconstruction. The entire judicial record during that period consists of things like the Slaughterhouse Cases, which subsequent jurisdictions have used as an excuse to grab illegal monopolies for themselves. It's the same as the Supreme Morons' latest ruling on eminent domain, all some dumb schmuck city manager has to do is point to a building and say "blighted", and suddenly it becomes a new shopping center. That is a travesty of the Constitution of the United States - brought to you by liberal historical revisionists.

 

Look at the history of marriage and lawyers......marriage has been around longer which would imply it is a societal push not a religious push. People also used to take a life long commitment more seriously than they do today.

 

`
Conversely, I demand proof you are not a paid shill employed by the FRC.

 

That's insane. Nothing that's in the Constitution can be Unconstitutional.

 

And you know this how?

 

There are those who think and those who parrot what others think. The quoted post is a poor attempt at the latter.
The Constitution says nothing about social security either -- but I bet you won't turn that down.

 

Because of their political stances Einstein. The left is more than willing to wipe their backsides with the Constitution when it comes to gun rights or freedom of speech and government confiscation of private property, and the right is more than willing to do the same over drug laws, illegal wars, and the corrupt legal system.