Do you have a copy of the constitution infront of you? Let's quote the constitution:
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The federal government is always superior, case closed. That includes the supreme court. So just shut up and stop trying to fight a loosing battle. Ya know, I'm not gonna call you anything, cause I'm not going to stoop to your level. And that would be a pretty low level... Unlike you, I respect other people.
quote:...the constitution gives the federal government the power to do whatever it deems "necessary and proper" for good of the nation.
You're so effing ignorant, icm. This statement does not - and should not - even dignify a response, it's so off-base.
Read the document this forum is about before you go spouting off and making yourself look like an even bigger idiot.
quote:Federal law and policy is also made dominant by the constitution and superior to state laws and policies.
Do you not know what the Bill of Rights are, dumb@$$? Do you not have a copy of the Constitution anywhere? Obviously not, because the 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Supreme Court is filled with a bunch of moderates, picked by mostly moderate Republicans. If anything, moderates are worse than the Paul Wellstone ultra-socialists, because they're so wishy-washy.
The Constitution STILL means something to me, dammit. The Revolution was fought over less than what this country right now is experiencing.
The Politically Correct, Anti-Morals Gay Rights Community got a huge win at the expense of the document MY heroes fought so hard to obtain.
To read all of these posts - minus marine - is sickening.
I'm going to quote every single one of them, too. We'll see just how smart you guys really look.
State's rights are not a thing of the past. Yes, the Civil War, was fought over 100 years ago, but the fact that 100 years after the nation was founded there was a war fought over state's rights means something. Obviously a lot of people didn't think that it was necessary for states only to have rights at the very beginning. Saying that states don't need rights is like saying that a teacher should be able to make every single decision and the students should have absolutly no right ever. The President's have appointed the Justices so therefore Americans haven't voted them in. But Americans did vote in the people elected to place the Justices on the bench so we really have no right to complain. We'll just have to wait until one of them dies or vote in another President that would put someone you favor more on the bench. But don't take away state's rights. The Constitution was worded the way it was so there will never be one central government that takes over every aspect of power in this country. That's why there are state governments.
State rights are rather silly and old fashioned, aren't they? I'm not a huge fan of the current Supreme Court, seeing as though they have a Republican majority and have completely raped democracy in this country, but state rights aren't nearly as important as they were in a new country made up of different colonies that did not always have all too much communication with each other. That is definatly not the case today. While different states should be able to have different laws, they shouldn't be able to have laws that violate the constitution.
Hmmm....our government is being run by Christians, many of them rather conversative, sometimes bordering on the fanatical. The Texan government even more so. HMMMMMMMM! I WONDER IF ITS ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL? I WONDER! I WONDER!!!!!!!!!!!
quote: Those who say they're for "equal rights" and protections and who support the Supreme Court being "Above" states' rights is a slap in the face of Madison, Jefferson, Franklin and all of America.
Madison wasn't completely states rights. He was on the edge. And honestly, if I had to side with anyone in the debate over states and fed control I'd pick Madison...there are good sides to both arguments. I'd be right down the middle. Anyway, back to this topic. I think it is good the law was overturned. Again, people should be allowed to live their own lifestlyes their own ways...and our government should protect that. Our country was founded on the beliefs of "life, liberty, and happiness" for everyone. No matter how much it has deviated from those beliefs, we should still try and uphold them.
Someone please explain to me HOW two men practicing sodomy would get them into trouble. How can states have laws against men practicing sodomy? That's so ****ing discriminatory, I don't even know what to say. That is one of the most anti-homosexual things I have heard in a long time.
States rights?! Oh no! I cry for you - not. This is just our constitution at work, and if you don't like the results, then take your complaining and shove up your ***. For those of you who don't know, the constitution gives the federal government the power to do whatever it deems "necessary and proper" for good of the nation. Federal law and policy is also made dominant by the constitution and superior to state laws and policies. So, get over it. I'm glad the Supreme Court decided it was wrong for states to have what amounts to the sex police. The idea that you could arrest someone for having sex is just disgusting and barbaric.
Please not the states rights argument, I thought this issue had been settled after the Union won the civil war, not to mention several Supreme Court Cases. The sodomy law in Texas is complete slap to the Constitution because it singles out one group, Homosexuals. If you look at the Texas law it says that two people of the same sex may not engage in sodomy, hmm can you say singling out a particular group. Let’s face it the people who are crying "states rights" are using this as an excuse for their on particular distaste of homosexuals.
The 10th Amendment obviously means nothing to any of you. You all have been conditioned to shut out the Constitution and what its intention was, and what rights belong to whom.
The laws of England are set on precedent - THIS IS NOT ENGLAND.
We BEAT the Redcoats in a bloody Revolution because we did not agree with their rule of law, or the methods they used to establish it.
The Constitution means nothing to anybody. Those who say they're for "equal rights" and protections and who support the Supreme Court being "Above" states' rights is a slap in the face of Madison, Jefferson, Franklin and all of America.
The Roman Empire fell because of internal corruption, immorality, and stuff like what is going on here...
ditto caramelapple. the constitution holds that the federal courts have the power that "shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,"
as caramelapple pointed out, the scope of judicial power was already set some 200 years ago. i fail to see how this is an "awful day" for states' rights; the limitation of those states' rights have been established long ago.
now, if you want to argue that the constitution does not strictly allow for interference between a state and its citizens you may have something. but, again, precedent for equal protection of civil rights by the federal government has long ago been established.
quote: This is an awful day for state rights and the constitution.
Why? I feel the Supreme Court has the right to declare state laws unconstitutional. This began with Marbury v Madison in 1803. I am also strongly against the Texas law. Today is a wonderful day for gay rights and the constitution.
Topics 
