What If Prop 8 Is Ruled Unconstitutional By The Supreme Court? How Do We As Lds Reconcile Some Of The Implications That Would Result?

[Darren10]

By that same logic, the fact that Darren is charged with littering means he necessarily did it. No trial necessary. No right against self-incrimination. No right to counsel. No presumption of innocence.

When considering the background of why Prop 8 would be going ot the Supreme Court, than you can understand what I meant by my statement. I've laid the full argument out previously on this thread and it's basically along the lines of the people of California passing an amendment totheir state constitution. Said amendment was overulled by a one federal judge. The federal government violated the 10th Amendment by overuling Prop 8 in the first place. This is why Prop 8 goes to the supremes. There altreay wa a trial of Prop 8 in Judge Walker's court.

My arguments goes beyond accusation and straight to an understanding of the Bill of Rights and the federalistic role of the federal governments with the state governments.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Darren10

[Cobalt-70]

The true voice of the people lays in the states, NOT the federal government. empowering one central national government to protect people's inherently runs contrary to the very idea of protecting such rights. Your true voice lays with local governments, not the federal government. The only legitimate constitutional legality on the federal level with Prop 8 would be if out of state homosexual couples move to California. The Constitution guarantees that states honor all contracts from other states. ALso, anything crossing state borders automatically comes under federal jurisdiction via the Constitution. But no such thing happened when Prop 8 was taken to Judge Walker. Judge walker ruled that the people of California used archaic arguments to support Prop 8 and that the state constitutional amendment would violate due process which is hogwash. Furthermore, Judge Walker had a personal Interest in striking down Prop 8 and thus should have recused himself frm the case.

That is an oversimplification. The pre-Civil War constitution (even before the 14th Amendment) provided the federal government with certain very broad powers, including most notably the Commerce Clause. It was a split government, where the federal government had jurisdiction over a specific but broadly-defined list of matters affecting the national welfare, such as commerce, money, defense, etc. Everything else was for the states. The 14th Amendment changed that substantially, by making the Bill of Rights binding on the states, and giving Congress power to enforce that new state responsibility. A state, or state voters, were no longer free to violate constitutional principles of due process and equal protection under American judicial traditions, or as defined in the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights were passed as a guarantee that the *federal* government will not violate certain rights such as establishing a state religion. But for decades after the ratification of the Constitution states still had their own official religion. Not a single founding father denounced this act as unconstitutional so why should we? If neither the founding fathers saw the supremacy clause meaning to trump state sovereignty, than why should we? Instead, the founding opposed foolish legislation within their respective states (such as opposing states in establishing their own official religion). That's *precisely* how we should fight bad legislation from the states. Empowering the federal government to "protect us" also empowers them, to oppress us.

Because the broad Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment made the 1st Amendment (and other traditional principles of fair jurisprudence) applicable to the states. Also, there is a good argument that the Privileges and Immunity Clause of the 14th Amendment even more explicitly incorporated the Bill of Rights, and thus made them applicable to the states. This was the basis by which the Supreme Court recently held that the states are bound by the 2nd Amendment, and therefore could not completely restrict gun ownership.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

On the federal level, you are absolutely correct. The US Constitution, however, was NEVER established to dictate to a state what laws it may pass unless it conflicts with powers explicitly given to the federal government. That's why, for example, states may not coin its own money.

But by the 14th Amendment, Congress and the federal courts were specifically given power to enforce infringements of due process and equal protection by the states, and to preserve the privileges and immunities of state residents.

[Darren10]

That is an oversimplification. The pre-Civil War constitution (even before the 14th Amendment) provided the federal government with certain very broad powers, including most notably the Commerce Clause.

No, sir. The Commerce Clause is a power given explicitly tothe federal government but it was NOT viewed as broad powers until the turn of the 20th century when the Supreme Court began to expand the powers of the commerce clause to allow the federal government to regulate crops even though they were seeded cared for, and cultivated enttirely within a state (and therefore under state control, not federal control). This ruling affectively opened the door for thefederal government to regulate matters which have until that point been viewed as done by the states. If the states want ot regulate crops ro anything else within their state, they may do so. But the federal government has no businness regulating crops or pretty much anything else which are confined within a state's borders. So "pre-Civil-War" powers of the federal government were not "broad". Itwas post-Civil War when the powers ofthe federal government began to expand, especially after, let's say, a certain political ideology significantly expanded the role ofthe federal government into state affairs. This same deology disdained the Constitution and its principles of limiting the federal government in American lives.

It was a split government, where the federal government had jurisdiction over a specific but broadly-defined list of matters affecting the national welfare, such as commerce, money, defense, etc. Everything else was for the states.

This "split" is called federalism. In federalism the federal government may NOT excercise authority over state governments unless it is in regards to powers given explicitly to the national government. Court rulings over the last several decades have drastically changed the nature of the national government.

The 14th Amendment changed that substantially, by making the Bill of Rights binding on the states, and giving Congress power to enforce that new state responsibility. A state, or state voters, were no longer free to violate constitutional principles of due process and equal protection under American judicial traditions, or as defined in the Bill of Rights.

No, sir. The 14th amendment did not do that. The courts in only the past several decades (as I cited in wiki, after 100 years from the passing of the 14th Amendment) which *the courts* have used the 14th Amendment to expand the role of the federal government. Thier rulings bypassed the legislature as ans thwarted the traditional view of the role of the federal government. The court rulings saturated distinctions from citizens and immigrants, gave "rights" to welfare (the power of the purse is explicitly given to the legislative and executive branches of government via the Constitution; with no powers to the courts), and opened up the power of the national government to trump the sovereignty of state governments. In the end, We the People will lose from this view of government.

Because the broad Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment made the 1st Amendment (and other traditional principles of fair jurisprudence) applicable to the states. Also, there is a good argument that the Privileges and Immunity Clause of the 14th Amendment even more explicitly incorporated the Bill of Rights, and thus made them applicable to the states.

As I pointed out before, the 14th amendment originally applied to the federal government though over time it has expanded tothe state governments. It's only a moniroty part of our nation's history where the federal governent is viewed as supreme over the states in *all* matters of governing.

This was the basis by which the Supreme Court recently held that the states are bound by the 2nd Amendment, and therefore could not completely restrict gun ownership.

Even here, states like Illinois which had very strict gun laws, still have very strict gun laws, despite the Supreme Court ruling. Big government folks will always keep their big government when they are given it. They don't care what the courts say. It is always much easier to not give government power in the first place than to give it and then get back your freedoms afterwards.

[Darren10]

But by the 14th Amendment, Congress and the federal courts were specifically given power to enforce infringements of due process and equal protection by the states, and to preserve the privileges and immunities of state residents.

See my #129.

[Damien the Leper]

You've got your head in the sand, Valentinus.

Churches have always had plenty of influence on state and federal issues, and that most certainly does not exceed their purpose. Being anti-religious in such cases merely leads to the establishment of a religion of secularism or even of hostility to religion. We saw just how far such intolerance can go in Nazi Germany.

I didn't say they did not have influence. I'm saying that they should not. There is nothing wrong with secularism and humanism. Your reference to the anti-semitism of Nazi Germany is unfounded. I'm not suggesting oppression toward religions. I'm suggesting a "live and let live" option. Religion keeps its nose out of politics and politics keeps its nose out of religion. The only reason the law or politics should get involved is if there is life, liberty and happiness violations taking place. An example is the the FLDS situation. It is right to ban polygamy and bigamy in this sense because it is statuatory rape in many cases. The government isn't in place to uphold any religions systematic theology, bias, opinions, etc. The government leaves religion to practice lawfully.

[thesometimesaint]

Darren10:

Sometimessaint #103;

From your link (all bold mine):

RE: Charles Pinkley:

I emphatically agree. I also disagree with doing this at the state level but such should be fought against at the state level. Note that neither Pinkley nor any other founder sought to use the federal government to thwart state-level religious tests.

As for the no religious test, your link writes:

And a snipet from the omniscient wikipedia:

No Religious Test Clause

RE: Joel Barlow:

I again emphatically agree. The governmnet (federal government) is not founded on "the Christian religion". Key here is "religion".Being founded on a religion is different than being founded on the principles of a religion. If the government of the United States was founded on the Christian religion than we would probably read "thus saith the Lord" in the Constitution. We are, however, very blessed that the Constitution says nothing of God. But it is perposterous, even boarderline impossible to argue that religious moral principles were not behind the US Constitituion. In fact, you can even say they were the driving force for its inception and creation. It was written under the correct belief that our rights come from God; not government. The US Constitution enmuerates some of our natural rights but does NOT grant them. As I said to Walden, I strongly oppose declaring our nation a Christian nation in any federal governing document, including in its treaties. We are, however, asa peaople, very much a Christian nation. And that has ensured our freedoms for than anything else in the world.

Rob Boston, the author of your link, is throroughly wrong in how he views the religious right. I'm part of thereligious right and I know many others who are as well. By and large their desire is for people to adhire to moral principle in order to be free. It is NOT to insert "Christ" into official documents or anything of the such.

From George Washington:

http://www.americand..._washington.htm

RE:Gulian C. Verplanck

He's of little consequence. He is quoted as saying:

I agree that all religion should be protected under the law but it is absurd to think that Congress who opens (and I think closes) with daily prayer for its sessions, twho passed the Thanksgiving Holiday cannot offer prayer. I do not know the exact context of the law purposed but it is not inherently wrong for Congress to offer prayer. And Andrew Jackson may have opposed this prayer proposal fearing it violated the fre exercise of religion but he himself was caught up in Manifest Destiny and used that belief to kill lots of Indians. I don't look to him for my spiritual guidance. I don't care much for him politically either.

RE: Ulysis S. Grant.

He was an extraordinary general but a very poor president. Of him Boston writes:

Apparently this is in the context of states not giving taxes to their schools who offer religious instruction and admonishments. On a federal level, I'm fine with opposing that. In fact, I'd love to see a dramatic reduction in federal tax dollars to schools period. Note the void in what Grant did against prohibiting states from proving tax dollars to schools. That's because he could do not. He had not lived in a time where the federal governmnet was viewed as a means to make any such prohibition to the states. Things are quite different now. I stand for restoring this federalistic principle into our government. Now, here's what Boston quotes Grant as saying the following:

Prohibting free expression of religion and religious beliefs IS prohbiting free speech and thought. Like I said, Grant was a poor president.

RE: Ellery Schempp;

Here's the scenario Boston presents:

I fully agree that no government, state or federal, should compel a public school student to say a prayer. (Student voluntarily saying a prayer is a much different story). However, if a state compels its students to pray than redress for this should stay at the state level. The federal governmnet has no business prohbiting states from making this choice on their own.

I hold the same standards to reading the Quran in school.

Actually Thomas Jefferson opposed Patrick Henry's attempt to collect taxes for the support his church in the state of Virginia

http://www.history.o...rsonvsHenry.cfm

Of course a immoral people can not be governed. However religion and morals are independent variables. What is immoral in one religion may very well be moral in another. In the US we are not governed by any religion but by the will of the people. The American form of government is a repudiation of religion as foundational.The pamphlet The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine not the Bible was instrumental in the American Revolution.

The Religious Right in this country would gladly burn Mormons at the stake if given the chance. To the RR we are immoral antichristian dangerous cultists.

See Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) tore into scientists as tools of the devil in a speech at the Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman’s Banquet last month.

“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,” Broun said. “And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

According to Broun, the scientific plot was primarily concerned with hiding the true age of the Earth. Broun serves on the House Science Committee, which came under scrutiny recently after another one of its Republican members, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), suggested that victims of “legitimate rape” have unnamed biological defenses against pregnancy.

“You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth,” he said. “I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”

I disagree/oppose with any use of religion in government. If you want to pray do it in your own closet. Same goes for religious holidays. Don't make me pay my tax money's for your religious observances.

A good idea is a good idea no matter whom presents it. Just as a bad idea is a bad idea no matter whom presents it.

Edited October 5, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Cobalt-70]

You were entirely right, Cobalt,

Until you got to your last paragraph.

The real issue here is with the gradual overturning of Reynolds vs. the United States -- in which the Supreme Court quashed the practice of polygyny in America. If prop 8 gets overturned, the principle thereby enunciated may extend much further than simply same sex marriage.

So, although you may be right that "Mormons will just go back to their jobs and church callings, and nothing really will change," polygyny will likely become part of the newly accepted pattern in the USA. Muslims and sectarian "Mormons" will be able to legally practice plural marriage throughout the country.

If you think that Reynolds v. U.S. is a good thing for Mormons, I don't think Mormons living in 1878 would agree.

[Damien the Leper]

We don't give up our rights a citizens just because we become members of a church. That was never the intent of the US Constitution. There is absolutely no evidence that the Church used any monies, let alone tithing money, in its support for prop 8. Individual members like every other citizen has the right to contribute, or not contribute, to any political cause they like.

You misunderstand. I stated that the church should not be politically involved in any way. I did not accuse the church of any violations.

[Cobalt-70]

The inability of our government to act is one of our greatest political blessings. I do not want Washingtn DC to "fix" our problems. I want We the Peple to fix our problems and to do so based upon Judaic-Christian moral principles.

What about such problems as the national debt? Because of this accountability problem, Republicans can give tax breaks without being held accountable for failing to reduce spending. Likewise, Democrats can make public investments without being held accountable for failing to raising taxes to pay for them. That's why I'm saying that the structure of the American System is not necessarily the part of the constitution that Mormons ought to consider special or "inspired."

[Cobalt-70]

Seth,

The Supreme Court declared that religious organizations cannot be taxed because the power to tax is the power to destroy.

CFR on this alleged Supreme Court case.

[Cobalt-70]

You were entirely right, Cobalt,

Until you got to your last paragraph.

The real issue here is with the gradual overturning of Reynolds vs. the United States -- in which the Supreme Court quashed the practice of polygyny in America. If prop 8 gets overturned, the principle thereby enunciated may extend much further than simply same sex marriage.

So, although you may be right that "Mormons will just go back to their jobs and church callings, and nothing really will change," polygyny will likely become part of the newly accepted pattern in the USA. Muslims and sectarian "Mormons" will be able to legally practice plural marriage throughout the country.

if you think that Reynolds is a good thing for Mormons, I doubt many Mormons who were alive in 1878 would agree with you.

[Damien the Leper]

The answer what to do is easy. We as a people have *always* believed in behaving ourselves based on Judaic-Christian moral principles. Regardless of what others believe or accept, we behave on good morals. Stand firm and be bold and be consistant. And if there are those who openly reject and disdain Judaic-Christian morals, what kinds of laws do you think they'll support? Should they have power at the federal level and have supremacy powers over your state?

I propose that this country was founded on Judaic-Christian moral principles and is a Christian nation in the sense of the sum of the people's faith has always been Christian. (I absolutely reject a Christian theocracy or to announce our Christianity in any federal legal documents which has authoratative governance over the people. On the state level it depends). The moral principle and collective Christian faith are critical reasons as to why we are so very blessed. The more We the People move away from these moral principles and the Christian faith in general the more we jeopardize our blessed freedoms.

Read Susan Jacoby's book Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism.

[Damien the Leper]

Horsepucky. Babies are born knowing only how to suck, cry and poop. It takes more than 2 years for them to become fully cognizant of the humanity of those big people in their environments. Line upon line morality has to be beaten into them. The human beast is pretty close to tabula rasa. The term was invented a long time ago and experience has shown it to be both accurate and apt.

A child, had it the capacity, would kill to enforce its desires. It's a good thing nursing babies haven't the capacity. Their mothers would never survive.

Your inability to understand that conscience is inborn and then nurtured is astounding. Humans have been around a lot longer than the Judeo-Christian religions and tradition. I have hope in our humanity because we are all we've got. We don't have time to wait for a savior. We need to save ourselves and each other from our inhumanity.

[Cobalt-70]

No, sir. The Commerce Clause is a power given explicitly tothe federal government but it was NOT viewed as broad powers until the turn of the 20th century when the Supreme Court began to expand the powers of the commerce clause to allow the federal government to regulate crops even though they were seeded cared for, and cultivated enttirely within a state (and therefore under state control, not federal control). This ruling affectively opened the door for thefederal government to regulate matters which have until that point been viewed as done by the states. If the states want ot regulate crops ro anything else within their state, they may do so. But the federal government has no businness regulating crops or pretty much anything else which are confined within a state's borders. So "pre-Civil-War" powers of the federal government were not "broad". Itwas post-Civil War when the powers ofthe federal government began to expand, especially after, let's say, a certain political ideology significantly expanded the role ofthe federal government into state affairs. This same deology disdained the Constitution and its principles of limiting the federal government in American lives.

That is just a consequence of the Industrial Revolution. Today, essentially all commerce is "interstate commerce." The United States is a single economic market, and state boundaries have no real consequence in trade. Even if you sell your products in the same state you make them, they are likely to be transported across state lines, or at the very least, transported on interstate highways. Moreover, your sales put products into the interstate market. Your market abuses can affect someone in the next state. A merchant in Vermont is competing with a merchant from New Hampshire.

This is where the Necessary and Proper Clause of the constitution comes in. It says that Congress has whatever powers are necessary and proper for executing its constitutional powers.

No, sir. The 14th amendment did not do that. The courts in only the past several decades (as I cited in wiki, after 100 years from the passing of the 14th Amendment) which *the courts* have used the 14th Amendment to expand the role of the federal government. Thier rulings bypassed the legislature as ans thwarted the traditional view of the role of the federal government. The court rulings saturated distinctions from citizens and immigrants, gave "rights" to welfare (the power of the purse is explicitly given to the legislative and executive branches of government via the Constitution; with no powers to the courts), and opened up the power of the national government to trump the sovereignty of state governments. In the end, We the People will lose from this view of government.

It's not that courts in the late 19th century and early 20th century believed that the 14th amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights. It's just that the issue didn't really come up much until the civil rights era. This was not an expansion of the 14th Amendment. The power was always there, and intentionally so. The 14th Amendment was designed to prevent states from doing things like Jim Crow. That Jim Crow happened anyway just means that the 14th Amendment was being ignored for a long time.

[Darren10]

Actually Thomas Jefferson opposed Patrick Henry's attempt to collect taxes for the support his church in the state of Virginia

http://www.history.o...rsonvsHenry.cfm

Without even looking into this, so what? If Jefferson opposed federal money to a church, than, good, he should. If he opposed state tax for a church in a state, than he may do that. I oppose it as well. But not only were states consitutionaly empowered to declare an official religion for themselves, but at some point they all did. And not a single founding father sought, nor did they think they should use the federal government to stop this. That is, to *force* states to comply to the Bill of Rights. That's because in Jefferson's time the Bill of Rights were viewed as restrictions upon the federal government; not state governments.

Looking at you link, that's a play. Is this play a replication of actual conversation between Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson? It has Henry saying that men are not angels and thus we need government. I thought that was Madison who declared that. So, was this an actual reconstruction of a time when Henry referenced Madison to Jefferson? I think there's merit to the historical accuracy of your link but I want to know the context behind the play you linked to.

Of course a immoral people can not be governed. However religion and morals are independent variables. What is immoral in one religion may very well be moral in another. In the US we are not governed by any religion but by the will of the people. The American form of government is a repudiation of religion as foundational.The pamphlet The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine not the Bible was instrumental in the American Revolution.

Religion is at the very heat of leading a people to be moral. And in all the world's religions, Christianity, with its judaic ancestory, provide the best morals to live by. The american government did not "repute" religion. That's patently absurd to say. It rejected theocracy and creating one official religion for the nation. That's as far as it went and we are so very blessed to have that as a foundational idea.

The pamphlet The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine not the Bible was instrumental in the American Revolution.

Here's what I previously wrote to MisereNobis in my #82 post with emphasis on what part is relevant in my reply to you regarding the religious background of our nation:

Not at all to devalue the Catholic influence on American democracy (I'm counting on the Catholic vote this go around to make, lets say, a "good" decision this November) but as I see it, it is no coinsidence that today's democracies were created in lands traditionally Christian. For it is Christians who, more than any other group of people in the world, truly know where freedom comes from. But it was the unique form of Christianity which made these United States a uniquely free nation. As I see it, there was a need to break from what I call a "theological monopoly" in Europe. Martin Luther and others served that purpose. So did the English. And on the English isles, there formed several other protestant groups. These people were exposed to the Bible as well as the English Enlightenment. This unique influence and a personal drive to worship freely are what founded this country of ours. I see the hand of Provinence in all this in what formed the greatest nation in the history of mankind.

While the English influence provided great political philosophy, you absolutely cannot discard the Bible and its morak teachings in the formation of our nation. Were the american people of any faith other than that of the Christian faith, the blessings of liberty we have had would have NEVER come to fruition. Furthermore, ever since I said that I do not want the federal government to "fix" our problems preering that We the People do so based upon Judaic-Christian morals, I've been called out regarding creating a Christian-based government. How in the world did that happen? I specifically removed government from living a Christian life to fix our problems.

The Religious Right in this country would gladly burn Mormons at the stake if given the chance. To the RR we are immoral antichristian dangerous cultists.

That's so ludicris it's almost beyond belief you'd say any such thing. The only way Mormons would be burned by the religious right would be from those who support creating a national theocracy. Point to me those who support such a thing and I'll show you people who are nOT of the religious right that I know of or care to associate with. I stand by my previous statement that by and large those on the religious right advocate people to live good moral biblical-based lives. I strongly support those efforts.

See Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) tore into scientists as tools of the devil in a speech at the Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman’s Banquet last month.

“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,” Broun said. “And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

According to Broun, the scientific plot was primarily concerned with hiding the true age of the Earth. Broun serves on the House Science Committee, which came under scrutiny recently after another one of its Republican members, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), suggested that victims of “legitimate rape” have unnamed biological defenses against pregnancy.

“You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth,” he said. “I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”

I cannot look into this right now but this is NOT the "religious right" I associate with. I know many good Christians who have no problem with science. How science is dictated in our schools is another matter but there's no problem with believing in evolution, Big Bang, etc., nor of teaching it from the religious right. You'll only find extremists; not the mainstream religious right who teach such a thing as Rep. Broun.

I disagree/oppose with any use of religion in government. If you want to pray do it in your own closet. Same goes for religious holidays. Don't make me pay my tax money's for your religious observances.

You may do so. But, again, how in the world did I become the poster child for advocating a theocracy?

[Darren10]

Read Susan Jacoby's book Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism.

What would I get out of reading that?

[Sleeper Cell]

True... would it change our response to a potential Prop 8 verdict of all justices with unanimous in their decision to overturn prop 8?

As a practical matter, it would be much more difficult to persuade others that a unanimous decision was wrong than it would be for a 5-4 decision. And I realize that, as a practical matter, the Constitution does not mean what it actually says it means; it means what a judge (or a group of judges) says it means. Nonetheless, a wrong decision is still a wrong decision, no matter how many judges say it is right.

That said, even an unanimous Supreme Court decision can be reversed by a later Supreme Court decision or a constitutional amendment.

These are not the only ways. The number of Supreme Court justices is not stated in the Constitution. At one time, Pres. Roosevelt, frustrated over certain Supreme Court decisions, threatened to ask congress to increase the number of justices from 9 to 15. This would have allowed him to nominate 6 more judges. Obviously, he would choose those he felt were predisposed to see thing his way.

Then, there is the old joke about what would have happened had Goldwater (who had sharp disagreements with the Warren Court) defeated LBJ in the 1964 presidential race.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren administers the oath of office:

“Do you, Barry Goldwater swear to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?”

“I do. … You’re under arrest, Earl.”

[Darren10]

That is just a consequence of the Industrial Revolution.

No, sir,. The expansion of the Commerce Clause is NOT a result of the Industrial Revolution. The industrial growth of the US was around long before the Commerce Clause was expanded to ungodly limitless proportions. It was a specific political ideology, namely the Progressives, who conclude that government is the best place to regulate resources. Farms today are heavily subsidized by the federal government despite the fact that many of the crops will NEVER leave its own state.

Today, essentially all commerce is "interstate commerce."

No,it is not, nor do I think you can back that up with anything substantive. The rational behind expanding the Commerce Clause was that the goods will somehow affect the national markets and thus the federal government may regulate all goods. This is blatantly anti-federalist thinking and it is not the result of legislation but from court rulings. That means it is from dictorial conclusions forced upon the states by the federal government.

Even if you sell your products in the same state you make them, they are likely to be transported across state lines, or at the very least, transported on interstate highways.

Than *once a product passes state lines* the federal government may regulate it. Your thinking is right along the lines of the Progressives I outlined above. It naturally runs contrary to federalistic ideals. And, frankly, that's one of the end goals of big government folks.

This is where the Necessary and Proper Clause of the constitution comes in. It says that Congress has whatever powers are necessary and proper for executing its constitutional powers.

It's not that courts in the late 19th century and early 20th century believed that the 14th amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights. It's just that the issue didn't really come up much until the civil rights era. This was not an expansion of the 14th Amendment. The power was always there, and intentionally so. The 14th Amendment was designed to prevent states from doing things like Jim Crow. That Jim Crow happened anyway just means that the 14th Amendment was being ignored for a long time.

The civil rights did thrust state sovereignty into the spot light, yes, and it was slavery which lead people to create the 14th amendment. But my main point is that upon passing the 14th Amendment, NOBODY considered it binding upon the states; only upon the federal government. This changed radically during the early to mid 20th century. That means only in the last few decades of our 200+ year history.

I oppose Jim Crow and would stand against such laws. But we are far safer by challenging such stupid laws at the state level than by epowering the federal government to protect us all. You have less of a voice and influence in the federal government than you do in your local governments. Reversing the constitutonal standards to keep the federal government small can very well have grave results in the future.

[Cobalt-70]

Than *once a product passes state lines* the federal government may regulate it. Your thinking is right along the lines of the Progressives I outlined above. It naturally runs contrary to federalistic ideals. And, frankly, that's one of the end goals of big government folks.

We are not talking about just progressives. This has been the consensus view about the Commerce Clause for about a century, among both conservatives and liberals. Your position represents an extreme libertarian position that is unworkable in modern society. Regulation of commerce that affects multiple states is a national issue, and only a national solution is up to the task, which is why the Commerce Clause exists in the first place.

The civil rights did thrust state sovereignty into the spot light, yes, and it was slavery which lead people to create the 14th amendment. But my main point is that upon passing the 14th Amendment, NOBODY considered it binding upon the states; only upon the federal government....

Except for the abolitionists within the Joint Committee on Reconstruction of the 39th Congress, which drafted the text of the 14th Amendment, who intended the amendment to include the entire Bill of Rights and much more, including:

"the whole spectrum of rights embraced in such phrases as 'natural right,' 'fundamental rights,' 'the rights of man,' 'God-given rights' and so forth, and in such documents as the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights."

Henry Commager, Historical Background of the Fourteenth Amendment, in The Fourteenth Amendment: Centennial Volume 14, 24 (B. Schwartz ed. 1970).

For example, John Bingham, who introduced the initial draft of the sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment to Congress, said:

"The proposition pending before the House is simply a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, with the power to enforce the bill of rights as it stands in the Constitution today."

This was even before the language was broadened to its present form to include a due process clause.

When the near final version (containing the Due Process clause) was introduced by Sen. Jacob Howard, he noted that the specific meaning of section 1 of the 14th Amendment was intended to be "discussed and adjudicated when [questions] should happen practically to arise." However, he said,

these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be--for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature--to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments to the Constitution"

Quite importantly for purposes of Proposition 8, Sen. Howard also noted that the proposed 14th Amendment "abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one cast of persons to a code not applicable to another."

[Darren10]

This has been the consensus view about the Commerce Clause for about a century, among both conservatives and liberals.

You are so absolutely wrong. A lot of what I'm telling you is based on Mark Levin's Men in Black.

http://www.amazon.com/Men-Black-Supreme-Destroying-America/dp/1596980095/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349481177&sr=1-1&keywords=men+in+black

And Levin can't stand libertarians. Nor can I. Granted they have outstanding views on many issues, the over abuse of the federal government is one of them, but overall I cannot support modern-day libertarians. Also, conservatives routinely condemn the over reach of government, the Commerce Clause is no exception. T say that conservatives agree with expanding the Commerce Clause is absurd. Your assesment is so out of the realm of reality that I wonder if you're propogating your own view and/or are horribly out of touch with the positions of people.

and only a national solution is up to the task, which is why the Commerce Clause exists in the first place.

The national solution is what America's always done: let the markets work. Keep government out of the way of free enterprise except for basic standards and regulations which, again, should be based upon the consent of the governed, through their elected representatives, and based upon We the People using Judaic-Christian moral principles to guide our poltical positions.

Except for the abolitionists within the Joint Committee on Reconstruction of the 39th Congress, which drafted the text of the 14th Amendment, who intended the amendment to include the entire Bill of Rights and much more, including:

"the whole spectrum of rights embraced in such phrases as 'natural right,' 'fundamental rights,' 'the rights of man,' 'God-given rights' and so forth, and in such documents as the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights."

Henry Commager, Historical Background of the Fourteenth Amendment, in The Fourteenth Amendment: Centennial Volume 14, 24 (B. Schwartz ed. 1970).

For example, John Bingham, who introduced the initial draft of the sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment to Congress, said:

"The proposition pending before the House is simply a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, with the power to enforce the bill of rights as it stands in the Constitution today."

This was even before the language was broadened to its present form to include a due process clause.

When the near final version (containing the Due Process clause) was introduced by Sen. Jacob Howard, he noted that the specific meaning of section 1 of the 14th Amendment was intended to be "discussed and adjudicated when [questions] should happen practically to arise." However, he said,

these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be--for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature--to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments to the Constitution"

Quite importantly for purposes of Proposition 8, Sen. Howard also noted that the proposed 14th Amendment "abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one cast of persons to a code not applicable to another."

Missing from all that is the fact that the 14th Amendment was for the federal government, not to impose on the states.

Under Article 1, Section 8, clause 4, naturalization is a power granted explicitly to the federal government, namely, to Congress. So matters regarding US citizenry may be enforced bby the federal government. States were obviously violating rights of citizens, especially blacks. The 14th Amendment was crafted in large part to protect these residents but it gave no new power tthe US government regarding citienship. It only allowed the federal government to more readily enforce protections of citizens and residents, particularly newly freed slaves. This had nothing to do with gay marriage which should be up to the states to decide. Only the aspect of citizenship and the due process which they are entitled to was enforced upon the states and this only helped to excercise a power the federal government already constitutionally had. Due process was NEVER intended to protect gay marriage.

[Danzo]

The more I study law, and legal decisions, the more I realize that judges are people, and are as likely as not to vote based on political considerations as anything else. There is nothing sacred in Dicta, and a lot of the decisions seem to be made before the reasons for it were thought of.

"think Bush VS Gore" The only think less surprising then the justices who voted for it, were the justices that voted against it.

[Bikeemikey]

You are so absolutely wrong. A lot of what I'm telling you is based on Mark Levin's Men in Black.

http://www.amazon.com/Men-Black-Supreme-Destroying-America/dp/1596980095/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349481177&sr=1-1&keywords=men+in+black

And Levin can't stand libertarians. Nor can I. Granted they have outstanding views on many issues, the over abuse of the federal government is one of them, but overall I cannot support modern-day libertarians. Also, conservatives routinely condemn the over reach of government, the Commerce Clause is no exception. T say that conservatives agree with expanding the Commerce Clause is absurd. Your assesment is so out of the realm of reality that I wonder if you're propogating your own view and/or are horribly out of touch with the positions of people.

The national solution is what America's always done: let the markets work. Keep government out of the way of free enterprise except for basic standards and regulations which, again, should be based upon the consent of the governed, through their elected representatives, and based upon We the People using Judaic-Christian moral principles to guide our poltical positions.

Missing from all that is the fact that the 14th Amendment was for the federal government, not to impose on the states.

Under Article 1, Section 8, clause 4, naturalization is a power granted explicitly to the federal government, namely, to Congress. So matters regarding US citizenry may be enforced bby the federal government. States were obviously violating rights of citizens, especially blacks. The 14th Amendment was crafted in large part to protect these residents but it gave no new power tthe US government regarding citienship. It only allowed the federal government to more readily enforce protections of citizens and residents, particularly newly freed slaves. This had nothing to do with gay marriage which should be up to the states to decide. Only the aspect of citizenship and the due process which they are entitled to was enforced upon the states and this only helped to excercise a power the federal government already constitutionally had. Due process was NEVER intended to protect gay marriage.

Hey there Darren10,

It is obvious you know a lot about the us constitution. It is also clear you consider you views on the matter empirical fact rather than opinion or informed perspective.

With that in mind could you please stop talking about it, or start a different thread to discuss it on.

This thread is intended to simply be about individual LDS members considering whether they would feel a tension between prop 8 actions and a hypothetical overturning of prop 8 by the Supreme Court. Specifically if any of us would consider the notion, "well look at that. I love the constitution, it protects freedom (mine and others), those responsible for ensuring legislation is in accordance with said document are telling me I was way off base, I ought to reconsider", or whether we would simply say, "man the Supreme Court suck and have got this wrong, woe is me American will be detected!!

This is not about the church as an institution or attempting to prove the impossible.

Thanks for taking your constitution ideas to a more suitable location.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Darren10]

Bikeemike;

I got the same vibe to move along the storyline and focus on the main theme of the thread. I'm not the only one here speaking on a tangent, in fact my dialgue has been by and large responding to other's questions and challenges, including your own. But, yes, of course we can move along with the post.

Building on what I said initially, the LDS Church has a long history of waiting out a Supreme Court decision and then taking action accordinly. Their core belief in being subject to the laws of the land I think generates a sense of moral obligation to follow the court's decisions as well as the law of the land. Along similar lines as youself, I personally wonder how much could a court decision "push the envelope" befre the LDS Church may find itself in a canundrum. What if the court ruled something that's blatantly unconstitutional? I wonder what the LDS Church's reaction would be? As for a hypothetical ruling striking down Prop 8, I think the LDS Church will accept it and move on.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Darren10

[thesometimesaint]

Without even looking into this, so what? If Jefferson opposed federal money to a church, than, good, he should. If he opposed state tax for a church in a state, than he may do that. I oppose it as well. But not only were states consitutionaly empowered to declare an official religion for themselves, but at some point they all did. And not a single founding father sought, nor did they think they should use the federal government to stop this. That is, to *force* states to comply to the Bill of Rights. That's because in Jefferson's time the Bill of Rights were viewed as restrictions upon the federal government; not state governments.

Looking at you link, that's a play. Is this play a replication of actual conversation between Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson? It has Henry saying that men are not angels and thus we need government. I thought that was Madison who declared that. So, was this an actual reconstruction of a time when Henry referenced Madison to Jefferson? I think there's merit to the historical accuracy of your link but I want to know the context behind the play you linked to.

Religion is at the very heat of leading a people to be moral. And in all the world's religions, Christianity, with its judaic ancestory, provide the best morals to live by. The american government did not "repute" religion. That's patently absurd to say. It rejected theocracy and creating one official religion for the nation. That's as far as it went and we are so very blessed to have that as a foundational idea.

Here's what I previously wrote to MisereNobis in my #82 post with emphasis on what part is relevant in my reply to you regarding the religious background of our nation:

While the English influence provided great political philosophy, you absolutely cannot discard the Bible and its morak teachings in the formation of our nation. Were the american people of any faith other than that of the Christian faith, the blessings of liberty we have had would have NEVER come to fruition. Furthermore, ever since I said that I do not want the federal government to "fix" our problems preering that We the People do so based upon Judaic-Christian morals, I've been called out regarding creating a Christian-based government. How in the world did that happen? I specifically removed government from living a Christian life to fix our problems.

That's so ludicris it's almost beyond belief you'd say any such thing. The only way Mormons would be burned by the religious right would be from those who support creating a national theocracy. Point to me those who support such a thing and I'll show you people who are nOT of the religious right that I know of or care to associate with. I stand by my previous statement that by and large those on the religious right advocate people to live good moral biblical-based lives. I strongly support those efforts.

I cannot look into this right now but this is NOT the "religious right" I associate with. I know many good Christians who have no problem with science. How science is dictated in our schools is another matter but there's no problem with believing in evolution, Big Bang, etc., nor of teaching it from the religious right. You'll only find extremists; not the mainstream religious right who teach such a thing as Rep. Broun.

You may do so. But, again, how in the world did I become the poster child for advocating a theocracy?

No state has the authority to override the feds. That is the basic Federal Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.

Jefferson argued effectively against such. Patrick Henry's proposition was defeated.

More Later...