Church Response To Supreme Court Marriage Rulings

[Stone holm]

They may not have been religionists, but they were certainly deists. Their belief in a God who gave mankind the liberties we enjoy is, to quote, "self-evident",

I agree they were Deists -- you realize of course that is a very far away from the type of religion myth regarding them that is often espoused by the Christian Right.

[Stone holm]

Actually, the states rights issue was a sore point of contention that led to the Civil War. The supremacy of Federal law wasn't really fully cemented in place until the victors made it so in 1865.

While the preservation of the Union was the reason the North went to war, the South went to war over slavery.

[Stone holm]

Federal Law always trumps State Law. That is in the US Constitution.

Well it does most of the time. But there is some question as to the extent of Federal Law. Madison said the 10th Amendment was a tautology, but the strict constructionists have tried to breathe new life into it. If you read the Kennedy's DOMA opinion carefully, there is an interesting blend of State's Rights entwined in the equal protection argument, and although I have not read the partial erasure of the Voting Rights Act, it is my understanding that there was a State's Rights argument entwined in that decision, and there was a clear State's rights element involved in the opinion which struck down a portion of Obamacare. We have a very activist Supreme Court right now -- the difference is it is a Conservative activist Court whenever Kennedy sides with the Conservative wing of the Court.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Federal Law always trumps State Law. That is in the US Constitution.

What is the point in voting then, if anything we do as the common citizenry can just be overruled by government overlords? Maybe we should just let those in power now appoint who they want and forget voting altogether, since our votes don't mean crap.

[Stone holm]

What is the point in voting then, if anything we do as the common citizenry can just be overruled by government overlords? Maybe we should just let those in power now appoint who they want and forget voting altogether, since our votes don't mean crap.

Very rarely do persons in either the executive or legislative branch exercise their obligation to review, but it is part of their responsibilities. Anyone who is reckless in that regard risks impeachment. We have many instances of this type of check. For example in some parts of , I think it was Colorado, they found it impossible to empanel juries to try people for small amounts of marijuana, and they for decades found it impossible to get Utah juries to convict for polygamy. Like I said this is not just one side of the partisan divide that has done this. Under California law they had standing, but under Federal law they didn't there are also other reasons why a State government might choose not to appeal and there are concepts of Federalism which suggest that the Federal Courts should not be allowing the general populace of the State make the decision to appeal. This particular case was just a little weirder than most because of California's referendum laws.

[jwhitlock]

While the preservation of the Union was the reason the North went to war, the South went to war over slavery.

Simplistic explanations.

The reasons were far more complex than the simplistic explanations you give here, but again, were ultimately rooted in the conflict over states rights. Slavery didn't become a reason until the politicians found it convenient to make it so.

[Stone holm]

Simplistic explanations.

The reasons were far more complex than the simplistic explanations you give here, but again, were ultimately rooted in the conflict over states rights. Slavery didn't become a reason until the politicians found it convenient to make it so.

That is true of the North but no credible historian believes that is true of the South. True there were other issues such as the fact the North favoured protectionism and the South free trade. The South had a semi feudal culture and the North an aggressive competitive one. But, what drove secession and resulted in the war was the need for the Southern cotton belt to preserve its peculiar institution. The Republican Party platform had included a twin plank to abolish slavery and polygamy. But when the war erupted in the South, Lincoln instructed his people to leave the Mormons alone.

[Stargazer]

Moreover The Treaty of Tripoli has the same legal status as the US Constitution.

To wit: "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

PS; If we're going to go with "original intent" then I would think it imperative to know exactly what that original intent was.

I'm not arguing with you over the "not a Christian nation" phrase, but over your assertion that a treaty has the same legal status as the US Constitution.

In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), a landmark United States Supreme Court case, the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,"

In short, the Treaty of Tripoli does not have equal status with the US Constitution.

[Kenngo1969]

Federal Law always trumps State Law. That is in the US Constitution.

Always? Huh. I'm confused. I thought that the U.S. Constitution had a Tenth Amendment which says something like this:

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 Supremacy Clause means that federal law trumps state law if Congress is acting pursuant to the powers given it under the Constitution. If it is not acting pursuant to those powers, then any law so enacted does not trump state law. (Sorry to rain on your parade! )

[Stargazer]

Federal Law always trumps State Law. That is in the US Constitution.

Not so. And it isn't in the US Constitution. If you think it is, then show me. I won't issue you a formal CFR, because what you'd be looking for does not exist. This is the truth: federal law trumps state law only under certain conditions.

For example, on June 22, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed an extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required the voting age to be 18 in all federal, state, and local elections. In his statement on signing the extension, Nixon said:

Despite my misgivings about the constitutionality of this one provision, I have signed the bill. I have directed the Attorney General to cooperate fully in expediting a swift court test of the constitutionality of the 18-year-old provision.

Subsequently, Oregon and Texas challenged the law in court. In Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the parts of the law that required states to register 18-year-olds for state and local elections. Justice Hugo Black stated:

I would hold that Congress has exceeded its powers in attempting to lower the voting age in state and local elections

This shows clearly that not every law passed by Congress has effect in the states. Federal law, for example, governs interstate commerce, but not, strictly speaking, in-state commerce (although SCOTUS has made some pretty oddly convoluted rulings that have pierced that particular veil in certain cases). If Congress passes a national speed limit (which they did at one time, remember 55 mph), the limit only applied on federal property, e.g. the Interstate highways. To get into the states with that, Congress had to condition certain federal financial payments upon those states who wanted the funds -- they bribed them, in other words.

Even the US Constitution cannot penetrate into the states willy-nilly. Article 1 of the Constitution describes the power of Congress. It does not say that Congress has the power to legislate in the states. The states have their own legislative bodies governed by their own constitutions. That alone should be enough evidence for you.

You might think that the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 through 10) originally applied in the states, but again, not so. The reason why every state had (and has) its own equivalent to the Bill of Rights wasn't because they thought it sounded good, but because the Federal BoR did not apply within the states. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was ratified that much (but not all) of the BoR could be applied in the states. The Due Process Clause of the 14th prohibited state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization, and it was this clause that was used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

As you know, the 26th Amendment lowering the voting age to 18 before that could take effect for state and local elections. But except for particular language including the states being part of the amendment, even the 26th Amendment could not have drilled down to the state and local level. And the language did so drill its way so far:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

If whatever is in the Constitution could penetrate to the states by default, then the bolded phrase above would have been unnecessary.

To sum up, Congress can pass any law it pleases and may wish to make it apply inside the states, but it won't unless there are applicable Constitutional provisions or standing decisions of the Supreme Court making it so. Federal law does not automatically trump state law.

[Kenngo1969]

I saw a graph of this, but couldn't c/p. Interesting to read about the several unions that were allowed in the bible.

What is traditional marriage? In the bible there are several kinds. We have rapist + victim marriage, Dueteronomy 22:28-29. Man + brother's widow, Levirate marriage, Genesis 38:6-10. Man + Woman, Genesis 2:24, usually arranged. Man + wives + concubines. Man + woman + woman's property, including slaves, Genesis 16. Male slave + female slave, Exodus 21:4. Male Soldier + prisoner of war, Numbers 31:1-18. Dueteronomy 21:11-14. Man + woman + woman + woman (polygany).

I know these are male with female unions, but seems they weren't your traditional marriages. I'm sure there were LGBT unions that went underwraps. But surely they would have been stoned if found out. Maybe it takes a more civilized world to finally accept differences. God made these children, our children, other's children. Do they not deserve the respect we ourselves want. I want to post a video my daughter put on FB yestereday. It is showing how it would be if the gay person was the norm and the heterosexual not the norm. Puts you in their shoes.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzFnV3vwqD0

TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, NO ONE HERE IS ADVOCATING THE PERSECUTION OF GAYS AND LESBIANS! But thanks fer playin'!

[Stargazer]

Simplistic explanations.

The reasons were far more complex than the simplistic explanations you give here, but again, were ultimately rooted in the conflict over states rights. Slavery didn't become a reason until the politicians found it convenient to make it so.

No, jwhitlock, you are wrong; it is not true in the least sense whatsoever.

I used to believe this, too, but no longer. If you examine each Confederate state's secession legislation you will find that the proximate cause for their secession was slavery. They named other issues, too, but from an examination of their concerns as expressed in their acts of secession it is clear that slavery was the instigation and almost their sole concern. Of course some of them mentioned state's rights, but only by way of what they considered their state's right to continue slavery.

The following is a sample of the language of certain states's secession acts.

Georgia: The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery...

...The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose.

Georgia goes on and on about how the Republicans and Lincoln are trying to destroy slavery. They mention a few other things, but come back again and again to slavery.

Mississippi: "In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world..."

They too spend most of the document railing on how the Yankees are trying to destroy slavery.

South Carolina: The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue....

...We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction...

Of course, they talk about a lot of other things, but come back to slavery again and again.

Texas:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States....

...That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

In this case, "Don't Mess With Texas" was a hollow-boast -- even Texas seceded because of slavery.

Do you want to make me locate and post all 14 Confederate state acts of secession? I assure you that won't be necessary. Every single one of them revolves around slavery, first, foremost, and in between. If they cover other topics, it is apparently only for the purpose of comic relief.

I used to hold the Confederacy in some small part in honor. They who stood up in noble desperation for a principle, which I thought was being opposed to the overweening power of the Federal Government. But no, I was wrong. They stood up for the principle of unrighteous human bondage, and for that reason, the Confederacy be damned. The War of Northern Aggression? Bull puckey.

[cdowis]

I used to hold the Confederacy in some small part in honor. They who stood up in noble desperation for a principle, which I thought was being opposed to the overweening power of the Federal Government. But no, I was wrong. They stood up for the principle of unrighteous human bondage, and for that reason, the Confederacy be damned. The War of Northern Aggression? Bull puckey.

You do not seem to comprehend the difference between what is *immoral* and what is *illegal*. Slaveholding was legal, regardless of how you see it today. It was specifically with the collusion of the North that slavery was possible (where were the slaves brought into the country and sold?). Are you familiar with the Dredd Scott decision? Are you familiar with the history of the Constitution which explicitly recognizes slavery?

JS recognized this issue, that the slaveholders had a legal claim on their slaves, and one of his platforms was to compensate slaveholders for their legally obtained property, and thereby to free the slaves. Following both a legal and moral solution, rather than a violent one.

Now, are you really suggesting justification for force and violence against those with whom you strongly disagree, (abortion, SSM come to mind) but are living within the law, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court decisions.

[thesometimesaint]

What is the point in voting then, if anything we do as the common citizenry can just be overruled by government overlords? Maybe we should just let those in power now appoint who they want and forget voting altogether, since our votes don't mean crap.

We are guaranteed a republican form of government in our Constitution. We elect through our votes those whom we desire to represent us, at the local, State, and Federal level.

Only if you are in Michigan right now with its governor appointing Emergency Managers to eliminate representative government in predominately black towns and cities. The Governor of Michigan is now being sued in Federal Court.

[Stone holm]

You do not seem to comprehend the difference between what is *immoral* and what is *illegal*. Slaveholding was legal, regardless of how you see it today. It was specifically with the collusion of the North that slavery was possible (where were the slaves brought into the country and sold?). Are you familiar with the Dredd Scott decision? Are you familiar with the history of the Constitution which explicitly recognizes slavery?

JS recognized this issue, that the slaveholders had a legal claim on their slaves, and one of his platforms was to compensate slaveholders for their legally obtained property, and thereby to free the slaves. Following both a legal and moral solution, rather than a violent one.

Now, are you really suggesting justification for force and violence against those with whom you strongly disagree, (abortion, SSM come to mind) but are living within the law, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court decisions.

True. Slavery was immoral, but not illegal. That is why the North did not crank up the war over slavery, it is also why Lincoln hesitated so long over the Emancipation Proclamation because he feared that if he gave the impression that he was fighting the war to end slavery, rather than preserve the Union, he would lose political support in the North. Having said that, however, the reason that the South seceded and went to war was their fear that slavery was about to be abolished by the Republicans. This had a two-fold effect in the South, the Cotton States were totally economically tied to the production of cotton and dependent upon slavery, the upper South was not as tied to Cotton, but they had a huge investment in slaves which was a major portion of their wealth -- thus the elimination of slavery would have rendered that wealth valueless. Thus while Virginia somewhat reluctantly joined the Confederacy, when it did -- it was over the slavery issue. Western Virginia which later left Virginia had always been a little contentious with the rest of Virginia and resented the feudal nature of the government and was not economically tied to slavery, hence it broke away.

So. Despite some non-credible attempts in the South to rewrite history, the truth is that the North went to war to preserve the Union, and the South went to war to preserve their "peculiar institution", namely slavery.

[Stone holm]

Not so. And it isn't in the US Constitution. If you think it is, then show me. I won't issue you a formal CFR, because what you'd be looking for does not exist. This is the truth: federal law trumps state law only under certain conditions.

For example, on June 22, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed an extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required the voting age to be 18 in all federal, state, and local elections. In his statement on signing the extension, Nixon said:

Subsequently, Oregon and Texas challenged the law in court. In Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the parts of the law that required states to register 18-year-olds for state and local elections. Justice Hugo Black stated:

This shows clearly that not every law passed by Congress has effect in the states. Federal law, for example, governs interstate commerce, but not, strictly speaking, in-state commerce (although SCOTUS has made some pretty oddly convoluted rulings that have pierced that particular veil in certain cases). If Congress passes a national speed limit (which they did at one time, remember 55 mph), the limit only applied on federal property, e.g. the Interstate highways. To get into the states with that, Congress had to condition certain federal financial payments upon those states who wanted the funds -- they bribed them, in other words.

Even the US Constitution cannot penetrate into the states willy-nilly. Article 1 of the Constitution describes the power of Congress. It does not say that Congress has the power to legislate in the states. The states have their own legislative bodies governed by their own constitutions. That alone should be enough evidence for you.

You might think that the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 through 10) originally applied in the states, but again, not so. The reason why every state had (and has) its own equivalent to the Bill of Rights wasn't because they thought it sounded good, but because the Federal BoR did not apply within the states. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was ratified that much (but not all) of the BoR could be applied in the states. The Due Process Clause of the 14th prohibited state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization, and it was this clause that was used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

As you know, the 26th Amendment lowering the voting age to 18 before that could take effect for state and local elections. But except for particular language including the states being part of the amendment, even the 26th Amendment could not have drilled down to the state and local level. And the language did so drill its way so far:

If whatever is in the Constitution could penetrate to the states by default, then the bolded phrase above would have been unnecessary.

To sum up, Congress can pass any law it pleases and may wish to make it apply inside the states, but it won't unless there are applicable Constitutional provisions or standing decisions of the Supreme Court making it so. Federal law does not automatically trump state law.

You are partially right. The Supremacy clause does preempt State law if the Federal Government has jurisdiction to act. The question normally is whether the Federal Government has power to regulate certain areas. The breadth of Federal authority under the Constitution is vast for a variety of reasons, but primarily because of the authority to regulate interstate commerce. With respect to race, Congress was specifically empowered to legislate to make sure that voting rights were not infringed, however, care had to be taken not to discriminate amongst the States. Certain States historically have had severe problems with racial discrimination, it is a cultural problem and it is a persistent problem. However, the conservatives on the Court recently determined that those States have reformed and that they should now be treated like all the other States -- given the fact that several of those States immediately enacted laws which will have a decidedly racial impact on voting, one might ponder whether the majority of the Court was right on that subject. The impact, however, is that now rather than those States having to get permission to do something before they do it, now they do it and have to be sued. During the pendency of the suit any racial impact remains in place.

[thesometimesaint]

Not so. And it isn't in the US Constitution. If you think it is, then show me. I won't issue you a formal CFR, because what you'd be looking for does not exist. This is the truth: federal law trumps state law only under certain conditions.

For example, on June 22, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed an extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required the voting age to be 18 in all federal, state, and local elections. In his statement on signing the extension, Nixon said:

Subsequently, Oregon and Texas challenged the law in court. In Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the parts of the law that required states to register 18-year-olds for state and local elections. Justice Hugo Black stated:

This shows clearly that not every law passed by Congress has effect in the states. Federal law, for example, governs interstate commerce, but not, strictly speaking, in-state commerce (although SCOTUS has made some pretty oddly convoluted rulings that have pierced that particular veil in certain cases). If Congress passes a national speed limit (which they did at one time, remember 55 mph), the limit only applied on federal property, e.g. the Interstate highways. To get into the states with that, Congress had to condition certain federal financial payments upon those states who wanted the funds -- they bribed them, in other words.

Even the US Constitution cannot penetrate into the states willy-nilly. Article 1 of the Constitution describes the power of Congress. It does not say that Congress has the power to legislate in the states. The states have their own legislative bodies governed by their own constitutions. That alone should be enough evidence for you.

You might think that the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 through 10) originally applied in the states, but again, not so. The reason why every state had (and has) its own equivalent to the Bill of Rights wasn't because they thought it sounded good, but because the Federal BoR did not apply within the states. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was ratified that much (but not all) of the BoR could be applied in the states. The Due Process Clause of the 14th prohibited state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization, and it was this clause that was used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

As you know, the 26th Amendment lowering the voting age to 18 before that could take effect for state and local elections. But except for particular language including the states being part of the amendment, even the 26th Amendment could not have drilled down to the state and local level. And the language did so drill its way so far:

If whatever is in the Constitution could penetrate to the states by default, then the bolded phrase above would have been unnecessary.

To sum up, Congress can pass any law it pleases and may wish to make it apply inside the states, but it won't unless there are applicable Constitutional provisions or standing decisions of the Supreme Court making it so. Federal law does not automatically trump state law.

Yes it is in the US Constitution. Article 6: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

The 26th Amendment gives 18 year old citizens the right to vote.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Here is the rest of the story:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his 1954 State of the Union address, became the first president to publicly state his support for prohibiting age-based denials of suffrage for those 18 and older.^[1]

On June 22, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed an extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required the voting age to be 18 in all federal, state, and local elections. In his statement on signing the extension, Nixon said:

Despite my misgivings about the constitutionality of this one provision, I have signed the bill. I have directed the Attorney General to cooperate fully in expediting a swift court test of the constitutionality of the 18-year-old provision.^[2]

Subsequently, Oregon and Texas challenged the law in court. In Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the parts of the law that required states to register 18-year-olds for state and local elections.

Justice Hugo Black stated:I would hold that Congress has exceeded its powers in attempting to lower the voting age in state and local elections.^[3

By this time, four states had a minimum voting age below 21.^[4][5]

This ruling meant that the law could only apply to federal elections, which meant states would have to have separate voting rolls for voters between 18 and 20 years old and special ballots for them to vote on federal races.^[6]Congress and the state legislatures felt increasing pressure to pass the Constitutional amendment because of the Vietnam War, in which many young men who were ineligible to vote were conscripted to fight in the war, thus lacking any means to influence the people sending them off to risk their lives. "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote," was a common slogan used by proponents of lowering the voting age. The slogan traced its roots to World War II, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt lowered the military draft age to eighteen.

On March 10, 1971, the Senate voted 94–0 in favor of proposing a Constitutional amendment to guarantee that the voting age could not be higher than 18.^[7] On March 23, 1971, the House of Representatives voted 401–19 in favor of the proposed amendment.^[8] Within four months after the Congress submitted it to the states, the amendment was ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, the shortest time in which any proposed amendment has received the number of ratifications needed for adoption.

On July 5, 1971, during the amendment's signing ceremony in the East Room, President Richard Nixon talked about his confidence in the youth of America.

As I meet with this group today, I sense that we can have confidence that America’s new voters, America’s young generation, will provide what America needs as we approach our 200th birthday, not just strength and not just wealth but the “Spirit of ‘76’ a spirit of moral courage, a spirit of high idealism in which we believe in the American dream, but in which we realize that the American dream can never be fulfilled until every American has an equal chance to fulfill in his own life.^[9]

Tenther's have no leg to stand on:

The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, has been declared to be truism by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court asserted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."

States and local governments have occasionally attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

[Stone holm]

Yes it is in the US Constitution. Article 6: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

See http://en.wikipedia....upremacy_Clause

The 26th Amendment gives 18 year old citizens the right to vote.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Here is the rest of the story:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his 1954 State of the Union address, became the first president to publicly state his support for prohibiting age-based denials of suffrage for those 18 and older.^[1]

On June 22, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed an extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required the voting age to be 18 in all federal, state, and local elections. In his statement on signing the extension, Nixon said:

Despite my misgivings about the constitutionality of this one provision, I have signed the bill. I have directed the Attorney General to cooperate fully in expediting a swift court test of the constitutionality of the 18-year-old provision.^[2]

Subsequently, Oregon and Texas challenged the law in court. In Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the parts of the law that required states to register 18-year-olds for state and local elections.

Justice Hugo Black stated:I would hold that Congress has exceeded its powers in attempting to lower the voting age in state and local elections.^[3

By this time, four states had a minimum voting age below 21.^[4][5]

This ruling meant that the law could only apply to federal elections, which meant states would have to have separate voting rolls for voters between 18 and 20 years old and special ballots for them to vote on federal races.^[6]Congress and the state legislatures felt increasing pressure to pass the Constitutional amendment because of the Vietnam War, in which many young men who were ineligible to vote were conscripted to fight in the war, thus lacking any means to influence the people sending them off to risk their lives. "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote," was a common slogan used by proponents of lowering the voting age. The slogan traced its roots to World War II, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt lowered the military draft age to eighteen.

On March 10, 1971, the Senate voted 94–0 in favor of proposing a Constitutional amendment to guarantee that the voting age could not be higher than 18.^[7] On March 23, 1971, the House of Representatives voted 401–19 in favor of the proposed amendment.^[8] Within four months after the Congress submitted it to the states, the amendment was ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, the shortest time in which any proposed amendment has received the number of ratifications needed for adoption.

On July 5, 1971, during the amendment's signing ceremony in the East Room, President Richard Nixon talked about his confidence in the youth of America.

As I meet with this group today, I sense that we can have confidence that America’s new voters, America’s young generation, will provide what America needs as we approach our 200th birthday, not just strength and not just wealth but the “Spirit of ‘76’ a spirit of moral courage, a spirit of high idealism in which we believe in the American dream, but in which we realize that the American dream can never be fulfilled until every American has an equal chance to fulfill in his own life.^[9]

Tenther's have no leg to stand on:

The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, has been declared to be truism by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court asserted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."

States and local governments have occasionally attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

Madison stated very clearly that the 10th Amendment was a tautology. On the other hand, there is this persistent States rights tension in American history and in American legal history where there is a push to try to limit Federal jurisdiction. It is normally, but not always, a theme used by conservatives when they have predominant control over certain pockets of the American electorate, but not over larger segments. When this type of thing is happening you often see candidates who try to move say from a House District to a Statewide Senate race defeated. Occasionaly, however, you will see liberals making the argument in order to defend say State food regulations, that has happened in Vermont several times as Vermont has battled with the FDA over certain labeling laws and is now locked in a battle with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over the renewal of the license for the Yankee Nuclear Power Plant which was near unanimously rejected by the State legislature but approved by the Commission. In other words, States rights often depends on whose ox is being gored, and it is usually raised by a group which is either out of power or whose power is diminishing nationwide. So when conservatives are in power, you don't hear much about States rights from them -- but you see some from the liberals, and vice versa.

[thesometimesaint]

Madison stated very clearly that the 10th Amendment was a tautology. On the other hand, there is this persistent States rights tension in American history and in American legal history where there is a push to try to limit Federal jurisdiction. It is normally, but not always, a theme used by conservatives when they have predominant control over certain pockets of the American electorate, but not over larger segments. When this type of thing is happening you often see candidates who try to move say from a House District to a Statewide Senate race defeated. Occasionaly, however, you will see liberals making the argument in order to defend say State food regulations, that has happened in Vermont several times as Vermont has battled with the FDA over certain labeling laws and is now locked in a battle with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over the renewal of the license for the Yankee Nuclear Power Plant which was near unanimously rejected by the State legislature but approved by the Commission. In other words, States rights often depends on whose ox is being gored, and it is usually raised by a group which is either out of power or whose power is diminishing nationwide. So when conservatives are in power, you don't hear much about States rights from them -- but you see some from the liberals, and vice versa.

There is always a bit of tension in the concurrent roles of the various levels of government. Normally I'm for keeping it at the lowest level of government possible. IE; The Feds really shouldn't have much say in what my local public library carries, or what I read from there. However when there is a good possibility of extreme damage to the general public, or interstate concerns I feel the Feds have an overarching responsibility to take the lead. If I accidentally poison myself by incorrectly cooking some food. The only one who is to blame is myself. However if I sell that food to the public then I become subject to the laws not only of the state, but possibly the Feds as well.

[Stone holm]

There is always a bit of tension in the concurrent roles of the various levels of government. Normally I'm for keeping it at the lowest level of government possible. IE; The Feds really shouldn't have much say in what my local public library carries, or what I read from there. However when there is a good possibility of extreme damage to the general public, or interstate concerns I feel the Feds have an overarching responsibility to take the lead. If I accidentally poison myself by incorrectly cooking some food. The only one who is to blame is myself. However if I sell that food to the public then I become subject to the laws not only of the state, but possibly the Feds as well.

There are some issues that cannot easily be handled by simply one State acting. For example, Connecticut had strict gun laws, but it is a relatively small State so guns flow back and forth across the borders. Air pollution is another example. VT's Spruce forests are currently being decimated because of coal power plants in the Midwest sometimes the fogs on the mountains has about the same acidic level as vinegar. The increased mobility since the writing of the Constitution has also changed matters considerably. Yet, I believe there is something to be said about the diversity created via States rights in that it gives certain people the ability to congregate and dominate an area as kind of a sanctuary. Vermonters are peculiar, Utahns are peculiar, there is something to be said for that diversity. The problem is that we tend to want to spread our peculiarities and sometimes coerce others into accepting them. Our system of checks and balances causes our democracy to be a very messy thing at times, but it is the price we pay for freedom and diversity.

[thesometimesaint]

There are some issues that cannot easily be handled by simply one State acting. For example, Connecticut had strict gun laws, but it is a relatively small State so guns flow back and forth across the borders. Air pollution is another example. VT's Spruce forests are currently being decimated because of coal power plants in the Midwest sometimes the fogs on the mountains has about the same acidic level as vinegar. The increased mobility since the writing of the Constitution has also changed matters considerably. Yet, I believe there is something to be said about the diversity created via States rights in that it gives certain people the ability to congregate and dominate an area as kind of a sanctuary. Vermonters are peculiar, Utahns are peculiar, there is something to be said for that diversity. The problem is that we tend to want to spread our peculiarities and sometimes coerce others into accepting them. Our system of checks and balances causes our democracy to be a very messy thing at times, but it is the price we pay for freedom and diversity.

Agreed.

[Kenngo1969]

The Nehor said:

I disagree. I find the court's answer in the recent case a soft-pedalling [sic] non reply based on a correct interpretation of standing laws. I also believe the Reynold's decision was in conformity with law. Establishing that religious activity is free to violate the law is a scary precedent. I personally dislike the decision because it had a negative influence people I care about (ancestors) but I would be more afraid of a court that legalized all religious precepts.

Here’s one writer’s critique of the Court’s reasoning in Reynolds. It’s an excerpt from Richard A. Vazquez, The Practice of Polygamy: Legitimate Free Exercise of Religion or Legitimate Public Menace? Revisiting Reynolds in Light of Modern Constitutional Jurisprudence, 5 J. Law & Publ. Policy 225, 228-229. And Mr. Vazquez is not alone in these sentiments (I don’t believe he is Mormon). Those sentiments representative of a much wider swath of legal opinion regarding Reynolds. (I’d like to find Professor Gordon’s book on polygamy. I’m wondering if its at my local law library).

It’s interesting you would defend Reynolds, given the possibility that you might not be here if the government had had its way before plural marriage ever began to be practiced. I’m not entirely certain (I need to do more research into the family tree) but I don’t believe I would be—and I know I have cousins who wouldn’t be. Even for those who thought plural marriage was detestable, it was hardly as bad as the things the Reynolds Court analogized it to. Human sacrifice?! Gimme a break!

The Court thus supported its contempt for the practice of polygamy by appealing to religious views, biases, and opinions on morality commonly held at the time. This section of the opinion lacked substantive legal reasoning and references to viable public policy justifications. Instead, it cast polygamy in such a prejudicial light as to imbue subsequent, suspect opinions with the appearance of reasoned support. For example, in rejecting the Free Exercise challenge, the Court asked rhetorically:

Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice? [Footnote omitted.]

The shock value created by this disingenuous comparison of consensual polygamy to ritual sacrifice and suicide undermined any substantive argument the Court may have put forth. Although the decision of the Court to curtail criminal activity in the face of a Free Exercise challenge was confirmed as correct in the late twentieth century, [footnote omitted] the Court’s reasoning in Reynolds still seems inadequate. By electing not to justify the opinion’s hostility toward polygamy with plausible policy justifications (such as heightened potential for sexual abuse of children), the Reynolds opinion rings hollow—an unsubstantiated attack on a religious practice.

The tone of the Reynolds opinion reflected contemporaneous prejudicial sentiment felt throughout the United States towards polygamy. A little over a decade earlier, Congress began its war on plural marriage with the passage of the Anti-Polygamy Acts, [Footnote omitted] which criminalized polygamy in the United States territories and served as the basis for George Reynolds’s conviction. [Footnote omitted] Four years after Reynolds, Congress enacted legislation preventing polygamists from seeking political office or serving on a jury. [Footnote omitted.] Five years later, Congress passed a statute requiring a man to take an oath affirming that he was not a polygamist before he was allowed to vote. [Footnote omitted.] These bills, which were ultimately codified by Congress, seemed drafted to specifically target the Utah Mormon Church, and evinced a national intolerance towards Mormons and their practice of polygamy. These sentiments were even echoed in numerous Supreme Court decisions and served as the Court’s basis for rejecting various legal challenges by Mormons. [Footnote omitted.]

[jwhitlock]

No, jwhitlock, you are wrong; it is not true in the least sense whatsoever.

Not true in the least sense? Hardly.

I was talking about the roots of the conflict, which were states rights. That particular issue began with the constitutional convention itself, resulting in a number of compromises, one of which had to do with slavery. At the time the nation was formed, slavery was an issue, but far less of an issue then it became over the next several decades as things evolved. By the time of secession, slavery had become one of, if not the most prominent, rationalization for secession. However, it evolved into its prominence. It is clear that it was not nearly as much of a polarizing issue during the constitutional convention (though it was an issue) because if it had been as polarizing as it was in 1861, the nation would never have been formed.

You can't just pull secession documents out and claim that was the whole cause of the civil war. You miss the point and importance of states rights as the root of the conflict from the constitutional convention on when you do so. States rights was the underlying cause of the conflict, and slavery became the rallying point of secession.

Were most southerners slave holders? Nope. It appears from the diaries I read that those southerners who fought for the south (most of whom were not slave holders) did so out of a sense of what we would call nationalism, which sense was rooted in their demands that they be free as states to determine their own destiny. The emphasis on slavery as the rallying cry came from southern politicians and slave holders to get emotions going, but although there was widespread racial prejudice in the south, it can hardly be claimed that the average southerner was fighting primarily to maintain slavery. Do a little reading and put the issues of the conflict in the context of what happened during the previous 70 years and you get a better picture of what was going on, and the importance that the concept of states rights played during those years.

So Stargazer, to make an over-hyped claim that what I was saying was "not true in the least sense" simply shows that you didn't consider states rights in the proper context before getting self-righteous.

[Stone holm]

Not true in the least sense? Hardly.

I was talking about the roots of the conflict, which were states rights. That particular issue began with the constitutional convention itself, resulting in a number of compromises, one of which had to do with slavery. At the time the nation was formed, slavery was an issue, but far less of an issue then it became over the next several decades as things evolved. By the time of secession, slavery had become one of, if not the most prominent, rationalization for secession. However, it evolved into its prominence. It is clear that it was not nearly as much of a polarizing issue during the constitutional convention (though it was an issue) because if it had been as polarizing as it was in 1861, the nation would never have been formed.

You can't just pull secession documents out and claim that was the whole cause of the civil war. You miss the point and importance of states rights as the root of the conflict from the constitutional convention on when you do so. States rights was the underlying cause of the conflict, and slavery became the rallying point of secession.

Were most southerners slave holders? Nope. It appears from the diaries I read that those southerners who fought for the south (most of whom were not slave holders) did so out of a sense of what we would call nationalism, which sense was rooted in their demands that they be free as states to determine their own destiny. The emphasis on slavery as the rallying cry came from southern politicians and slave holders to get emotions going, but although there was widespread racial prejudice in the south, it can hardly be claimed that the average southerner was fighting primarily to maintain slavery. Do a little reading and put the issues of the conflict in the context of what happened during the previous 70 years and you get a better picture of what was going on, and the importance that the concept of states rights played during those years.

So Stargazer, to make an over-hyped claim that what I was saying was "not true in the least sense" simply shows that you didn't consider states rights in the proper context before getting self-righteous.

Slavery was problematic from the get go, in fact Jefferson had put some language in the Declaration regarding it, but then thinking on it deleted it. It shaped the feudalistic culture of the South. Slavery became a bigger issue in the North during the Civil War as soldiers witnessed the human degradation it involved first hand. But Lincoln was initially in a similar situation as Roosevelt about defining the Northern purpose for the war due to the racism in the North. FDR purposely suppressed intelligence about German atrocities towards the Jews for fear of losing support for the war in Germany if people thought the purpose was to save the Jews since antisemitism was strong in the United States and many thought we should be fighting Russian Communism, not German Fascism.

[Stargazer]

You do not seem to comprehend the difference between what is *immoral* and what is *illegal*.

Oh, yes, I do. Perfectly.

Slaveholding was legal, regardless of how you see it today. It was specifically with the collusion of the North that slavery was possible (where were the slaves brought into the country and sold?).

To both points, what of it? There were people in the North who profited from the slave trade. In fact, Fanieul Hall in Boston, an important Patriot meeting place before and during the Revolution, was built using the proceeds of slave-trading. So what? The North had lots of racists who looked upon Blacks as inferior. So what?

Look, I am perfectly aware that there is something called "presentism", and I perhaps should not hold people 200 years dead accountable for attitudes prevalent today.

Despite all of this, when push came to shove, wise men compromised on the subject of slavery and made sure that the Constitution provided for the cessation of the slave trade over a period of time, instead of leaving it alone, or breaking the Constitutional Convention by refusing to compromise. I get all that. But even many slaveholders recognized the inherent immorality of chattel lifetime slavery. The attitude that slavery was wrong existed back then, and it wasn't just three or four people who thought that way.

Are you familiar with the Dredd Scott decision? Are you familiar with the history of the Constitution which explicitly recognizes slavery?

Yes and yes.

JS recognized this issue, that the slaveholders had a legal claim on their slaves, and one of his platforms was to compensate slaveholders for their legally obtained property, and thereby to free the slaves. Following both a legal and moral solution, rather than a violent one.

Exactly the right way to do it, too! A legal and moral solution was much to be preferred over any other solution. But do you know what? If Joseph had been elected President he would NEVER had gotten the slaveholders or the slaveholding states to buy into it. And do you know why? Because the majority of them refused to recognize the immorality of slavery, and were willing to die rather than give it up -- twenty years later they proved that they were serious about that.

Now, are you really suggesting justification for force and violence against those with whom you strongly disagree, (abortion, SSM come to mind) but are living within the law, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court decisions.

Nothing I have written here can be understood as justifying force and violence. Utterly nothing. I personally refuse to recognize SSM qua marriage, but the Supreme Court is entitled to its decisions, and there is no non-legal channel whatsoever that I would endorse or engage in to get it to reverse any decision it might take, or any legislature might enact, or any governor or President might declare. I don't know where you think you read something I wrote to the contrary.

But back to slavery, I don't care whether it was legal, or Constititional. I grant you it was both.

What I hold against the South of 1860 is that it was willing to break the Union to keep humans in bondage, when Lincoln himself said that he wouild let them keep their slaves, and their "peculiar institution". They recognized that if they didn't keep the number of slave and non-slave states equal that eventually their "peculiar institution" was doomed, however, over the long term. They chose violence rather than choose freedom. And don't tell me that they thought Lincoln would just roll over and let them go. Lincoln made it crystal clear during his campaign that he would give his life before he would permit the Union to be dissolved. And he told them expressly that he would not stir one finger to disturb slavery where it already existed. Too bad they didn't believe him on either promise. Too bad for them, and everyone who died on both sides to pay for their lack of faith.

What would you have done if you were Lincoln? Let the South secede? Allow the Union to dissolve? Allow many of God's children abide in slavery their entire lives?

So the South was willing to plunge the nation into a sea of blood, just so they could continue to enslave humans. And Lincoln was willing to plunge into a sea of blood in order to free humans. That wasn't a war aim to start with, but after having paid such a high price, how could you possibly justify going back to the status quo ante? And the South's willingness to shed blood to promote slavery was a pox upon their house, for which they paid, and paid through the nose. Lincoln's response was bloody, too, but a lesser offense in my view.