Equality, Morality, And The Law

[wenglund]

There are a number of question that I wish to pose in this thread regarding the principles of equality and morality in relation to the law.

 

First, in a culture that seems obsessed with equality, would it disturb you to learn that U.S. courts employ an extra-constitutional method of judicial review which intentionally gives unequal treatment to certain classes of people, particularly in cases where there is a moral component?

 

In other words, are you bothered by the fact that the very Constitution that some believe is intended to assure equality, is being interpreted extra-constitutionally and inequitably on moral issues--not that anything can necessarily be done about it?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

There are a number of question that I wish to pose in this thread regarding the principles of equality and morality in relation to the law.

 

First, in a culture that seems obsessed with equality, would it disturb you to learn that U.S. courts employ an extra-constitutional method of judicial review which intentionally gives unequal treatment to certain classes of people, particularly in cases where there is a moral component?

 

In other words, are you bothered by the fact that the very Constitution that some believe is intended to assure equality, is being interpreted extra-constitutionally and inequitably on moral issues--not that anything can necessarily be done about it?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I suspect we would disagree over whether a judicial review employed by US courts is extra-constitutional or simply a development of process and precedent. And of course, how you understand unequal treatment may not be the way it is understood in the courts or by others.

[Duncan]

love your posts wenglund, big fan,  but what does this have to do with the Church or Gospel?

[thesometimesaint]

There are a number of question that I wish to pose in this thread regarding the principles of equality and morality in relation to the law.

 

First, in a culture that seems obsessed with equality, would it disturb you to learn that U.S. courts employ an extra-constitutional method of judicial review which intentionally gives unequal treatment to certain classes of people, particularly in cases where there is a moral component?

 

In other words, are you bothered by the fact that the very Constitution that some believe is intended to assure equality, is being interpreted extra-constitutionally and inequitably on moral issues--not that anything can necessarily be done about it?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Court Review is no where mentioned in the US Constitution. It is based on the Judiciary Act of 1789, The Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment of 1791, Marbury v Madison in 1803, and the 14tth Amendment in 1868.

 

The Courts  have interpreted the Commerce Clause to give the Federal Government the right to allocate money and control commerce within and between the states. IE; Brown v Board of Education

[ERayR]

Court Review is no where mentioned in the US Constitution. It is based on the Judiciary Act of 1789, The Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment of 1791, Marbury v Madison in 1803, and the 14tth Amendment in 1868.

 

The Courts  have interpreted the Commerce Clause to give the Federal Government the right to allocate money and control commerce within and between the states. IE; Brown v Board of Education

 

The question is not how the courts have interpreted it but is that interpretation constitutional?

[thesometimesaint]

The question is not how the courts have interpreted it but is that interpretation constitutional?

 

The Marbury v Madison established that the courts get to decide if a law is Constitutional. Congress can override the courts by enacting a Constitutional Amendment to change the Constitution. We have another option called a Constitutional Convention to change the Constitution or do away with it altogether. We have exercised that option only once in the history of our country. It gave us our present Constitution on May 25, 1787.

[halconero]

Naw, I'm Canadian. Constitution doesn't apply.

 

God save the Queen.

[Bikeemikey]

The question is not how the courts have interpreted it but is that interpretation constitutional?

Given that the point of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution the interpretation is always constitutional, unless an act of congress specifically alters constitutional language-intent to render the courts interpretation no longer relevant.

[ERayR]

The Marbury v Madison established that the courts get to decide if a law is Constitutional. Congress can override the courts by enacting a Constitutional Amendment to change the Constitution. We have another option called a Constitutional Convention to change the Constitution or do away with it altogether. We have exercised that option only once in the history of our country. It gave us our present Constitution on May 25, 1787.

 

Thanks for the fourth grade civics lesson.  You continuously under rate may ability to understand.  I am well aware that it established that extra-constitutional doctrine.  I am also aware of the remedies available.  Just because remedial action was not taken doe not mean that it should not have been.

[ERayR]

Given that the point of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution the interpretation is always constitutional, unless an act of congress specifically alters constitutional language-intent to render the courts interpretation no longer relevant.

 

Just because remedial action was not taken doe not mean that it should not have been.  Just because the Supreme Court rules that way does not mean it is constitutional.  It only means that 5 out of 9 ruled that way.  Personal activism has often influenced said court and not always correctly.

[Stone holm]

Given that the point of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution the interpretation is always constitutional, unless an act of congress specifically alters constitutional language-intent to render the courts interpretation no longer relevant.

Well actually it was not terribly clear at the outset that the Supreme Court was going to fulfill that role. The idea that we now have that the Courts would be the ultimate guardians of the Constitution is not universal. The President and each Member of Congress also holds that responsibility. Thus from time to time you have Presidents refusing to defend or enforce laws they believe unConstitutional.

[wenglund]

I suspect we would disagree over whether a judicial review employed by US courts is extra-constitutional or simply a development of process and precedent. And of course, how you understand unequal treatment may not be the way it is understood in the courts or by others.

 

People can disagree whether they have a reasonable basis for doing so or not.

 

However, if you can point to anywhere in the constitution where it mentions different levels of scrutiny, then you may have a reasonable basis for disagreeing with me on the extra-constitutionality of judicial review in Equal Protection and Due Process cases. Otherwise you don't.

 

And, unless the meaning of things like different levels of scrutiny/classifications are synonymous with "equal" in the minds of the alleged other people and the courts, then it is unlikely that they and I essentially understand the notion of "unequal treatment" all that differently.

 

But, aside from your unwarranted dismissive and conjectural well-poisoning, do you intend to answer the question posed in the OP of this thread?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bikeemikey]

Just because remedial action was not taken doe not mean that it should not have been. Just because the Supreme Court rules that way does not mean it is constitutional. It only means that 5 out of 9 ruled that way. Personal activism has often influenced said court and not always correctly.

By default when the Supreme Court rules something constitutional or not constitutional it is exactly what they rule it, unless congress opts to use their power to modify the constitution.

You may not agree with the court ruling but the court decides what is constitutional or not... That's just the what it is.

As stoneholm notes, it may have not been intended that way but that is what we've got.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[wenglund]

love your posts wenglund, big fan,  but what does this have to do with the Church or Gospel?

 

I appreciate the shout-out, and in answer to your question, the topic touches on a number of moral issues of interest to and potentially impacting on the Church, including, but not limited to SSM.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

I appreciate the shout-out, and in answer to your question, the topic touches on a number of moral issues of interest to and potentially impacting on the Church, including, but not limited to SSM.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

There's the rub. We get into very shaky territory when we think that moral issues are to be decided by the government. Constitutional issues, yes.

[wenglund]

Court Review is no where mentioned in the US Constitution. It is based on the Judiciary Act of 1789, The Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment of 1791, Marbury v Madison in 1803, and the 14tth Amendment in 1868.

 

The Courts  have interpreted the Commerce Clause to give the Federal Government the right to allocate money and control commerce within and between the states. IE; Brown v Board of Education

 

Okay. But how does this address the question posed in the OP?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Thanks for the fourth grade civics lesson.  You continuously under rate may ability to understand.  I am well aware that it established that extra-constitutional doctrine.  I am also aware of the remedies available.  Just because remedial action was not taken doe not mean that it should not have been.

 

Question: What is the functional difference between something that is not done, and that same thing that can't be done? Answer: Not one bit.

[wenglund]

The Marbury v Madison established that the courts get to decide if a law is Constitutional. 

 

The issue I raised wasn't whether the courts get to decide the constitutionality of the law, but the reaction of equality-sensitive people here to the realization that the courts are using extra-constitutional means for interpreting the Constitution which privileges certain classes of people--treating them unequally.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

There's the rub. We get into very shaky territory when we think that moral issues are to be decided by the government. Constitutional issues, yes.

 

Unless we live in an amoral society and are governed amorally, then the so-called "shaky territory" is unavoidable.  We don't.

 

Besides, whether and how the government makes decisions on issues of morality, is, itself, a constitutional issues.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

The issue I raised wasn't whether the courts get to decide the constitutionality of the law, but the reaction of equality-sensitive people here to the realization that the courts are using extra-constitutional means for interpreting the Constitution which privileges certain classes of people--treating them unequally.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Under our system that until successfully challenged in court a law is constitutional. Congress is well within it statutory rights to determine where/when discrimination crosses the line into illegal behavior. IE; Separate but Equal was the law for many years, enforced by Jim Crow laws. It was successfully challenged Brown v Board of Education and further codified in the Civil Rights laws of the late 1960's.

[thesometimesaint]

Unless we live in an amoral society and are governed amorally, then the so-called "shaky territory" is unavoidable.  We don't.

 

Besides, whether and how the government makes decisions on issues of morality, is, itself, a constitutional issues.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Only somewhat. The First Amendment precludes the state from establishing any specific morality.

[jkwilliams]

Only somewhat. The First Amendment precludes the state from establishing any specific morality.

 

Maybe we should amend the Constitution.

[wenglund]

Only somewhat. The First Amendment precludes the state from establishing any specific morality.

 

You are wildly mistaken in your interpretation of the First Amendment. In no rational sense does "morality" = Establishment of Religion, otherwise atheists must be considered as amoral, or rather there would be no such thing as secular morals.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

You are wildly mistaken in your interpretation of the First Amendment. In no rational sense does "morality" = Establishment of Religion, otherwise atheists must be considered as amoral, or rather there would be no such thing as secular morals.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I don't think he's talking about freedom of religion.

[wenglund]

Under our system that until successfully challenged in court a law is constitutional. Congress is well within it statutory rights to determine where/when discrimination crosses the line into illegal behavior. IE; Separate but Equal was the law for many years, enforced by Jim Crow laws. It was successfully challenged Brown v Board of Education and further codified in the Civil Rights laws of the late 1960's.

 

Okay...but how does this address the question in the OP?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-