Michael, (And Greg)
Either you have not read The Full Faith in Credit Act, (e.g.; 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) or you do not understand the Commerce Clause of our Constitution, (as well as other clauses).
What regulating Commerce among three entities -- none of which marries -- has to do with this nonsense could ONLY be known by you.
Legislation has NOTHING to do with the Constitution per se.
Attempting to project yourself while spewing nonsensical fallacy does nothing for your failed position.
I am unaware of any Court ruling that this statute is unconstitutional, despite the militant Gay agenda's expressions to the contrary, and I see nothing that any reasonable person of intelligence could argue could be framed or construed as unconstitutional.
So the Constitution is meaningless ... instead it is whatever a majority of Justices might decree? How quaint.
I'm all ears. How prey tell, do you conceive this small little snippet § 1783 as being unconstitutional?
I have asked numerous times and no one has been able to provide the Article, Section and Clause or Amendment that emPowers Congress To make such law. You are certainly welcome to try. AGAIN, here is the Constitution : http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu. txt.
I cannot locate any such assign. As such my position is negative.
Regard$,
--MJ
It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. ... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments coequal and cosovereign within themselves.
-- Thomas Jefferson to Jarvis, 1820
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 7:25 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- At 09:14 PM 1/9/2011, you wrote:
- Please reread DOMA. The wording is very carefully done so as to NOT step on the states toes in any way.
- It does not matter WHAT it might say ... as noted, the Feds have no Power whatsoever to make such legislation.
- Regard$,
- --MJ
- "[T]he ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it." -- Felix Frankfurter, Graves v. New York, 306 US 466 (1939)
- On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 2:08 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- At 10:16 PM 1/8/2011, you wrote:
- If you read DOMA, that is EXACTLY what it says.... It leaves it to
- each and every state.
Whatever DOMA says is irrelevant. The Constitution provides
NO Power To Congress To make any such legislation. In fact,
AIV, Section 1 is contrary.
Let me READ it to you:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the
public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every
other State. And the Congress may by general Laws
prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,Records and
Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
As is plain to see, Congress may, for instance, make a law
requiring pink paper be used for the documentation of the
public act as it is 'transferred' ... but EVERY State MUST
recognize the public acts (ie. marriage), Records and judicial
proceedings of every other State.
There is no Power/Authority or otherwise for the Congress to
"except" some, a few or all.
Congress 'defining' certain public acts is also contrary. It is
up to each state to make that call ... and for all others to extend
Full Faith and Credit for them.
Them thar is the Constitution.
Regard$,
--MJ
"[T]he ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it." -- Felix Frankfurter, Graves v. New York, 306 US 466 (1939)
As to definition for Federal use ONLY it does define the terms (just
use other words you idiot)
"Marriage" and "Spouse".... the law is very exact and has no breathing room.
Every court/jurisdiction/local/district/state/agency or branch has the
right to "Define" terms and their applicability for use within their
domain as long as it is non-conflicting.
On 1/8/11, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
>
> STILL no Constitutional citation.
>
> Here is that document the House purportedly read the other day:
> http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu. txt
>
> So WHERE is the Article, Section and Clause or Amendment
> that provides Congress the Power To make such legislation?
>
> Article IV, Section 1 is contrary to your effort.
>
> This is clearly and plainly no concern nor business of the Feds.
>
> Regard$,
> --MJ
>
> "[T]he ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself
> and not what we have said about it." -- Felix Frankfurter, Graves v. New
> York, 306 US 466 (1939)
>
>
>
> At 06:33 PM 1/8/2011, you wrote:
>>
>> ""No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
>> tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
>> judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
>> respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated
>> as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession,
>> or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
>>
>> This is no different than the law regarding Marriage that exists anyway.
>> It allows each and every State to exercise the Rights they ALREADY have
>> and exercise by treaty among the Several States.
>>
>> In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
>> regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
>> agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
>> union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
>> 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a
>> wife.
>>
>> This is simply upholding the States rights to issue permits and licenses
>> as they see fit while reserving the legal "definition" of two words ...
>> "marriage" and "spouse" on a Federal level. It does not preclude or
>> disallow civil unions that are legally binding but do not include these
>> terms.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 4:13 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
>>
>> <sigh>
>> So you CANNOT support the drivel you presented.
>>
>> There, of course, is no such thing as "Article III, Amendment I"
>>
>> Want to try again? Apparently not.
>>
>>
>> Regard$,
>> --MJ
>>
>> "[T]he ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is
>> the Constitution itself and not what we have said
>> about it."
>> Felix Frankfurter, Graves v. New York, 306 US 466 (1939)
>>
>>
>>
>> At 05:07 PM 1/8/2011, you wrote:
>>>
>>> No, I need not identify anything. You are the one that chose to bring
>>> the subject matter up, and I answered your question! It is, what it
>>> is.
>>>
>>> Read, study, (away from and apart from the
>>> "Militiamen/TaxProtest/Anti-Illuminati/AlexJones/PrisonPlanet/Conspiratorialist
>>> web sites Michael!!
>>>
>>> <Grin>!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> KeithInKöln
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 10:48 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
>>> You will need to (better) identify some Article, Section and Clause or
>>> Amendment of the US Constitution.
>>> I provided a copy for simplicity:
>>> http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu. txt
>>>
>>> Regard$,
>>> --MJ
>>> "[T]he ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is
>>> the Constitution itself and not what we have said
>>> about it."
>>> Felix Frankfurter, Graves v. New York, 306 US 466 (1939)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 04:27 PM 1/8/2011, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For starters Michael, try "Article The Third, Amendment One"
>>>> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:34 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
>>>> DOMA is very much Constitutional.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really? How about citing the article, section and clause or amendment
>>>> you imagine it is based.
>>>> Here is the Constitution:
>>>> http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt
>>>> Regard$,
>>>> --MJ
>>>> "[Some people] have a depraved taste for equality, which impels the
>>>> weak to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer
>>>> equality in slavery to inequality with freedom" -- Alexis De
>>>> Tocqueville.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's
>>>> active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest
>>>> breaking news, and more.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>
>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark M. Kahle H.
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Mark M. Kahle H.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Mark M. Kahle H.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment