Comments on: Defending the 10th Amendment http://www.minthegap.com/2009/10/29/defending-the-10th-amendment/ Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God. Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:17:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: studio 868 http://www.minthegap.com/2009/10/29/defending-the-10th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-85667 studio 868 Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:04:09 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2009/10/29/defending-the-10th-amendment/#comment-85667 I believe that our laws should be more local based on the differences of the population of each state. .-= studio 868´s last blog ..<a href="http://www.copycatrestaurantrecipes.net/%copycatrestaurantrecipes%.html">Applebee’s Club House Grill</a> =-. I believe that our laws should be more local based on the differences of the population of each state.
.-= studio 868´s last blog ..Applebee’s Club House Grill =-.

]]> By: MInTheGap http://www.minthegap.com/2009/10/29/defending-the-10th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-85659 MInTheGap Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:07:39 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2009/10/29/defending-the-10th-amendment/#comment-85659 You have not demonstrated that DOMA is Congressional overreach. First, it has not been proven that not allowing individuals the permission to have a union other than the current definition of marriage is an infringement on their rights. They have the right to marry one opposite sex person just like every other person in the country. There is no difference in the rights of that individual compared to any other-- all have the same rights. Second, the 10th Amendment allows congress to dictate the effect a contract that is created in one state has on another. This is defined in the second clause, which you have yet to acknowledge or even address. In the articles to which I linked-- which I can only assume you did not read-- those with a professional lawyer background said that the 10th amendment argument is the weaker of the two. In reading those that agree with your point of view, even they say that what Congress did with DOMA is in line with what is in the 10th Amendment, but that they believe evolving definitions of privacy and relationships will give way to same-sex marriage. Hardly the degree of certainty you express. You have not demonstrated that DOMA is Congressional overreach.

First, it has not been proven that not allowing individuals the permission to have a union other than the current definition of marriage is an infringement on their rights. They have the right to marry one opposite sex person just like every other person in the country. There is no difference in the rights of that individual compared to any other– all have the same rights.

Second, the 10th Amendment allows congress to dictate the effect a contract that is created in one state has on another. This is defined in the second clause, which you have yet to acknowledge or even address.

In the articles to which I linked– which I can only assume you did not read– those with a professional lawyer background said that the 10th amendment argument is the weaker of the two. In reading those that agree with your point of view, even they say that what Congress did with DOMA is in line with what is in the 10th Amendment, but that they believe evolving definitions of privacy and relationships will give way to same-sex marriage.

Hardly the degree of certainty you express.

]]> By: Charles http://www.minthegap.com/2009/10/29/defending-the-10th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-85656 Charles Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:33:40 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2009/10/29/defending-the-10th-amendment/#comment-85656 There is one area in which it is clear that the Federal government can overrule the states - the area of Constitutional rights. A state cannot infringe on the rights of a citizen within its boundaries. The Congress can and does pass unconstitutional laws from time to time and either they or the courts usually overturn those laws. DOMA is a clear example of the Congress overreaching its authority. First, because it withholds rights from one segment of the citizenry that are available to another (violating the 14th Amendment) and it permits/encourages states to refuse to honor contracts legally valid and approved by another state (violating Article 1). There is one area in which it is clear that the Federal government can overrule the states – the area of Constitutional rights. A state cannot infringe on the rights of a citizen within its boundaries. The Congress can and does pass unconstitutional laws from time to time and either they or the courts usually overturn those laws. DOMA is a clear example of the Congress overreaching its authority. First, because it withholds rights from one segment of the citizenry that are available to another (violating the 14th Amendment) and it permits/encourages states to refuse to honor contracts legally valid and approved by another state (violating Article 1).

]]> By: MInTheGap http://www.minthegap.com/2009/10/29/defending-the-10th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-85654 MInTheGap Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:33:00 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2009/10/29/defending-the-10th-amendment/#comment-85654 The Federal Government did make a statement--that for Federal purposes, the definition of marriage is a man and a woman, and that no state has to recognize anything else. So, by your comment they were well within their rights. Simply because the Federal Government made a decision that contradicts your point of view doesn't mean they aren't agreeing with your logic. I'm not sure what your complain is then? I've been consistent when I've had chance to discuss these issues. The states should have the ability to govern things individually, especially when it comes to moral questions. The Federal Government did make a statement–that for Federal purposes, the definition of marriage is a man and a woman, and that no state has to recognize anything else. So, by your comment they were well within their rights.

Simply because the Federal Government made a decision that contradicts your point of view doesn’t mean they aren’t agreeing with your logic.

I’m not sure what your complain is then?

I’ve been consistent when I’ve had chance to discuss these issues. The states should have the ability to govern things individually, especially when it comes to moral questions.

]]> By: Charles http://www.minthegap.com/2009/10/29/defending-the-10th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-85649 Charles Sun, 01 Nov 2009 03:48:32 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2009/10/29/defending-the-10th-amendment/#comment-85649 When states decided that the weak federal environmental laws were inadequate to protect their people, the federal government prevented them from enacting laws that went further than the federal mandate. I didn't notice a lot of libertarians and conservatives complaining then. When states decided that the laws against marijuana use were ridiculous and the drug was useful for cancer patients, wasn't it a conservative federal government that stepped in and arrested people? When a state court mandated a recount of a tightly contested election, didn't a conservative Supreme Court interfere in their Constitutional rights and prevent it? Where was the conservative outrage then? The Constitution is clear that states do not have the right to violate the Constitutional rights of their citizens regardless of their rationale. That's why the government was right to step in and end segregation and why the federal government would be right to step in now and end discrimination against gay Americans. If you want to champion the 10th Amendment, then you have to champion it consistently and you have to read the rest of the document to understand what rights are given to the federal government. When states decided that the weak federal environmental laws were inadequate to protect their people, the federal government prevented them from enacting laws that went further than the federal mandate. I didn’t notice a lot of libertarians and conservatives complaining then. When states decided that the laws against marijuana use were ridiculous and the drug was useful for cancer patients, wasn’t it a conservative federal government that stepped in and arrested people? When a state court mandated a recount of a tightly contested election, didn’t a conservative Supreme Court interfere in their Constitutional rights and prevent it? Where was the conservative outrage then?

The Constitution is clear that states do not have the right to violate the Constitutional rights of their citizens regardless of their rationale. That’s why the government was right to step in and end segregation and why the federal government would be right to step in now and end discrimination against gay Americans.

If you want to champion the 10th Amendment, then you have to champion it consistently and you have to read the rest of the document to understand what rights are given to the federal government.

]]>