Chicago 3 Setlist Party - Ballroom at last??

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Lila64 said:
tumblr_mvxjz5MqEi1r91oczo1_500.0.gif
Click to expand...

#SaveFerris
 
cobl04 said:
No? They decided gay people are the same as straight people nationwide, what is dangerous about that? I'd say that's pretty nice.
Click to expand...

That's....not...their....job.....

They are there to interpret the law, not establish it....this is why it should be a issue for each individual state, and not the Federal government.
 
RedHill Townie said:
NOT trying to prevent anyone's freedom....I am all about anyone doing whatever they want (legally speaking that is)...but what happened was that 9 people (9 FEDERAL judges) decided that the rest of the country had to do what they say it has to do....do you not see how dangerous that is????
Click to expand...

I don't understand how people like you have missed how the Supreme Court works for all of the history of the United States.

All ten says is:

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.
Click to expand...

This does not mean that nothing in the first 9 amendments can't be determined on a federal level.

If it's in the constitution it's in the Supreme Court's realm to determine it's legality.

14 says:

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
 
RedHill Townie said:
That's....not...their....job.....

They are there to interpret the law, not establish it....this is why it should be a issue for each individual state, and not the Federal government.
Click to expand...

but wouldnt that interpretation kinda affects how teh laws are enforced? no? sorry for not really knowing too much about US gov. but Im sure thats how it works
 
RedHill Townie said:
Gay marriage was legal in 36 states before Friday, and I'm SURE the other 14 would have followed suit. THIS IS A STATES ISSUE! The Federal government becoming involved in a issue that should be decided on a state level is EXTREMELY dangerous....
Click to expand...


Should we have left interracial marriages up to the states? Women's suffrage? Slavery?

Issues that boil down to the fundamental right to be treated equally under the laws of this nation are not states rights issues.
 
The Supreme Court is part of the constitution. A fact people on the other side leave out. They are fine with it when they literally choose the president in 2000 or any decision that goes their way.






Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
RedHill Townie said:
Glad you can be so mature Dan....

I missed Liams post, and couldn't figure out what Ax was referring to...thanks for referencing it....

NOT trying to prevent anyone's freedom....I am all about anyone doing whatever they want (legally speaking that is)...but what happened was that 9 people (9 FEDERAL judges) decided that the rest of the country had to do what they say it has to do....do you not see how dangerous that is????

Gay marriage was legal in 36 states before Friday, and I'm SURE the other 14 would have followed suit. THIS IS A STATES ISSUE! The Federal government becoming involved in a issue that should be decided on a state level is EXTREMELY dangerous....
Click to expand...

I'd like to deal with just one thing here. In practically any federal system, it is just about inevitable that the centre will gradually acquire power from its constituent units. Sure, those units may try to kick against it every now and then, but it's a well-established trend. It's happened in Australia, it's happened in Canada, it's happened in the US, and it happened so dramatically in New Zealand that its provinces were abolished and it now has only two levels of government, national and local. In any political system there is a strong dynamic of each group (states vs federal, executive vs legislative vs judicial, etc.) trying to assert its power and authority, and in federations the federal unit has the most power and as a result the trend of power accumulation tends to run its way.

Signed,
A political historian whose PhD thesis was on this very topic

RedHill Townie said:
You don't see the danger in 9 people deciding the legality of an issue for the other 318.9 million people in a country?
Click to expand...

Not when they're the ones specifically appointed to interpret the laws for those 318.9 million people, no. (Their ruling is, after all, an interpretation of the law as articulated by the constitution; they have not passed or established any new law.)
 
clerks said:
The Supreme Court is part of the constitution. A fact people on the other side leave out. They are fine with it when they literally choose the president in 2000 or any decision that goes their way.
Click to expand...

I'm honest to God baffled by the argument I've been hearing that the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to decide on this issue. Completely and utterly baffled.

God save the US Education System.
 
Anyway, if you want to continue this debate, Townie, I suggest visiting the Free Your Mind sub forum and diving in there. A set list party thread doesn't seem like the time or place to go in depth on how the Supreme Court works.
 
liamcool said:
Why should an issue that affects things such as federal taxes, right to medical care and insurance, employee benefits, etc. etc. be limited to the state level?

It's unfair and discriminatory to allow for couples to file taxes as a couple in some states, but not in others. It's discriminatory on a socioeconomic level to state that a LGBT couple cannot leave each other property (a federal right, I will remind you) on their death because they live in a state that does not allow it. It's discriminatory to force couples who purchase properties together to pay federal gift taxes, because they live in a state where getting married is illegal.

You may choose to view this as a state issue, and you would be myopic to do so. The benefits of marriage in the US are bestowed at a federal level. Marriage is a federal issue, not a state issue.
Click to expand...

This issue (gay marriage) has been pretty much decided over the last 2 years. It has become legal in 36 states over a very short period of time, and since it only recently came to the forefront of our nation's political awareness, why did the Supreme Court even need to do ANYTHING about it? Is there a system in place to change these kinds of issues that arise? I would say there is, if 36 states have ratified gay marriage over the last few years.

If marriage is a federal issue, then why do you go to your local town government clerk's office to obtain the marriage license? Why don't you go to Washington DC?
 
bono_212 said:
I'm honest to God baffled by the argument I've been hearing that the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to decide on this issue. Completely and utterly baffled.

God save the US Education System.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when the 1% in charge take away all the funding and start pushing common core bullshit that is literally nothing but basic math and reading skills. No arts, very little sciences, and even less social studies/government classes. And today's kids would rather be online than give two shits about the world around them. A sad but true fact.

The entire damn country needs SchoolHouse Rock back. Including half the damn people in charge around here.

I for one, am thrilled. It's about time that equal rights meant EQUAL. If my best friend from college wants to be married to his partner, LET THEM. I chose to get married. Why shouldn't they?

Also, for those who don't support it? Do you support divorce? If marriage is a holy and sacred union, then why is divorce okay? Yep. Thought so.

Good on Bono. Good on U2. GOOD FOR US ALL. #LOVEWINS
 
Not when they're the ones specifically appointed to interpret the laws for those 318.9 million people, no. (Their ruling is, after all, an interpretation of the law as articulated by the constitution; they have not passed or established any new law.)[/QUOTE]

?. Great post.

I'll just add an established judicial system whose judges are vetted by the sitting House from both parties. It isn't 9 unqualified, inexperienced quacks interpreting the law.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using U2 Interference mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BlueSilkenSky
Dancing With The Devil ch. 36
Replies
24
Views
2K
AnCatKatie
AnCatKatie
Irishteen
NLOTH Album Reviews Pt 3
31 32 33
Replies
977
Views
77K
cjboog
cjboog
LemonMelon
Interference's Top 100 Albums of All Time - Listmania! (top 100/individual)
10 11 12
Replies
348
Views
24K
MadForIt
MadForIt
Liesje
Sick....but sooooo satisfied!
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
eep
eep
J
New Pics of Bono at the WAC-Philly Awards Program with Articles!
Replies
14
Views
1K
Jamila
J

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom