Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I thought of the timing one too, but it doesn't solve the problem of a legislature forced to do so (create civil unions) by a court after ratification.

If a federal constitution limits such actions to legislatures, a court could not rely on a state constitutional provision to order a legislature to act. The Supremacy Clause would have to dictate otherwise.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Almost surely, the drafters differ in their views. I don't doubt that some would like to outlaw civil unions. Maybe Allard doesn't feel this way.

The americans for families website, or whatever they are that i posted, takes teh same position, and it seems to be the uniform position of proponents as to teh meaning (based on a hasty google search). They might like more, but they don't claim to be getting it through this amendment.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The point wasn't to come up with a substitute that won't happen. It was to see whether one can smoke out the true intent.

One of three things is going on:

1) The proponents have evil, nefarious intent beyond what they say

2) The proponents are ham-handed drafters

3) The proponents struggled mightily to come up with language to achieve their stated aims, and believe this is the best way possible.

We can't independently prove 1 one way or the other, but we can decide whether 2 or 3 is what's happening, and use it to shed light on whether 1 is the actual explanation.

So, propose an alternative that proves 2 is what's happening, rather than 3.

You propose an alternative that proves that 3 is what's happening, rather than 2.

There's another choice -- I kind of doubt that the actual elected official sponsoring the legislation wrote it. So, it may be that the sponsor himself has no evil nefarious intent, but the writer does.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The americans for families website, or whatever they are that i posted, takes teh same position, and it seems to be the uniform position of proponents as to teh meaning (based on a hasty google search). They might like more, but they don't claim to be getting it through this amendment.

Conspiracy theory says, they're very good at staying on message. Especially in an election year.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If a federal constitution limits such actions to legislatures, a court could not rely on a state constitutional provision to order a legislature to act. The Supremacy Clause would have to dictate otherwise.

Going back to re-read, I see your point. "Extend" can't happen initially by a court, and that would be interpreted also to mean a court can't require a legislatute to extend. Am I getting it? Although I don't think it would be a supremacy clause argument, but rather an interpretive exercise holding that "extend" can't be circumvented by imposing a requirment on a legislature to extend a la Mass. and Vt.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You propose an alternative that proves that 3 is what's happening, rather than 2.

There's another choice -- I kind of doubt that the actual elected official sponsoring the legislation wrote it. So, it may be that the sponsor himself has no evil nefarious intent, but the writer does.

Ah, the old "disprove a negative" stratagem. An oldie but goodie. Ty seems to have come up with a pretty good alternative, which I'd like to see argued why it's insufficient.

And you've hit on the problem of legislative intent. WHat are the true intentions and how do we measure them. Assuming we use them at all, one has to go on stated intentions. Until we have those statements from teh floor of the house/senate, I'm happy to accept, at least temporarily, those made in advance of the amendment's introduction.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Going back to re-read, I see your point. "Extend" can't happen initially by a court, and that would be interpreted also to mean a court can't require a legislatute to extend. Am I getting it? Although I don't think it would be a supremacy clause argument, but rather an interpretive exercise holding that "extend" can't be circumvented by imposing a requirment on a legislature to extend a la Mass. and Vt.

I think we're saying the same thing. If someone argued that the Nevada Supreme Court should apply Nevada's EP Clause to require the Nevada legislature to enact civil unions, the response would be that my amendment would preclude the Court from so doing. If the Nevada Court disagreed, this would be a federal question you could take to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Ah, the old "disprove a negative" stratagem. An oldie but goodie. Ty seems to have come up with a pretty good alternative, which I'd like to see argued why it's insufficient.

And you've hit on the problem of legislative intent. WHat are the true intentions and how do we measure them. Assuming we use them at all, one has to go on stated intentions. Until we have those statements from teh floor of the house/senate, I'm happy to accept, at least temporarily, those made in advance of the amendment's introduction.

Hey, I took the "disprove a negative" move directly from you. I bow down to your old but goodness, but note that you are complimenting yourself. Some people think that's a no-no.

(a) I think the idea of amending the constitution merely to "protect" the word marriage (but not really all the stuff that comes with marriage) is stupid. (b) If it has to happen, I like Ty's clarification. (c) I believe a significant number, if not the majority, of the supporters of the amendment are happy with the ambiguity discussed here today. However, this is almost impossible to prove.(d) This amendment won't make it.

Edited to add that a main push of this seems to be to protect the word "marriage" from being dirtied by same-sex couples. This is just ludicrous. LUDICROUS!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
And you are also in favor of polygamous marriages, true?

yes

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

The announcement was timed so that people wouldn't notice Greenspan grabbing the third rail with both hands, shuddering as the voltage ripped through his withered flesh, and slumping to the concrete, a smoking, twitching mess.

Hard to believe Greenspan advocates doing something politically unpopular. We're talking about a man who's never seen a bubble he didn't like.

Link to coverage of Greenspan announement

Link

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
3) allow state legislatures to enact civil union laws providing the same (or similar) "incidents" of marriage to gay couples, so long as their doing so is not under compulsion of a court ruling.

You would prohibit state courts from interpreting their own state constitutions? Weird.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You would prohibit state courts from interpreting their own state constitutions? Weird.

That is exactly the point of the amendment. The right does not want these "moral" questions (e.g., Roe) decided by a handful of judges, rather than the "people."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You would prohibit state courts from interpreting their own state constitutions? Weird.

I don't think Burger was advocating that position, just interpreting the proposed amendment.

Originally posted by sgtclub
That is exactly the point of the amendment. The right does not want these "moral" questions (e.g., Roe) decided by a handful of judges, rather than the "people."

There's something entirely bass-ackwards about deciding that a state's constitution is not the legitimate expression of the views of the state's people, and then enshrining that notion by amending the federal constitution.

Which is to say that judges' rulings are only legitimate insofar as they intepret constitutions adopted by the people, and if the people don't like what the judges do they can amend the constitution.

[bilmore]

I bet Bush drops this mess like a hot potato.

Here's the newest polling data on the issue.


(Opposed - 47% For - 41% Trend - to Opposed)

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
a main push of this seems to be to protect the word "marriage" from being dirtied by same-sex couples. This is just ludicrous. LUDICROUS!

No, it is to prevent having to make polygamy legal.