Massachusetts sues the USA

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jjsjr, Jul 9, 2009.

  1. jjsjr

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,838
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    336
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wilmington (DE, US)
  2. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you aren't a judicial scholar...

    To paraphrase Sandler: they can...and they did.
     
  3. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,370
    Likes Received:
    2,102
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Everyone doesn't know about the White House's Department of Law.

    Palin went on to say that that those kinds of ethics accusations wouldn't be such an issue if she were president because of the White House "Department of Law."

    Palin: "Department Of Law" Protects The President


     
  4. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Oh my... this makes the same sex marriage debate rather interesting. State vs. Country? I'll be paying attention to this one!
     
  5. AllHazzardi

    AllHazzardi Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    339
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Palm Springs, California
    From the point that came in, likewise in the case of the various Marriage Protection Acts passed by individual, it was destined to be stricken down. The US Government is supposed to govern the overall body of the states, and to do so fairly, it must give equal representation to all individuals of all natures. What this means is essentially every given law in a state is interpreted into federal law through the eyes of Justice, so to speak. Instead of Marriage: The union of a man and a woman; The government is supposed to see Marriage: The union of a person(without attention to gender) and another person (without attention to gender).

    In other words, the definition, statement, or law, has its differentiating values neutralized; the Federal law has been written to cover the diversity of its municipality, not just the majority. This is the target function of the Senate, as opposed to the House which functions for majority.

    Anything which does not fit this statement is stricken down in the federal level.

    The result is that eventually, repressed minorities join together and follow the drive to Unify(A step more valuable than Diversification, but far more risky) in order to have their fair voice heard. Even in our current situation, you can look at the race of the constituents, the Majority in a multiple-group system is rarely a 51% or greater majority; This generally only happens in a two-team system, which is rare in nature and very difficult to correctly control. The current majority in the US might be lucky to compose 40% of the constituents, with minorities splitting the remaining 60% into smaller pieces. When these minorities remain diverse and disagreeable, they cannot gain their sway, but when they come together for common goals, they end up in control of the system, and become the new majority.

    I always found it interesting how effective the system the founding fathers put into motion 233 years ago is today. The seemingly off-balance wobble it goes through is actually a normal part of the system; the recoil from a powerful advance in a new direction. It's the resilient rebounding and returning resistance to the applied force. When the force is not strong enough, the collective recoil is in control, but when it is strong enough, the force is in control.

    The system provided for in the declaration and constitution is what birthed the end of slavery in the United States, not directly, but indirectly through manipulation of the situation. If the recoil is collectively strong enough, the resistant force becomes an energetic force. The result is, in short, a system of evolution for ideas through political manipulation which reduces the impact and instance of wars and bloodshed, but also orients them towards beneficial results in the result of bloodshed.

    ----

    There you go, in one medium-length post, my comment, the explanation of the comment(To reduce misinterpretation), the logical analysis summary of that explanation(To reduce errors), and the logical reasoning for encompassing ideal and extreme variables within the visible data(To reduce conflicts between environmental knowledge).
     
  6. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,454
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    49
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    Laughable, at best.
     
  7. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,285
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,148
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    Actually it's quite serious. It argues that section 2 of DOMA is unconstitutional in that it interferes with State's Rights. This will end up at the Supreme Court. It should be interesting to see how the right wing of the court views this as the argument is a Pro Federalist one.
     
  8. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    If the conservative justices on the court are honest, then they have to admit that Massachusetts is correct in its claim. DOMA violates the 14th amendment rights of individuals and violates Article Four of the US Constitution. Article Four is the, "full faith and credit," clause of the Constitution which guarantees that the legal proceedings of any state shall be recognized by other states:

    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.​

    Whereas DOMA states:

    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. ​

    Clearly, DOMA excludes one particular type of legal proceeding from being recognized among states which do not want to recognize it-- namely, gay marriage. A strict Constitutionalist (as Alito claims to be) has to realize it's a double standard and that DOMA cannot stand. Even if Massachusetts cannot force gay marriage to be extended in other states, it can force every other state and territory to recognize marriages performed within the state.

    Constitution trumps U.S. Code, Mass wins.

    What is less clear is if the justices would strike down the entire law or just the particular subsection which deals with states recognizing each other's legal proceedings. If Mass is smart, they'll go after DOMA under the 14th Amendment as well which states in part:

    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.​

    I've discussed why the Fourteenth Amendment and how it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in various cases is extremely relevant to the gay marriage issue, but suffice to say, the states which bar gay marriage have to prove they have a legitimate, compelling, and unbiased reason for barring gay marriage. They cannot bar it simply because they don't like gay people getting married.

    Most difficult is getting the federal government to recognize gay marriage, but if DOMA falls, then the feds may have no choice. This could go either way, but I tend to think the scales tip in the favor of invalidating DOMA.
     
  9. B_Stronzo

    B_Stronzo New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,730
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Plimoth Plantation
    I am so-loving that the Commonwealth is doing it.

    Sorry by my allegiance to my state is shining through. Tea Party, Women's suffrage, William Lloyd Garrison?

    YES SIRREEE!!!
     
  10. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,285
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,148
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
  11. B_Stronzo

    B_Stronzo New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,730
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Plimoth Plantation
    Thanks Indy ... It's really quite thorough. And I'm champing at the bit to see how it comes down.

    I'm so bloody tired of all of this but I know it's essential.

    How do you feel about the possibility of success given the take in that analysis?
     
  12. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    Hmm... read that bit Indy posted and now I'm less enthusiastic about Mass's challenge. They may be right, Mass may have no standing to bring the suit based upon the arguments of the suit. In that case, SCOTUS may refuse to recognize certiorari. States cannot sue on behalf of its citizens because it does not like how the federal government governs its people. A state cannot also sue the federal government for denying funds offered under a carrot-and-stick law. I want to see how this plays out.

    I wonder why Mass doesn't include an Article 4 complaint to force other states to recognize Mass's legal proceedings? I think they have an excellent case there. What they would need is some evidence that the citizens of Massachusetts have been harmed by another state's lack of legal recognition of marriage. That shouldn't be difficult. Any constitutional lawyers want to answer that one?
     
    #12 jason_els, Jul 11, 2009
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2009
  13. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,285
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,148
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
  14. vibratingfinger

    vibratingfinger New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    301
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    US of Jesusfreaks
    Of course they can. It's been done before.
     
  15. D_Bob_Crotchitch

    D_Bob_Crotchitch New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    8,498
    Likes Received:
    18
    This is going to be a long drawn out case. There is no guarantee that states will be forced to recognize marriages performed in Massachusetts. Just as slavery was legal in southern states, it was not legal in many northen ones. It is not an automatic ruling in favor of Massachusetts. It is going to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

    With the extreme relationship dysfunctionality in the US, I don't know why anybody would even get into marriage. Look at how many straight marriages end in divorce.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted