Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[akpilot]

Marram wrote:

<quoted text>
Rose, he uses an anarchist’s mindset to interpret the constitution to justify his hate.

I guess that's true, if you consider Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Jay, Patrick Henry, George Mason.... and so on to be "anarchist's".

[akpilot]

Marram wrote:

<quoted text>
As an off topic reply, I truly appreciate your responses and insight. I just don’t have the time or patients to respond to most of these weirdoes, but, I do enjoy reading and appreciate your ever diligent defense of rational thought.

No. You, much like Rose, lack the intelligence to respond. The only difference is, you unlike Rose, are smart enough not to try.

[akpilot]

TucksunJack wrote:

<quoted text>
Try reading The Bill Of Rights, specifically the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment.

I would also toss in the Preamble to the Bill Of Rights. It makes VERY clear the intent and purpose of said Amendments.

Most people don't even know it exists..

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, you should admit you are wrong. I guess now you are telling us that the SCOTUS is wrong when it clearly explained to you what a "Natural Born Citizen" is?
You really need to educate yourself Rose, you are ignorant.
I will give you a free education.
What you claim- "Natural Born Citizen" simply means "Born a Citizen"- is completely wrong, and is exactly what Alexander Hamilton proposed at the Constitutional Convention:
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United
States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."

Yes, "born a citizen of the United States", not, "born a native of the United States".

akpilot wrote:

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later)- John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

Again, natural born citizen, not native.

akpilot wrote:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay)- The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts
So no Rose, it is not the same, and the founders knew it.
And deal with it B!TCH..
You are uneducated, and if it weren't for google searches, you wouldn't even be able to enter into this conversation as you are completely clueless.

First of all, none of those letters are part of the Constitution. Second, none of them say you have to be born in the US to be President. Again, you have to be a natural born citizen, you don't have to be a native.
So, clam down and actually read and try to understand what you copy/paste before you do. Maybe some Pamprin will help.

I'm uneducated!? LOLSER. If you only knew...

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
No, that means exactly what it says Rose- Congress cannot make a law to ESTABLISH a religion, it doesn't mean Congress has to be without religion. Nor did it have any effect on the States.

And that separates church and state.

akpilot wrote:

This is the ONLY correct statement you have made thus far.
<quoted text>
No, the word of the Legislature is LAW.
Ponder this Rose, though I know you have no idea what the answer is nor will you even come close to the correct one:
If we have a system of checks and balances- The Legislature can pass bills- the Executive can VETO said Bills- The Legislature can override VETO and make bill LAW; The Judiciary can rule said law unconstitutional-
-- Who or whom provides the CHECK on the Judiciary?
In your scenario, no one.

My scenario? WTF are you talking about?

akpilot wrote:

They are supreme and they are the knew kings and queens.

Which kings and queens did they know?

akpilot wrote:

Go ahead Rose, take a stab at an answer. The founders provided it to you, so go ahead and use your google skills.

You are so stupid it's funny.
You really think you are some sort of scholar.

[TucksunJack]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
No, that means exactly what it says Rose- Congress cannot make a law to ESTABLISH a religion, it doesn't mean Congress has to be without religion. Nor did it have any effect on the States.
<quoted text>
This is the ONLY correct statement you have made thus far.
<quoted text>
No, the word of the Legislature is LAW.
Ponder this Rose, though I know you have no idea what the answer is nor will you even come close to the correct one:
If we have a system of checks and balances- The Legislature can pass bills- the Executive can VETO said Bills- The Legislature can override VETO and make bill LAW; The Judiciary can rule said law unconstitutional-
-- Who or whom provides the CHECK on the Judiciary?
In your scenario, no one. They are supreme and they are the knew kings and queens.
Go ahead Rose, take a stab at an answer. The founders provided it to you, so go ahead and use your google skills.

Actually each branch checks and balances the other. While you are mostly coirrect in what you say, state or local judge can be removed form office by teh legislature, and federal judges, and justices of SCOTUS, including the Chief Justice, CAN BE REMOVED by congress. Several federal judges have been removed from office by Congress over the centuries, and many more state and local judges have been removed form office by state legislatures over teh centuries.

Thus, because each branch checks and balances the other 2, members of the judiciary are NOT the "kings and queens" you incorrectly, and inelegantly, say they are.

Back to jr. high school basic civics class with ya !

[TucksunJack]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, "born a citizen of the United States", not, "born a native of the United States".
<quoted text>
Again, natural born citizen, not native.
<quoted text>
First of all, none of those letters are part of the Constitution. Second, none of them say you have to be born in the US to be President. Again, you have to be a natural born citizen, you don't have to be a native.
So, clam down and actually read and try to understand what you copy/paste before you do. Maybe some Pamprin will help.
I'm uneducated!? LOLSER. If you only knew...

re: "I'm uneducated!? LOLSER. If you only knew..."; If you WERE EDUCATED, perhaps you would be better at second grade spelling.

[akpilot]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, "born a citizen of the United States", not, "born a native of the United States".
<quoted text>
Again, natural born citizen, not native.
<quoted text>
First of all, none of those letters are part of the Constitution. Second, none of them say you have to be born in the US to be President. Again, you have to be a natural born citizen, you don't have to be a native.
So, clam down and actually read and try to understand what you copy/paste before you do. Maybe some Pamprin will help.
I'm uneducated!? LOLSER. If you only knew...

One more time, since you are really really slow..

----------

Yes, you should admit you are wrong. I guess now you are telling us that the SCOTUS is wrong when it clearly explained to you what a "Natural Born Citizen" is?
You really need to educate yourself Rose, you are ignorant.
I will give you a free education.
What you claim- "Natural Born Citizen" simply means "Born a Citizen"- is completely wrong, and is exactly what Alexander Hamilton proposed at the Constitutional Convention:
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United
States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later)- John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay)- The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts
So no Rose, it is not the same, and the founders knew it.
And deal with it B!TCH..
You are uneducated, and if it weren't for google searches, you wouldn't even be able to enter into this conversation as you are completely clueless.
----------

BTW Rose, do you ever support any of your opinions with actual fact?

And yes Rose, you are uneducated..

Here are a few more for you- but we know, you will once again tell us why you are smarter than the Founders and the SCOTUS.

"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."- The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

------

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." Minor v. Happersett

---------

Need I go on?

[akpilot]

TucksunJack wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually each branch checks and balances the other. While you are mostly coirrect in what you say, state or local judge can be removed form office by teh legislature, and federal judges, and justices of SCOTUS, including the Chief Justice, CAN BE REMOVED by congress. Several federal judges have been removed from office by Congress over the centuries, and many more state and local judges have been removed form office by state legislatures over teh centuries.
Thus, because each branch checks and balances the other 2, members of the judiciary are NOT the "kings and queens" you incorrectly, and inelegantly, say they are.
Back to jr. high school basic civics class with ya !

You need to go back to JR High and take some reading comprehension classes.

Everything in my scenario on the SCOTUS was based on the premise Rose imposed saying the what the SCOTUS rule is Law and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it. That would equate to them being the supreme rulers, thus kings and queens.

And I am fully aware of the impeachment process, which in the case of Supreme Court Justices has happened exactly ONE time, and just like Clinton the impeached Justice was acquitted. That was way back in 1804.

But, with all your talk about impeachment, you missed a very important process which would castrate the court- nullification. But much like the impeachment process, we are far too gun shy to use it and would rather roll over and suffer under the repression of the Federal Government while pretending we are a free country.

[Winston Smith]

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>Then I'm sure u are really boned with the great obama....lol.....number of able-bodied adults on food stamps doubled after Obama suspended work requirement.....This was a blatant attempt by Obama to make sure all those people who are unemployed due to his failed economic policies will still vote for him. He believes in redistribution and this is simply taking from hardworking Americans and giving to those he made less fortunate. If he would just lay off the golf games, partying with Jay-Z and hob nobbing with Rich Hollywood elite, maybe he can "laser focus" on jobs, like he said he would a year ago.

Ah yes, the entire economic downfall is his fault. Amazing how he managed to create the mess before anyone really knew who he was. The things that are wrong with welfare have been wrong with it for at least the last three decades. One of the problems with it is that a recipient is better off staying on welfare than attempting to enter the work force at the bottom. Add in being a single mother and needing daycare while working and the pull to stay in the system is exponential. This is not a liberal policy problem, it is a bipartisan problem as neither side seems to be able to sit down and hammer out compromise on important issues.

[TucksunJack]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You need to go back to JR High and take some reading comprehension classes.
Everything in my scenario on the SCOTUS was based on the premise Rose imposed saying the what the SCOTUS rule is Law and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it. That would equate to them being the supreme rulers, thus kings and queens.
And I am fully aware of the impeachment process, which in the case of Supreme Court Justices has happened exactly ONE time, and just like Clinton the impeached Justice was acquitted. That was way back in 1804.
But, with all your talk about impeachment, you missed a very important process which would castrate the court- nullification. But much like the impeachment process, we are far too gun shy to use it and would rather roll over and suffer under the repression of the Federal Government while pretending we are a free country.

I'm a Libertarian and a Constitutional Strict Constructionist. I was merely pointing out that there ARE checks and balancesof the federal judiciary. And about a dozen federal judges have been impeched, convicted, and removed from office over the preceeding 2 centuries.

Secondly, "nullification" is a dead issue that NOBDOY believes in, because IF a state had the power to nullify federal laws and other federal acts, it would render the United States government powerless. The states voluntarily surrendered many rights to teh federal government when they ratified the U.S. Constitution. And once you're in, you're IN ! There's not even an escape clause for getting out which even the mafia has ("on the shelf" or death, natural or otherwise).

[Winston Smith]

RiccardoFire wrote:

<quoted text>Yes did you read the article, the farmer has to pay more for labor then hiring illegals and paying them crap. I don't mind paying more for produce, but I never buy from the grocery stores where the labor pees on the crops. "The lack of workers is forcing farmers to pay more. In one of Underwood's fields, pickers are harvesting peppers for $9.25 a hour, or $5 a bucket, whichever is more." Good pay people what they deserve. In other words there is no shortage, it's just the farmer doesn't want to pay a Legal Citizen normal working wages. Go on Craigslist, there are no farm jobs advertised, why can't they hire Citizens?

I had an in-law that owned a trucking company and was an apple grower in North Carolina. He tried hiring locals (blacks and whites) and all they did was piss & moan about the heat. He began hiring migrant workers and they did the work without complaint and they were efficient.

I'd like to know how you know there is no one pissing on your produce or how you know which grocery stores have produce that has been pissed on.

[Winston Smith]

Tata wrote:

<quoted text>
Just the fact that you don't know WTF you are talking about tells me that you don't pay much attention to what others say. I never said it ruined marriages you dumb shit, you are stuck on stupid. As far as jobs and pay goes you could only wish you had my job, pay and benefits, I know you will come up with your own envious childish response so don't waste your time it doesn't matter, I am very happy about my lifestyle, I live a very comfortable life and have no worries. LMAO at such an idiot who knows notghing about me or anyone else in this comical topix ...

Very interesting, Taterhead. You claim I know nothing about your income yet you try to imply you know something about mine in that I could only wish I had your job. No thanks. I'm more than happy with the career path I chose.

As far as childish responses, that seems to sum up the majority of yours.

[Winston Smith]

Tata wrote:

<quoted text>
NO NO NO you dumb stupid idiot. You never could get it right you are so wrapped up in yourself and your drugs you will never get it, so just STFU

Yep, more of that childish claptrap coming from your keyboard. What was it you were saying about gay folk? Everyone of them thinks those who disagree with them are idiots or something of that nature? Look in the mirror, taterhead. You direct quite a bit of name calling in the direction of those who disagree with you.

I think we've got a bit of the pot calling the kettle black with you.

[Slotty8it]

Now the gays can be as miserable as the rest of us.

[TucksunJack]

Slotty8it wrote:

Now the gays can be as miserable as the rest of us.

That's one way of lookin at it.

:)

Don't we deserve that kind of equality too ?

:)

[KiMare]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
What protects us from living under sharia law also protects us from living under one version or another of Christian law.
Smart folks, the founding fathers.

Which is why apologizing for supposedly offending Mohammad is not just a violation of free speech, it is imposing a religion on our nation.

Missed that, didn't you?

[TucksunJack]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Which is why apologizing for supposedly offending Mohammad is not just a violation of free speech, it is imposing a religion on our nation.
Missed that, didn't you?

A writer today sugested tat newspapers and other media start publishing offensive Mohammed cartoons everyday. His point is that after awhile these nuts will tire of protesting and being violent, and cartoons of Mohammed will then cease to be offensive.

[KiMare]

TucksunJack wrote:

<quoted text>
A writer today sugested tat newspapers and other media start publishing offensive Mohammed cartoons everyday. His point is that after awhile these nuts will tire of protesting and being violent, and cartoons of Mohammed will then cease to be offensive.

Mohammad is a false prophet and a pedophile who designed a fake god, Allah so he could justify robbery, murder and rape.

Others can believe the claim that Islam is a peaceful, tolerant religion. I prefer to believe my eyes.

[KiMare]

Romney paid a 20% tax rate over the last decade.
Obama paid 20.5% last year.

Romney has averaged 13.5% charitable giving over the last decade.
Obama gave 1% last year.

NPR just reported the first sentence yesterday.