When the Constitution is silent

[Crabtownboy]

Oliver Wendell Holmes, when he was a justice on he Supreme Court said,

"when the people ... want to do something that I can't find anything in the Constitution expressly forbidden them to do, I say, whether I like it or not, '[profanity]', let 'em do it.' "

My question is where in the Constitution is there any words on marriage?

 

[Salty]

My question is where in the Constitution is there any words on marriage?

I guess it doesn't -
So with that thinking - why do I need drivers license?

Should the Federal Communications Commission (to control radio and TV) be allowed to exist - the Constitution says nothing about that.....

 

[Crabtownboy]

I guess it doesn't -
So with that thinking - why do I need drivers license?

I guess because your state says you have to have a license and no court has declared that illegal.

Should the Federal Communications Commission (to control radio and TV) be allowed to exist - the Constitution says nothing about that.....

And no court has declared it illegal.

As long as no one challenges a law and the Supreme Court does not rule, or never has a chance to rule on that law, it remains law.

 

[Alcott]

So was it illegal, then, that when Utah applied for statehood, Congress refused unless the state made polygamy illegal? There is nothing in the constitution about marriage-- as you said.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Oliver Wendell Holmes, when he was a justice on he Supreme Court said,

My question is where in the Constitution is there any words on marriage?

The problem is that because marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution, that means it goes to the 9th and 10th Amendments, which say that, where something is not enumerated in the Constitution, it becomes the responsibility of the states.

In other words, because it isn't in the Constitution, it should be up to the states and the federal government should stay out of it.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I guess because your state says you have to have a license and no court has declared that illegal.



And no court has declared it illegal.

As long as no one challenges a law and the Supreme Court does not rule, or never has a chance to rule on that law, it remains law.

In 44 states, the voters have, through referendum negating or by exercising silence on, the issue of approving gay marriage, they have spoken against gay marriage. The Constitution isn't the law of the land. It is the structure by which the law of the land is written.

 

[Bob Alkire]

In other words, because it isn't in the Constitution, it should be up to the states and the federal government should stay out of it.

I believe that is what Robert Bork said and Ted Kennedy said Bork scared him to death or something along that line. I believe that was on abortion.

 

[just-want-peace]

The problem is that because marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution, that means it goes to the 9th and 10th Amendments, which say that, where something is not enumerated in the Constitution, it becomes the responsibility of the states.

In other words, because it isn't in the Constitution, it should be up to the states and the federal government should stay out of it.

Ole Honest Abe made sure that the concept of "individual" states was a belief on the wane, and the liberals have made sure that the modern idea of STATE'S RIGHTS is diminished at every crossroad!!!:BangHead:

MARANATHA

 

[church mouse guy]

So was it illegal, then, that when Utah applied for statehood, Congress refused unless the state made polygamy illegal? There is nothing in the constitution about marriage-- as you said.

Thank you! Those who favor same-sex marriage ignore that point about Utah, and I have read that that law (Edmunds Tucker) was repealed in 1978, although I am not sure if that is correct.

It seems to me that the Supreme Court has implied that the people of California cannot make their own law if the Supreme Court does not like that law no matter what the constitution says. Why should residents of 12 states get a federal benefit that residents of 30 states are not allowed to have?

The Supreme Court is corrupt because it is a political tool not a legal tool.

 

[Aaron]

The problem is that because marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution, that means it goes to the 9th and 10th Amendments, which say that, where something is not enumerated in the Constitution, it becomes the responsibility of the states.

In other words, because it isn't in the Constitution, it should be up to the states and the federal government should stay out of it.

:thumbs:

But even without those amendments, it needs to be understood that the Constituion is not an enumeration of rights. It is an enumeration of powers. IOW, unless a power is stated in the document, the feds don't have it.

Even without the Bill of Rights, the feds have no authority to make a law respecting religion, or the press, or speech, or gun ownership, because the document doesn't say explicitly that the feds may do so.

In the last few decades especially, the feds have been usurping their authority and have acted as no more than despots and tyrants.

Beware of CBT and our other resident Marxist Socialists as they pretend to honor the Constitution while they adulterate and corrupt it.

 

[abcgrad94]

Beware of CBT and our other resident Marxist Socialists as they pretend to honor the Constitution while they adulterate and corrupt it.

Crabtownboy, are you a Marxist Socialist or is this just another personal attack?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

:thumbs:

... Beware of CBT and our other resident Marxist Socialists as they pretend to honor the Constitution while they adulterate and corrupt it.

Amen to that.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Beware of CBT ...

:smilewinkgrin:

When I first read this in the quote Bro. Curtis posted, I thought, "What's wrong with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy? It's biblically based!"

Then, of course, I realized that's not what you were talking about. D'oh!

Fifteen years ago, before I became convinced God was calling me to addictions counseling, it wouldn't have occurred to me to think of your abbreviation as anything but referencing Crabby ... er, Crabtownboy. Funny how things change once your perspective changes.

[/thread derail]

 

[poncho]

:thumbs:

But even without those amendments, it needs to be understood that the Constituion is not an enumeration of rights. It is an enumeration of powers. IOW, unless a power is stated in the document, the feds don't have it.

Even without the Bill of Rights, the feds have no authority to make a law respecting religion, or the press, or speech, or gun ownership, because the document doesn't say explicitly that the feds may do so.

In the last few decades especially, the feds have been usurping their authority and have acted as no more than despots and tyrants.

Beware of CBT and our other resident Marxist Socialists as they pretend to honor the Constitution while they adulterate and corrupt it.

What they've done is "collectivized" the law against the individual it was designed to protect. The collectivist mind just cannot comprehend the idea of an individual being born with inalienable rights anymore than it can comprehend that violating and restricting the individual's inalienable rights for the greater good always ends up with the collectivists themselves losing all their government granted rights too.

Evidently the collectivist mind cannot comprehend the clear lessons of history.

 

[Dennis324]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

A General Welfare clause is a section that appeared in the Constitution, which provides that the governing body empowered by the document may enact laws to promote the general welfare of the people, sometimes worded as the public welfare.

The Congress is empowered to act under these circumstances. But a lot of people don't think of the preamble when claiming the Constitution says nothing about this or that.

And if its up to the states (rather than the Congress) to decide, then why did the Supreme Court shoot down Prop 8? The people of California exercised their will, but the courts slammed the door shut on them.

 

[Aaron]

The preamble is not an article of the Constitution. It neither enumerates nor bestows a power.

Where'd you go to school?

 

[Dennis324]

The preamble is not an article of the Constitution. It neither enumerates nor bestows a power.

Where'd you go to school?

What kind of smart aleck remark is that? The OP never asked anything about an article.