Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban


__Kratos__

Recommended Posts

Where does it say that the writers specifically believe it to be a living document thru the Judicial branch?

Harte, I wouldn't get involved in a discussion about the Constitution with Aroces.

--Jaylemurph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • AROCES

    50

  • ninjadude

    18

  • jaylemurph

    12

  • Lt_Ripley

    11

Harte, I wouldn't get involved in a discussion about the Constitution with Aroces.

--Jaylemurph

JM,

I won't. He's on my ignore list now.

Of course, I can still see his "comments" as long as people keep quoting him (hint hint.) :lol:

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JM,

Since you did quote him, I'll answer.

The Eighth Amendment provides:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

What was not considered cruel or unusual in the 1700s is today considered quite barbaric.

Had the framers intended a strict reading of what was cruel or unusual, they would have provided a list of forbidden punishments.

Instead, they left this for the Supreme Court to decide.

Thomas Jefferson said:

" I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Edmond Randolph, who was a member of the "committee on detail" which wrote the first draft of the Constitution said:

"In the draught of a fundamental constitution, two things deserve attention:

1. To insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events:

and

2. To use simple and precise language, and general propositions, according to the example of the constitutions of the several states."

That's all the hints he deserves.

More than he deserves, probably.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JM,

Since you did quote him, I'll answer.

The Eighth Amendment provides:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

What was not considered cruel or unusual in the 1700s is today considered quite barbaric.

Had the framers intended a strict reading of what was cruel or unusual, they would have provided a list of forbidden punishments.

Instead, they left this for the Supreme Court to decide.

Thomas Jefferson said:

" I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Edmond Randolph, who was a member of the "committee on detail" which wrote the first draft of the Constitution said:

"In the draught of a fundamental constitution, two things deserve attention:

1. To insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events:

and

2. To use simple and precise language, and general propositions, according to the example of the constitutions of the several states."

That's all the hints he deserves.

More than he deserves, probably.

Harte

I thought you suppose to ignore me??? Can't help it huh? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you suppose to ignore me??? Can't help it huh? :D

It's kind of like looking at a dramatic accident on the highway AROCES. You don't know why you look, but you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's kind of like looking at a dramatic accident on the highway AROCES. You don't know why you look, but you do.

LOL

And complain about the slow traffic at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom does not mean anything goes as long as no one gets harm, a society is built by people having certain guidelines.

And who is better to decides those certain guidelines, the people or Judges?

It depends on who is the most rational and fair.

Homosexuals harm no one and merely wish to not be persecuted as well as have the same rights that everyone else has. Well no one is saying that you could not disagree with their life style and how they live them, no person is in any position can tell them they don't have he same right to marriage that everyone else has. Or at least this is how a free nation is supposed to be.

Edited by AtheistGod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.