Obama Says Some Have `hijacked' Faith

Because He put monarchies into power, instead of republics?

 

Very well said with just a few words! :applause:

 

Rufus said:

You don't like poisoning the well or begging the question at all, do you Seriously, I'm between a dual federalist (what you seem to be) and a cooperative federalist, and I lean slightly more to the dual part. There are some instances where Federalism is justified (the Constitution contains these, does it not)? Never have I said that the Feds should make all laws and you know that. I'm just saying that there are standards that should be applicable to all states because we are one nation. You disagree. That's your perogative. It's also your perogative to question me simply because I haven't drunk the Ron Paul Kool Aid yet

I think you mean the Treaty of Paris...and I appeal to the Constitution.

Then,

You answer my question about a state legalizing rape, then I'll answer yours. I asked you first

The "Fed" was given powers by the representatives who drafted the Constitution. The states then ratified the Constitution. Sounds more like cooperative federalism to me, though I don't want to admit that. By the way, if the Fed has no power over the states, explain Art I. 9-10?

And you are right about the Constitution not containing anything in the original document regarding marriage. However, we could pass an amendment saying what marriage is (which I'm sure you will oppose, saying that's unconstitutional - a vicious cycle in which the Constitution becomes infallible and here goes the merry-go-round), or you could say that marriage partnership laws eminate from the domestic tranquility and general welfare clauses.

There is an old quote from the Georgia delegation about how fools think we meant to enumerate only these rights if we codify these, but I will have to dig a little deeper in my books to find it. It's been several years since I read it (No Rufus, I'm not calling you a fool)

 

If one allows the fed to determine the laws of the institution of marriage what business would they not be allowed to stick their nose in?

Yes, I meant Treaty of Paris. How's that for a cixelsyd moment?

The State of Colorado could not legalize rape as it would be against their state constitution.

What are you asking me to explain exactly? Those are some pretty involved sections, much of which has been violated by the Federal government in past decades.

I will hold to the idea that the federal government was not established for addressing domestic, social issues such as these and by allowing such we would be looking at a centralized distant form of government with powers that were not delegated to them, rather than a local decentralized government with powers that were the states alone.

 

Slippery slope fallacy.

Show me where rape is outlawed in their constitution, please. Even if it were (which it isn't), they could amend their constitution. So let's say they do with a brand new Article 28. Now, it's constitutional. Now, what say you?

Nice set-up for circular reasoning and question-begging I'm just asking you to explain why the Constitution (and the Framers) held that the Fed maintained power over the states to dictate to the states certain statues, if the states are (as you maintain) free to do whatever they want independent of the "Fed" when clearly this is not the case due to I.9-10.

Fair point. But when the First Amendment addresses speech, assembly, and religion, didn't the Framers automatically step into the domestic, social issues? What about 2nd Amendment, guaranteeing gun ownership? (Be careful, I've set a trap here) You can even argue that the 10th, which is the State's rights amendment, argues that the Fed granted these rights to the states, so the rights of the states eminate from the Constitution. That is, their powers are limited by the Constitution, a Federal document.

This is enjoyable (Even if off topic). And as I sit here, I think about how few in our society have even ever read the entire constitution (more so, now, thanks to our school) or care enough to discuss it. Hat's off to you, friend :thumbs:

 

Disagree, especially when much of our law is established by precedence through court rulings.

I'm not an attorney but here are some of the areas I believe could be challenged if the State of Colorado decided to legalize rape...

Preamble

"We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe..."​

All 50 state constitutions recognize a higher being and historically you can make the case that it is the Christian God they are recognizing (kinda puts a wrench in the whole separation of church and state thing). Anyway, this would be a nice area to challenge as if you can get the court to recognize that it is the Christian God from the Christian Bible then you could make a Biblical argument for how the God of that Bible is opposed to rape and by making rape lawful it would demonstrate a lack of "profound reverence" for that "Supreme Ruler".

"...establish justice; insure tranquillity; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."​

You can take much of the above and see an argument opposed to rape but if we just focus on "secure the blessings of liberty"...surely a person who is restrained by another person and is raped does not have their liberty secured.

Section 3 - Inalienable Rights

"All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness." ​

Notice we have the God thing again and I believe it to be an inalienable right of men and women to not have their body assaulted. Notice the right to defend their lives and liberties so a person has the right to defend against someone who would attempt to restrain them and sexually assault them. This would be a pretty apparent contradiction if they attempted to legalize rape.

Section 4 - Religious Freedom

"The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship..."​

It's against my religion to allow someone to rape me or anyone in my vicinity.

Section 6. Equality of justice.

"Courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay." ​

I believe rape is an injury to person.

I think there is enough in the Colorado Constitution to make the legalization of rape unconstitutional. Having said that sodomy was considered a crime against nature and constitutionally upheld from the time of entry into the union in 1861 'til around 1971 when they repealed the law. Thus, if we have lost our senses as to the criminal act of sodomy then maybe at some point the heathen will find away to legitimize rape.

(Source: http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0)

Get out of Colorado before the fire comes down on it.

The powers specifically enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are the powers the states granted to the Federal government.

They automatically established what congress would not do. "Congress shall make no law...". It would be acceptable for a state to make a law respecting the establishment of religion, this union once had state churches. It would be constitutionally lawful for a state to ban pornography, instead today the states submit to the federal master who by court decree say porn is swell.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed by the Federal government. The state governments have different authority. This is why we have gun control in some states and we have freedom in others.

As to the 10th amendment...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."​

...that should make it quite clear. Where in the Constitution of the United States did the states delegate the power to set minimum age consent standards or any other marital standards. It's not there, these rights were not delegated and the Federal Government has no authority over such matters. It's a state matter and though I disagree with Barrack Hussein Obama just about every time he utters sound, he is right on this argument.

Hat's off to you as well and I've enjoyed reasoning with you on this and other topics. You are correct that it is rare to find folks that have read the U.S. Constitution and even rarer to find folks that have read their respective state constitutions. I find the public school system to be a tool of the communists as I did not read or study the Constitution until I left school. There's something quite amiss about that, I think.

 

There's partially some sense in your argument, yet a lot of logical gymnastics, too. So I ask: if Colorado had an amendment that legalized rape, what then? Do they have this right? Would you support it?

Well, no, for reasons stated earlier. We aren't getting anywhere here, so I'll drop it.

I have more, but I'm just flat out of time. More to come this evening.......

 

They do not have this right according to their constitution and they can not institute an unconstitutional amendment. I would not support it. If they found a way to do it anyway. Then the citizenry would have to make a decision. At the point that the state legalized rape, murder, incest, cannibalism whatever, they have gone down a tyrannical path and are no longer a free state. If we look at historical comparatives to this, such as the English right of "prima nocta" this type of action has led to a rebellion of the people. Were I citizen of Colorado and they did such a thing, I would consider government to be lost. I would have no recourse but to flee or fight.

Groovy.

 

Well, any amendment that amends previous wording of the constitution is unconstitutional then. That would mean that 12, 16, 20, 22, and any other amendment that repeals amendments would be unconstitutional. Doesn't make sense.

Back to the original post I was replying to.

If you cannot support a law legalizing rape that was constitutional, even you have a moral that is higher than the constitution. That's my point.

While Congress is handcuffing itself, if you will, they're actively doing something. They have taken a de facto position regarding this issue.

Actually, that would depend on the state. I wouldn't want any state doing so, because I don't believe govt should do this on any level. Plus, I would imagine that a judge would deem this unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.

Well, again, depends on the state, but judges have decreed that the 1st amendment protects such crap since citizens of the states are citizens of the United States. I believe speech laws don't apply to porn as such, but that's another story.

Well...you sort of fell for it. All citizens have the right to own weapons (based on 2nd amendment); some states just are more free about those rights than others and what they must "do" to "obtain" those rights. And about that trap....strict readers of the constitution say that only those citizens of militia age who are able to be conscripted have the right to bear arms. Like I said, you sort of fell for it. I don't agree with those folks, by the way.

Then why have a constitution at all, if the states can circumvent the U.S. Constitution?

I believe they ensure domestic tranquility and the welfare of the people, but that's my opinion.

I find it curious that some people appeal to "states rights" only when it's convenient for them.

I had a very good history teacher in HS for American History, and we studied the entire Constitution at length. Prior to that, it was just cursory readings of an amendment here and a clause there. There should be a test. People should have to pass a Constitution test and a govt. test in order to vote. Voters must be required to watch certain amounts of CSpan 1, 2, and 3 in order to vote. Just my paternalistic opinion. :laugh: