Because He put monarchies into power, instead of republics?
Obama Says Some Have `hijacked' Faith
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by hillclimber1, Jun 24, 2007.
Page 2 of 2
-
-
-
Rufus said:
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) :) -
-
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: -
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
It's against my religion to allow someone to rape me or anyone in my vicinity.
"The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship..."
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)
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.
-
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?
I have more, but I'm just flat out of time. More to come this evening....... -
-
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.
Page 2 of 2