tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post6831343950814528715..comments2024-03-29T02:03:49.151-04:00Comments on History Unfolding: The Supreme Court and Gay MarriageDavid Kaiserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05020082243968071584noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-1607737274560044402015-07-14T09:47:20.463-04:002015-07-14T09:47:20.463-04:00Professor
Great post.
The Constitution went well...Professor<br />Great post. <br /><br />The Constitution went well beyond anything then conceived anywhere. <br /><br />Re due process, Wikipedia has a couple of useful blurbs, 'due process', and look at 'substantive DP', and the distinction between substantive and procedural DP. <br /><br />It has been a way for the Court to accrue more powers than were ever intended for the Court to have. <br /><br />Not that I am against reform, or am a strict constructionist, but the accrual has not itself been very helpful in my view.<br /><br />all the bestBozonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18078858723231122013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-6454697047292698742015-07-13T01:59:33.777-04:002015-07-13T01:59:33.777-04:00Considering that the post is critical of Kennedy&#...Considering that the post is critical of Kennedy's argumentative ability, this passage is a bit disconcerting: "In Loving v. Virginia, the case that struck down laws against interracial marriage in the 1960s, the Court did what it had been doing for a long time: it put an end to laws that created two classes of citizens, one free to marry whom they chose, and the other not." This strikes me as sloppy thinking since as defenders of anti-miscegenation laws could point out, the law applied equally to black and white people. If such laws created a class of citizens who could not marry, it only prevented interracial marriages in the same way that it prevented bigamous or incestuous marriage. <br /><br />No, anti-miscegenation laws aren't unconstitutional because they limit marriage or because they hamper love (arguably any divorce laws does the same, either liberal or strict, whether one believes love should be in the first marriage or a second one). No they are unconstitutional because their origin lies in the attempt to preserve slavery, or to maintain distinctions between Americans/colonists and the Indian enemy. Since all descendants of slaves are now citizens (as well as American Indians) such laws only serve to undermine their citizenship, to exclude them from the polity.Skimpolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03018415787269457067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-11097029187429332622015-07-12T03:42:43.048-04:002015-07-12T03:42:43.048-04:00http://buchanan.org/blog/a-coming-era-of-civil-dis...http://buchanan.org/blog/a-coming-era-of-civil-disobedience-16239<br />I read this over at zero hedge. This strikes home to me as my siblings are divided precisely along these lines. I am the moderate, live and let live.Energyflowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14476915209268786507noreply@blogger.com