I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Extreme Humor

Funny Videos

Gorilla Mask

Asylum

Viva La Games

Funny Games

Free Samples

I hate retail

Oddee

Funny Stuff

Urlesque

FreeGame Heaven

Not Healthy

Crazy Games

Pugorama

Chaostrophic

CityRag

Comic World

Insane Pictures

Crazy News

123 Games

Angelsfire.nl

Anon email

Friday Fun



Back to Listing

California's Prop 8, Overturned By Judge

Hits: 21777 | Rating: (3.4) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: madest
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
sbeelz
Male, 30-39, Western US
 2869 Posts
Sunday, August 08, 2010 6:56:04 PM
"INTHE OPINION of one judge it's unconstitutional. IN THE OPINION of SEVEN MILLION VOTERS it's OK."

Seven million voters have no authority to decide whether or not a law is unconstitutional- they can only decide if they want it or not. Voters can pass a law that you have to wear red socks on wednesdays under penalty of death- that doesn't make it constitutional, and it will be swiftly shot down by the courts.

Dolomyte
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 102 Posts
Saturday, August 07, 2010 9:42:07 AM
The concept of sovereignty is lost with you CrakrJak. All rights are reserved to the people. Restrictions are placed on the authority of the powers of government. Murder is unlawful not because the people do not have the right to kill but that those that are killed have had their right to life infringed. It is the right of the people to have property and possessions on their person and also to be secure in their property and possessions, this includes narcotics as it is narcotics are not specifically abolished by an amendment. Where abortion is conflicting is on the basis of when does a child, infant, fetus, or embryo have the sovereign right of life and when that right should be protected. Suffrage of those 18 or older is not a restriction of rights but a restriction of responsibility. Rights and the responsible exercise thereof is directly correlated.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17299 Posts
Saturday, August 07, 2010 1:17:05 AM
Heureux: You reached so far on that supposition, I'm surprised it didn't break your back.

We have restricted peoples rights in this country. For instance, It's not your right to kill someone. It's not a 17 year old's right to vote, It is not your right to possess scheduled narcotics.

These lines are much older than our country. I didn't draw them. You don't get to the right to cross them just because of your lifestyle choice. It is nothing like a persons race, color, or creed. This is not about 'civil rights' this is about a new special right. There never was a 'right' to same-sex marriage, Just as there was no 'right' to have an abortion. In fact, The constitution doesn't mention marriage or abortion anywhere in it's text. That means it's a power to be left up to the states to govern. NOT for activists judges to decide!

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10317 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 10:45:13 PM
Uganda's "Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009".

Wow now THAT'S pure fascism.

Dolomyte
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 102 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 10:15:01 PM
You are right about slavery Cajun247.
Abolition of Slavery

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10317 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 10:00:17 PM
I don't think the eradication of slavery was an unintended consequence. In fact I think it was the opposite, they planted seed in the original constitution in order to eradicate slavery. The rest I don't think anyone could prove either.

Heureux
Male, 40-49, Western US
 1060 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 9:53:37 PM
CrakrJack

" No one born in the 1920s would've ever believed America would ever allow this, Just as you don't believe, Right now, The unintended consequences to come."

Thanks for exposing your inherent racism. The major societal change you are indirectly complaining about is the erosion of racism in the U.S., the recognition that race was not a barrier to equality, which led to recognition that sexual orientation is not a barrier to equality. Of course, both spring from even earlier conclusions about equality and class, gender and wealth.

The unintended consequence of creating a democratic republic was the eradication of slavery and establishing voting rights for women and ending child labor practices, eradicating segregation, guaranteeing basic rights and protections for workers, and now, recognizing the civil rights of GLBTQ people.

You don't get to draw the line at your rights and exclude others. Go to Uganda if you hate GLBTQ people t

Dolomyte
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 102 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 9:51:47 PM
It is all in the citations.

Dolomyte
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 102 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 9:50:50 PM
"In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business....The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." California Government Code Section 54950.

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people." Hurtado v. People of the State of California, 110 U.S. 516.

"Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10317 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 9:48:55 PM
uhh Dolomyte you got it the other way around.

The former is the Republic, and the latter is a Democracy.

Dolomyte
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 102 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 9:48:37 PM
More proof of where the sovereignty lies.
"The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law." American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.

"The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls 8. "....This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people." California Constitution, Article 1, Declaration Of Rights Sec. 24.

"It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business....The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." California Government Code, Sec

Heureux
Male, 40-49, Western US
 1060 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 9:45:15 PM
Satkela

" for one am quite tired of people trying to make it seem as though being gay is a ethnicity. Being gay is a choice. "

No, Satkela, sexual orienation is not chosen. Heterosexuals do not chose to be heterosexual, homosexuals do not chose to be homosexual, bisexuals do not chose to be bisexual.

However, in this age of instant access to information, your level of ignorance is chosen.

Being a liar is also chosen, and your accusation about homosexuals "but don't try to force everyone else to conform to the Ideal " is a lie, the fact is that homophobes like you try, through laws like Prop 8, to force your sexual ideals on homosexuals.

As for you imaginary gay friend - there are millions of real GLBTQ people who need and demand civil equality.

Comparing our relationships to beastiality and pedophilia proves that you are absolutely a bigot, and you'd be more at home in Uganda than in any civilized country.

Dolomyte
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 102 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 9:43:32 PM
Minority rule? Majority rule? I like that CrakrJak brought up the study of civics. Sorry CrakrJak but the study of civics has been altered, edited, and then completely dropped within the last 60 years of United States public education. I just recently understood this study by studying common law.
Who rules brings the question of to where does the sovereignty lie.
If the sovereignty is in one person, a ruler, then it is a monarchy. If the sovereignty is in an elite group of people, an aristocracy, then it is an oligarchy. If the sovereignty is in a government of elected officials, congress, then it is a democracy. If the sovereignty is in each individual then it is a republic.
"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves....". CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.

Heureux
Male, 40-49, Western US
 1060 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 9:39:01 PM
" What I care about is hearing the "civil rights this and that" comparing yourselves to the same fights African American's had to go through. That to me is offensive and I'm WHITE! "

GLBTQ people are human beings, so it is a human rights issue, it is the same as fight as African Americans are, and have been going through. The fact that you are white and offended is irrelevant, neither your whiteness nor your heterosexuality makes you superior to anyone.

Heureux
Male, 40-49, Western US
 1060 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 9:34:31 PM
CrakrJak - So, you hate the U.S. Constitution. Why do you live in the U.S. if you hate the very foundation of our legal system? You'd be so much happier in Uganda.

StphnHrrll - In the U.S., the majority does not rule. The Constitution rules. You may leave for another country with a different Constitution at any time, no one will miss you.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10317 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 8:20:53 PM
That should say Art 2 Section 1 clauses 2 & 3

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10317 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 8:15:56 PM
One more thing while the Framers may have feared activist judges they also afraid of something called the "violence of faction". As I said earlier James Madison (aka Publius) wrote about this idea Federalist No. 10

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10317 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 8:12:18 PM
majority has power over the minority


The limitation there (in terms of the federal government anyway) is that they have the power to approve certain personnel NOT laws (Art. 1 Sec. 2 Clause 1 plus Amendment 17). When it comes to the president you are only voting for
electors to choose the president
. Those electors, however, can then choose whoever they want (they rarely do) (Art 2 clauses 2 & 3). One exception of course in Article 5, even there it is majorities within states not the majority of the entire US.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17299 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 8:01:34 PM
StphnHrrll: With the activist judges we have now that is slowly becoming the case. Law should be legislated and voted on. Judges legislating from the bench is a fear our founding fathers warned about, and tried to guard against.

StphnHrrll
Female, 18-29, Western US
 524 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 7:30:52 PM
Could you imagine what this Country would be like if majority didn't rule? "Oh the majority want to be able to decide things for themselves...Oh but look here 7% want the government to decide for them.... well Minority rules!"

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17299 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 6:41:43 PM
There is no minority polygamous groups clamoring for their rights.


Tell that to Warren Jeffs, Former leader of the FLDS. This opens the floodgates for any group no matter what lifestyle choice they have.

No where in the constitution does it allow the majority to vote on the rights of the minority.


Did you just completely skip civics class in school or did you flunk it outright ? Majority rule is well defined in the constitution and there have been many amendments to it over the years. In fact, The 26th amendment specifically restricts anyone under the age of 18 from voting at all.

So, Don't lie and say that the majority has no power over the minority. That's pure liberal bullcrap.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 26278 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 5:55:14 PM
There is no minority polygamous groups clamoring for their rights

SO! You ADMIT they have rights? lolz!
You are an idiot madest, pure & simple.
There are PLENTY of groups who support polygamy. Just google it you dumbf*ck!

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 26278 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 5:53:27 PM
Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states and federally - madest

In the immortal words of Archie Bunker:
"Whoop de do! Whoop de DO! Whoop de DO!
madest = concern troll

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11640 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 5:29:53 PM
There is no minority polygamous groups clamoring for their rights because the courts have deemed polygamy illegal.


If homosexuality was outlawed so strongly that it wasn't possible for homosexuals to clamour for rights, would that be OK with you? If not, why not?

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11640 Posts
Friday, August 06, 2010 5:27:54 PM
Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states and federally.


As was homosexuality between men not so long ago. Arguing that something should be illegal because it's illegal is circular.

polygamous families are often formed under religious threat with pervasive incestuous relations, child and spousal abuse including the abandonment of boys.


If it's true, those things stem from specific circumstances. They are not inherent to, or even really related to, polygamy.

Domestic violence exists. Is that a good enough reason to outlaw all relationships, regardless of whether or not violence occurs within them? Or would it be better to just outlaw the thing that is wrong, i.e. the violence?

Or a much stronger example - alcohol. Alcohol use is genuinely a factor in all sorts of bad things. Your argument applies much more strongly in favour of outlawing alcohol than outlawing polygamy.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.