Do You Think We Have A Constitutional Crisis?

Well I consider the 2 documents sort of linked being both spell out rights.

While the declaration may have no legal standing like the Constitution tell me this.

1. Do you think you have a right to life?
   
2. Do you think you have a right to liberty?
   
3. Do you think you have a right to pursue happiness?
   

legal or not you have these rights and no government can deprive you of them because they did not give them to you they are suppose to protect them through the constitution.

The rest I agree in fact I would go even further to ask another question of Highlander

Can you show me where in the Constitution you have the right to get married?

As Swanny pointed out it doesn't exist in the Constitution.

Of course these are rights, but the authors of the declaration clearly stated, as you affirmed, that they are endowed by our Creator, NOT by government. Indeed the reasoning behind the declaration was the general and widespread feeling in the American Colonies that those rights were behing trampled by the British government of the time.

For those who haven't read (or don't remember) the U.S. Declaration of Independence, a copy can found online at the Indiana University School of Law website.

I think it's well worth reading (I do so every fourth of July to refresh my own memory), but it's also important that we recognize that it has no legal authority whatsoever.

What it does offer is a precedence that can be claimed the next time a revolution against an established government is necessary. The French thought it useful when it was their time to revolt.

Scottish2 - Actually the 1st and 9th amendment outlines the right of marriage by not outlining the rights based through religion and its ceremonies. Read them with the ideas of the founding fathers intentions in mind, and you will see that the Constitution actually does give the right to marriage. But also through the founding fathers eyes of intentions gay marriages would not be allowed.

Jim

Here is and interesting website concerning the IRS, the Constitution and our laws.

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

It is now a government site but a legal website. So infer what you may..

Another interesting fact or tidbit for Swanny and Scottish2...

The Constitution contains the rules of our government. What official document contains the philosophical underpinnings of that government? The Declaration of Independence. M of A 781-83.

http://www.nccs.net/moa_questions.html

Well I was refering only to the rights listed there in and these would still be considered legal right rights which government cannot legislativelu control. As for the rest of the document you maybe right but depends I have to reread myself it's been awhile.

well as for the first amendment this is patently wrong because not every person is religious. I for instance am atheist my wife being Japanese is Budhist (non-practicing). All the first amendment does is give you a right to chose to worship as you please without fear of government controling how you worshipped similar to what happened in parts of Europe which forced the emmigration to America by those who felted controled in how they worshiped.

The 9th amendment you might be able to make a case but then again there is no exact list of those rights for the 9th amendment. Are we to say that murder is one of those rights? Certainly not so you would have to be able to prove that the founders considered marriage as part of this amendment and then prove that government has the right to control who marries whom which is impossible since government has no such power.

Have a look at the website at my WWW link right below each message is the little WWW button. I have what amounts to roughly 28 pages (MS Word page count) that cover a number of issues with the IRS and it's illegal operation I even have proof that there is a corporation in Nevada that managed to get the official title Internal Revenue Service because the state of Nevada searched and could not legally find any such entity if they could have found then this company would not have gotten such a name as it would be in violation of federal law.

I also cover a few other interesting topics.

Have bookmarked it and will read it as I find time as it looks rather lengthy. Don't expect a fast reply as I am finishing up reworking a website for a client so that is filling my time quite a bit last week or so.

Scottish2. Read at your leisure, it was just another interesting website that I posted for yours and swannys perusal.

You say you are an Atheist and your wife is Buddhist, do you not feel that the Constitution under the first amendment protects your rights to be what you are? When someone reads the Constitution it should, not should, but must be read with the founding fathers intention in mind. What they where trying to do and say, is as important as what was written, and while this is true it in my opinion will be the ultimate down fall of the Constitution.

In society today, there are many factions that are dedicated to its destruction, and the UN Charter being put into its place. The world movement today is a movement for a single government to "rule" the world. This is not just my imagination, but is coming to fruition. The US constantly put her military under the control of a foreign "nation" (the UN), it lets other governments to some extant decide how and where the military or governmental aid will be distributed, and to whom. So are we in a Constitutional crisis, you bet.

Along with what I just mentioned the very foundation on the Constitution is under attack, on and almost daily basis. These attacks come from special interest groups that enlist the aid of unscrupulous quasi constitutional scholars that will interpret the Constitution in anyways that the special interest groups need.

I did not mean to get off on a tangent, but the Constitution is my field of study as I work towards my Ph.D in Political Science...
Jim

If need be I will respond in depth later but heading out in about 30 seconds so quick reply that I realize may not respond to your post but something to think about.

If marriage is a religious cerimony then do you think atheists can get married being they don't believe in religion?

Religion has nothing to do with marriage though it is involved in a lot of the cerrimony but you can just as easily be married by a judge or a ships captain which are not religious cerimonies but civil.

Ok got to run will respond in more detail if need be when I return.

And no having had chance to read your post just know it's there but wanted to give you something to think about while I am out and you're on-line in case you want to respond.

Highlander

I agree with most of what you said I do agree thefre are forces both internal and external that are determinded to undermine our constitution and Bill of Rights. But this to some degree is getting sidetracked from the issue of gay married which I feel was sort of the start of this part of the thread. You had stated the following a number of posts back. Correct me if I am wrong after the quote.

At least from your statement it sounds like you state that no one via the constitution has a right to get married and gays should not be allowed to have a special amendment to allow them to get married. Well as you stated also Amendemnt 9 gives us other rights not specifically written iinto the BOR's, one of those may very well be the right to marry. But as Swanny (I think) pointed out congress doesn't have the power in the constitution to deny or even allow for the matter a marriage between 2 people. It just doesn't exist and any new amendment that would try to bar gays fro marrying would be a violation of Amendment 10 because congress does not have this power and they cannot grant them this power because anything not granted to congress resides in the state and or the people. But any such law or amendment in my hinest opinion would be repugnant to the constitution and BOR's because it discriminates and does not effect all people equally.

How would you like it if the 1st amendment said all people have the freedom of speech and of the press and religion and to petition congress except people named James. You would not like this because it does not apply evenly to all people. So what right would congress have to deprive a gay couple be it men or women from getting married when 2 other people of the opposite sex could get married?

I for one support gay marriages because each person has the right to pursue happiness and so long as they persue it and not interfer in any one elses rights that are not a willing party should be free to do as he, she, they please. The minute they use their rights to effect another unwilling party then it crosses that line but until then congress does not have the power to control said activity. As I have mentioned what if the 2 gays are atheists? Religion doesn't play a part of their lives and I would stand to guess they do not agree with at least some of not a lot of religious ideas of morality and other such items.

Also marriage has zip to do with religion as I have mention because obviously if 2 atheists get married do you think it will be a religious cerimony that marrys them?

S2, marriage is a commitment between two people, whether under Gods laws or a simple legal ceremony just for the sake of legal requirements. However in my eyes, which matter only to me, I feel that Gays have no legal right to marry under our laws as written and interpreted. Many do not feel this way, and that is their own decision, but do not try and change the Constitution just to fit one class of people. There rights are defined as is everyone Else's, correct? So should they be made "special" just because their gay? Under our Constitutional laws as they now stand, that wold be racist. So by adding in a special amendment just for them we would need to reject another amendment that prohibits "racism", and protect a vast majority of people just to appease the gays, do you really think we should put other people in our country at risk just for a group of people that wish to marry in a land that forbids it, and wishes to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman under the eyes of God and Country?

Jim

Fine so show us where congress has the power to control marriage? For any person straight, gay, or what have you.

Fact is they don't have the power to say you can or can't get married and they don't have a power to say gays can or can't get married either. Any such law would be repugnant to the constitution and void because they would be exercising a power they do not have in the first place under the constitution.

An act which deprives only one class of person from doing something everyone else can do would be a discriminatory law and repugnant to the constitution especially since congress has no power written in the constitution (specifically A1, S8) to legislatively control this activity in the first place. See I know my constitution as well and I know this is why you can't provide Swanny and me with the part of the constitution authorizing congress the power to control marriage. Amendment 9 does not apply to congress that applies to the people and even congressman as individuals not as a body and there is no other part of the constitution authorizing such power.

And it is not about gays getting married that they would want a special amendment but for fair and equal treatment. Just like the blacks back in the 50's & 60's. They want to be treated just like everybody else without the discrimination.

Now do you think blacks did not deserve their special laws to give them the same protections as all white people?

They want the same rights you have. If you have a right (be it listed or not in the BOR's or DOI) then that right you have has to be uniform not just set to one class of people. And there are no special rights like you say for example having the right to view a top secret document or having special access to a private area these are right that all straight people have so there can be no law which would deprive another class of people the same rights that white straight people have and the 50's & 60's prove this case. Special laws were written to protect a certain class from being discriminated against. And these laws would not be regarding marriage but about equality.

Actually, I think Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution is more applicable in this particular argument.

(emphasis mine)

Just a bit of background on the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment was proposed only year after the 13th, which abolished slavery. The intent of congress was to protect the rights of former slaves and citizens of the former Confederate States of America. It required more than 100 years and a major American Civil Rights movement to prompt the Federal Government to fully enforce this provision as well as the provisions of the 15th (giving African Americans the right to vote).

Highlander wrote:

If I read this section of the 14th amendment correctly, not only does the Federal government have no authority to prohibit the marriage between any two people, neither do the states. Although I don't necessarily approve of gay marriage, and would personally prefer the formation of 'civil unions' I strongly feel that if I am to demand demand that my own rights be recognized then I am also obligated to recognize the rights of others.