Jindal on CNN wants Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage

[pt22]

and disagrees with McCaint who thinks states should decide. This might be a repeat broadcast but if so I missed it before. He's a scary little prick.

Sorry if this is a dupe, been out of pocket for a day

[Deja Q]

1. Uh-oh. Has he been tappin' with a wide stance too?

:silly:

[MonkeyFunk]

15. Stuff that bullshit

not every anti-gay republican is gay. I get sick of seeing this shit here.

[Coexist]

19. do you know something about Piyush that we don't?

[speedoo]

2. He is very scary. nt

[saltpoint]

3. Yo, Bobby. If it's not your dick, it's none of your business.

Pandering weasel.

[NorthCarolina]

4. Where the heck do all these social regressives come from?

You would think that their numbers would be relatively few given that the year is 2008, and the world can see first hand how Europe has largely eclipsed the US in Progressive Nation Status and prosperity.

[GOPNotForMe]

5. How about we ban moronic governors, first? nt

[babylonsister]

6. And that ain't all...

Authorized Chemical Castration Of Sex Offenders... Called Intelligent Design "The Very Best Science"... Experience As A Exorcist...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/26/louisiana-gov-jindal-auth_n_109342.html

[pt22]

8. Holy shit. Well in that case maybe we -should- hope for McC to pick him!

He's crazier than a shithouse rat!
:scared:

[jody]

7. Has SCOTUS said or implied that same-sex marriage is an inalienable right? I ask because nine states

prohibit their legislatures from voting on laws to repeal inalienable rights.

It would be interesting to see how those state supreme courts rule on whether state legislatures can vote to ratify an amendment that abolishes an inalienable right when such votes violate state constitutions.

Alabama Constitution

SECTION 36

Construction of Declaration of Rights.
That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.

Arkansas Constitution

29. Enumeration of rights of people not exclusive of other rights - Protection against encroachment.

This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; and to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, or any transgression of any of the higher powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of the government; and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or to the other provisions herein contained, shall be void.

Kentucky

Section 26, General powers subordinate to Bill of Rights -- Laws contrary thereto are void.

To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void.

Louisiana Constitution

§1. Origin and Purpose of Government

Section 1. All government, of right, originates with the people, is founded on their will alone, and is instituted to protect the rights of the individual and for the good of the whole. Its only legitimate ends are to secure justice for all, preserve peace, protect the rights, and promote the happiness and general welfare of the people. The rights enumerated in this Article are inalienable by the state and shall be preserved inviolate by the state.

Michigan Constitution

Acts void.

21. All acts of the legislature contrary to this or any other article of this Constitution, shall be void.

North Dakota Constitution

Section 20. To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

Ohio Constitution

§ 1.20 Powers reserved to the people (1851)

This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people; and all powers, not herein delegated, remain with the people.

Pennsylvania Constitution

Section 25.
To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

Texas Constitution

Section 29 - PROVISIONS OF BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT; TO FOREVER REMAIN INVIOLATE

To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this "Bill of Rights" is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.

[ruggerson]

10. If the SC rules that laws banning marriage equality are unconstitutional

all those state constitutional bans and statutes will be null and void in one fell swoop.

There are many scholars who think that Kennedy, in Lawrence V Texas, laid the groundwork for a SC ruling that would invalidate the "Defense of Marriage" act and legalize marriage in all 50 states. A case will rise through the system when a couple marries in a state which has legalized same sex marriage and lets couples from other states marry there (California, for example), goes back to their home state, which doesn't recognize their marriage, and sues the state.

[jody]

13. Given the scenario you pose, would not an amendment banning same-sex marriage be binding on all

states if ratified?

The OP said "Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage" which is the issue that I was trying to address.

[kdmorris]

11. Of course, you only need 38 states to ratify an amendment

so, those nine states could vote "no". The other 41 could vote to amend the constitution in that way and those 9 states would just have to live with it.

[jody]

12. Perhaps but some group could argue that the 14th Amendment protects the 41 states just it protects

the nine that have specifically placed rights declared in their constitution as off limits.

One possible question is what type of republican form of government is guaranteed by the Constitution?

I know SCOTUS once said it was up to congress to answer that question but I believe since the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS may have gotten involved.

Perhaps some DUer can discuss the issue I raise.

[BzaDem]

14. No state constitution can prevent a state from voting up or down on a constitutional amendment.

Article 5 of the U.S. constitution gives plenary power to state legislatures to vote up or down on a constitutional amendment proposed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress. Any state constitution that forbids voting on certain constitutional amendments violates the U.S. constitution. If a state legislature voted "yes" on an amendment to ban gay marriage, and someone challenged the vote in state court as violating the state constitutution, the decision of the court would be appealed all the way to the U.S. supreme court, which would rule that the vote to approve the amendment was fine (and that the state constitutional amendment forbidding it was unconstitutional).

As for the Republican Government clause, in Luther v. Borden, the court ruled that it was up to Congress to determine whether or not a state government was sufficiently "republican" by choosing to admit or not to admit its representatives and Senators to Congress. This power was also used after the Civil War, where the Union-controlled Congress did not admit the former confederate states' congressmen until they took steps to allow blacks to vote (and other steps).

So in other words, the U.S. Supreme Court has not elaborated on what the republican government clause means as a judicial matter (only that in certain circumstances, it is a "political question" which the court will defer to the political branches to decide).

[jody]

16. Perhaps you are correct but I've talked with a former state Attorney General and a current justice

on a state Supreme Court and they do not agree with you that the issue is so easily settled.

Of course I am unable to prove those conversations to you so I guess we simply disagree.

Have a great day, :hi:

[BzaDem]

17. Well they definately might be right.

There isn't much precedent for this either way. One thing's for sure; if the U.S. Supreme Court were to decide it, it would be the federalism case of the decade.

[Faygo Kid]

9. "Scary little prick," indeed.

Jindal is nuts, but unlike Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest, he's actually smart.

A dangerous demagogue.

[Danger Mouse]

18. Fuck him, then.

[Imagevision]

20. Jindal & McCain --> Dumb & Dumber

[cbayer]

21. It would be an error to think that Jindal is dumb.

He is a very good politician and a brilliant individual. Because his views are so radical in some areas, those two qualities make him particularly dangerous. I will be keeping a very close eye on him and encourage others to do so. To dismiss him could be potentially fatal.