6/24/2013 9:59 AM
Times tend to change just as SC Justices do. 
6/24/2013 10:00 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2013 9:59:00 AM (view original):
We may find out in just a few minutes whether or not DOMA is constitutional. I'm betting it's not.
People will still argue it is if it's overturned.  It's not like the constitutionality of laws is a light switch that can turn on and off.
6/24/2013 10:01 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2013 9:59:00 AM (view original):
Times tend to change just as SC Justices do. 
Correct.  Yet the constitution says the same thing.  You can interpret things differently as people and time change.  Determining whether a law is constitutional is up for debate, it's not black and white.
6/24/2013 10:09 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 9:58:00 AM (view original):
SCOTUS handed down a ruling in 1896 that was overturned in 1954.  There were many people who believed that SCOTUS was incorrect in their ruling in 1896, that what they ruled was constitutional was in fact, unconstitutional.  SCOTUS agreed with those people in 1954.

The constitutionality of laws isn't always black and white.  It's up for debate.
That's my point. tec and mike seem to think that any law in force is automatically constitutional.
6/24/2013 10:14 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2013 10:09:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 9:58:00 AM (view original):
SCOTUS handed down a ruling in 1896 that was overturned in 1954.  There were many people who believed that SCOTUS was incorrect in their ruling in 1896, that what they ruled was constitutional was in fact, unconstitutional.  SCOTUS agreed with those people in 1954.

The constitutionality of laws isn't always black and white.  It's up for debate.
That's my point. tec and mike seem to think that any law in force is automatically constitutional.
You may have been confusing them somewhat with your steadfast assertion that DOMA is unconstitutional.  You're speaking as if it's fact.
6/24/2013 10:17 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 9:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2013 9:27:00 AM (view original):
So, if SCOTUS has not ruled or been asked to rule, is a law unconstitutional?
I'm not sure what's so hard to understand.  BL thinks DOMA is unconstitutional because he believes it goes against the 10th amendment.  tec does not, because he interprets the 10th amendment in a different way.  It's up for debate.
That is not correct.  I have made no comment on the constitutionality (or not) of DOMA.

My only comment is that a process muct be followed before a law is conclusively and definitively deemed unconstitutional.

That process has not yet fully played out.  DOMA is still active and still being enforced.

Unconstitutional laws cannot be active and enforced.  Therefore, DOMA must be treated as constitutional until deemed otherwise.
6/24/2013 10:28 AM (edited)
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 10:14:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2013 10:09:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 9:58:00 AM (view original):
SCOTUS handed down a ruling in 1896 that was overturned in 1954.  There were many people who believed that SCOTUS was incorrect in their ruling in 1896, that what they ruled was constitutional was in fact, unconstitutional.  SCOTUS agreed with those people in 1954.

The constitutionality of laws isn't always black and white.  It's up for debate.
That's my point. tec and mike seem to think that any law in force is automatically constitutional.
You may have been confusing them somewhat with your steadfast assertion that DOMA is unconstitutional.  You're speaking as if it's fact.
Clearly, that's only my opinion. (And the opinion of several federal judges who have already ruled)
6/24/2013 10:22 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 10:14:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2013 10:09:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 9:58:00 AM (view original):
SCOTUS handed down a ruling in 1896 that was overturned in 1954.  There were many people who believed that SCOTUS was incorrect in their ruling in 1896, that what they ruled was constitutional was in fact, unconstitutional.  SCOTUS agreed with those people in 1954.

The constitutionality of laws isn't always black and white.  It's up for debate.
That's my point. tec and mike seem to think that any law in force is automatically constitutional.
You may have been confusing them somewhat with your steadfast assertion that DOMA is unconstitutional.  You're speaking as if it's fact.
I'm not confused at all.  BL is the one who's confused, as he somehow belives that his assertion of something somehow makes it true.

I'm wondering where he got his degree in Constitutional Law, and why he hasn't flaunted it here in the forums with each post.
6/24/2013 10:37 AM
I'm not confused either.   DOMA has been law for 17 years.  The Feds DID create a law pertaining to marriage.    Someone has insisted they cannot do that.   17 years is a long time. 
6/24/2013 10:54 AM
It's interesting how SCOTUS just punted affirmative action in their ruling this morning.  No balls on a controversial subject.
6/24/2013 10:59 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2013 10:17:00 AM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 9:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2013 9:27:00 AM (view original):
So, if SCOTUS has not ruled or been asked to rule, is a law unconstitutional?
I'm not sure what's so hard to understand.  BL thinks DOMA is unconstitutional because he believes it goes against the 10th amendment.  tec does not, because he interprets the 10th amendment in a different way.  It's up for debate.
That is not correct.  I have made no comment on the constitutionality (or not) of DOMA.

My only comment is that a process muct be followed before a law is conclusively and definitively deemed unconstitutional.

That process has not yet fully played out.  DOMA is still active and still being enforced.

Unconstitutional laws cannot be active and enforced.  Therefore, DOMA must be treated as constitutional until deemed otherwise.
In your opinion, does DOMA violate the tenth amendment?
6/24/2013 11:03 AM
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so I'm not qualified to make a judgement.
6/24/2013 11:03 AM
If, in your mind, DOMA is such a slam-dunk decision, do you think it will be a 9-0 ruling?  If not, why not?
6/24/2013 11:06 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2013 11:03:00 AM (view original):
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so I'm not qualified to make a judgement.
*****.

You give unqualified opinions here all the time--Obamacare, economics, and baseball, just to name a few. You aren't an expert in any of those fields. Why is this different?

Yes or no, do you think DOMA violates the tenth amendment?
6/24/2013 11:10 AM
Why has it taken 17 years to reach the Supreme Court?
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.