6/24/2013 11:23 AM (edited)
Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2013 11:06:00 AM (view original):
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?
I have an understanding and opinion of Obamacare as a participant and user of the healthcare system in this country, and as a taxpayer.

I have a general understanding and opinion of economics as a consumer, and as an investor in the market.

I have an understanding and opinion of baseball as a fan, a player and a coach.

I do not have an understanding of the nuances of the tenth amendment as I am not a constitutional lawyer, nor have I ever studied or taken a class in constitutional law.
6/24/2013 11:25 AM
You've already given opinions on the tenth amendment -- remember "I don't consider regulating marriage a 'power.'"

Are you saying that you shouldn't have given that opinion because you didn't know what you were talking about?
6/24/2013 11:35 AM
I personally don't consider defining marriage a "power".

That's different from having an opinion on the tenth amendment and whether or not it applies here.

That's the difference between you and me.  You somehow think that your having a passionate opinion on a topic means that you have an in-depth understanding of constitutionality.  I don't pretend to do so.  I leave that to the experts to sort out.

6/24/2013 11:37 AM
You also cited Aaron v Cooper. Again, should you have refrained from giving your opinion in that instance because you had no idea what you were talking about?

I'm glad you clarified that you are completely unqualified to give opinions on anything related to the constitution, so we can ignore any opinions you give in the future related to the constitution or how laws and decisions apply.
6/24/2013 11:38 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2013 11:35:00 AM (view original):
I personally don't consider defining marriage a "power".

That's different from having an opinion on the tenth amendment and whether or not it applies here.

That's the difference between you and me.  You somehow think that your having a passionate opinion on a topic means that you have an in-depth understanding of constitutionality.  I don't pretend to do so.  I leave that to the experts to sort out.

Then what would you call the authority to legally define marriage?
6/24/2013 11:42 AM
Well, it's certainly not a power like x-ray vision or the ability to fly, that's for sure.
6/24/2013 11:48 AM
The Constitution is not a verbose document.  I don't see why it should take years of specialized training to be able to understand it...  The people that wrote it certainly were not trained in Constitutional law, and many of them weren't trained in law at all...  Madison himself studied law a bit in college, but was not a lawyer.
6/24/2013 12:00 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2013 11:48:00 AM (view original):
The Constitution is not a verbose document.  I don't see why it should take years of specialized training to be able to understand it...  The people that wrote it certainly were not trained in Constitutional law, and many of them weren't trained in law at all...  Madison himself studied law a bit in college, but was not a lawyer.
If it's so simple, then any issues on constitutionality that make it to SCOTUS should always result in an immediate 9-0 decision.

Why doesn't that always happen?
6/24/2013 12:35 PM
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.
When you stated that you didn't consider regulating marriage a "power", I assumed that was your take on the 10th amendment as it applies here.  And good to know you won't be arguing things pertaining to the constitution moving forward.

A law can be considered unconstitutional and still an active law.  If DOMA is thrown out, and you ask one of the judges "was DOMA unconstitutional yesterday?" he would say "Yes, that law should not have been passed."
6/24/2013 12:37 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2013 11:42:00 AM (view original):
Well, it's certainly not a power like x-ray vision or the ability to fly, that's for sure.
Yes, this is what our founding fathers meant.
6/24/2013 12:43 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 12:36:00 PM (view original):
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.
When you stated that you didn't consider regulating marriage a "power", I assumed that was your take on the 10th amendment as it applies here.  And good to know you won't be arguing things pertaining to the constitution moving forward.

A law can be considered unconstitutional and still an active law.  If DOMA is thrown out, and you ask one of the judges "was DOMA unconstitutional yesterday?" he would say "Yes, that law should not have been passed."
Since we don't currently know the ultimate fate of DOMA, it's a bit premature to unequivocally state as absolute fact that it is unconstitutional.

bad_luck thinks that you can.

bad_luck also probably wears a New England Patriots "19-0" Super Bowl XLII t-shirt.
6/24/2013 1:01 PM
In my opinion, DOMA violates the tenth amendment. Do you disagree?
6/24/2013 1:03 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2013 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 12:36:00 PM (view original):
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.
When you stated that you didn't consider regulating marriage a "power", I assumed that was your take on the 10th amendment as it applies here.  And good to know you won't be arguing things pertaining to the constitution moving forward.

A law can be considered unconstitutional and still an active law.  If DOMA is thrown out, and you ask one of the judges "was DOMA unconstitutional yesterday?" he would say "Yes, that law should not have been passed."
Since we don't currently know the ultimate fate of DOMA, it's a bit premature to unequivocally state as absolute fact that it is unconstitutional.

bad_luck thinks that you can.

bad_luck also probably wears a New England Patriots "19-0" Super Bowl XLII t-shirt.
It's premature to unequivocally state as absolute fact that DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, yes.  It's never too early or late for someone to have an opinion on it though.  Since the Constitution isn't exactly verbose, a lot of things are up for interpretation, which is why whether something is constitutional or not is often up for debate.
6/24/2013 1:21 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/24/2013 1:01:00 PM (view original):
In my opinion, DOMA violates the tenth amendment. Do you disagree?
I agree that that's your opinion.
6/24/2013 1:25 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 12:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2013 11:42:00 AM (view original):
Well, it's certainly not a power like x-ray vision or the ability to fly, that's for sure.
Yes, this is what our founding fathers meant.

Note to self:  Don't be sarcastic.  Burnsy won't get it.

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.