Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2013 1:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 1:03:00 PM (view original):Does it make much sense for somebody who doesn't understand basketball to have an opinion on the merits of a 2-3 zone, and attempt to state their opinions as fact?
Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2013 12:43:00 PM (view original):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.
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 12:36:00 PM (view original):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.
Posted by tecwrg on 6/24/2013 10:17:00 AM (view original):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.
Posted by burnsy483 on 6/24/2013 9:33:00 AM (view original):That is not correct. I have made no comment on the constitutionality (or not) of DOMA.
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2013 9:27:00 AM (view original):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.
So, if SCOTUS has not ruled or been asked to rule, is a law unconstitutional?
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.
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."
bad_luck thinks that you can.
bad_luck also probably wears a New England Patriots "19-0" Super Bowl XLII t-shirt.
Does it make much sense for somebody who doesn't understand football to have an opinion on the merits of a 4-3 vs. a 3-4 defensive scheme, and attempt to state their opinions as fact?
Does it make much sense for somebody who has not had any training as a constitutional lawyer to have an opinion on the nuances of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and attempt to state their opinions as fact?
No one is asking you to state your opinion as fact.
Things that are facts:
Joe Smith was convicted of murder.
The Patriots went 18-1 and didn't win the Super Bowl.
The Supreme Court overturned law X on grounds that it violates the Y amendment.
Things that can be just opinions:
Jim Johnson is a murderer.
The Patriots were the best team in football.
Law Z is unconstitutional because it violates X amendment.
But I'm glad that you clarified that you don't understand the constitution.