Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Moliere]

If he wants to save face, he should just claim to not know why he started fasting in the beginning, but that the important thing is that he isn't fasting anymore currently.

Kind of like when Walter White walks into the store and slowly undresses only to find himself standing in front of the cold section?

[Northwestcoug]

This thread makes my head hurt. I've decided that there are a few possibilities:

1) Constitutional law is extremely subspecialized, and only the elect can understand it
2) Constitutional law training should require extra training in effective communication
3) Handwringing over abuses of constitutional law is an easy mask for personal disapproval of gay marriage
4) No one understands UVA coug

Or maybe a mix of all four.

[Topper]

This thread makes my head hurt. I've decided that there are a few possibilities:

1) Constitutional law is extremely subspecialized, and only the elect can understand it
2) Constitutional law training should require extra training in effective communication
3) Handwringing over abuses of constitutional law is an easy mask for personal disapproval of gay marriage
4) No one understands UVA coug

Or maybe a mix of all four.

UVa Coug, Jacob and imanihonjin ascribe to constitutional interpretative philosophy, while appearing noble, is rarely affected as they would have one believe.

Constitutional law requires an intimate understanding with strings of cases, interpretative constructs, and persuasive writing ability. It really isn't much different than any other long standing area of the law but because it has the appearance of supreme importance, people ascribe more to it than it deserves. My commercial paper prof ruminated that "although I don't get to talk about things as a high filutin Constitutional 'scholar', I also don't have to wake up in the morning to see what the Supreme Court did to my course outline."

These guys will have you believe that they can discern the original intent and apply it correctly all the time in all circumstances.

One of my least favorite concepts written by almost every single attorney alive, "It is clear...."

[Katy Lied]

The problem with SU's argument (interesting tho it is) is that the extremists of one generation become the moderates of another generation, and vice versa. Remember when Queer Nation coopted the gay rights movement and gay rights activists thought it was a bad idea? Remember when Maxine Waters was the lone voice against appartheid for year after year when she'd introduce her bill for economic sanctions against South Africa?

The conservative hard liners who cling to religious orthodoxy suffer the greatest wrath of the mob. I never understood why moderates become so enraged at someone for clinging to a doctrine that was almost universally accepted by the body of the church just decades earlier. Something as silly as how to make the sign of the cross. Boyarina Morozova martyred in 1675 and revered by the same church in 1974.

[SeattleUte]

This thread makes my head hurt. I've decided that there are a few possibilities:

1) Constitutional law is extremely subspecialized, and only the elect can understand it
2) Constitutional law training should require extra training in effective communication
3) Handwringing over abuses of constitutional law is an easy mask for personal disapproval of gay marriage
4) No one understands UVA coug

Or maybe a mix of all four.

In my experience every Con law case is different and intensely fact bound. Con law provides a remedy of last resort and for any case that merits a 52 page opinion there is are no clear answer in the case law. And of course it's a truism that the Constitution itself is deliberately general and subject to varying interpretations. Moreober, the direction of con law in relation to civil rights has over the past 60 years been (fortunately) to expand the frontiers of civil liberties. For example, it's incredible to think this but only a few years ago -- well into the 21st century -- the Supreme Court held it was unconstitutional to give the death sentence to mentally retarded people. Not so long ago a blow job or anal sex could land you in prison for a long time. To argue that the constitution is static and ought to be applied as though frozen in time ignores the reality of the case law over the past 60 years.

So, con law decisions always involve some amount of extrapolation and misreading if not outright rejection of precedent. Judges who issue important civil rights decisions are also very sensitized to their legacies. Even Scalia doesn't want to be remembered as akin to Justice Teney.

[imanihonjin]

Perhaps you intended to write, you find the analysis to be inconsistent with Constitutional jurisprudence that you find compelling. However, when social upheaval or social normalization takes place the precedents change rapidly to slumber in a stonelike appearance for another generation or two.

Your point makes my point perfectly. The Constitution should stand on its own and shouldn't have its meaning changed based on social normalizations.

[imanihonjin]

"Practiced fidelity to the Constitution" blah, blah, blah.

Do you kneel five times a day, kiss your copy and pray to it as well?

What good is the document if its meaning can be changed at the whim of 5 justices?

[Topper]

What good is the document if its meaning can be changed at the whim of 5 justices?

Did you miss the quote in Conlaw from a Justice, who said in answer to the question of what Constitutional was, "It was whatever five out of nine justices say it is"?

It is changed. If you're saying, the justices should try for consistency, okay, we're in agreement. Where we're not in agreement is what constitutes consistency and what constitutes needed flexibility.

[SeattleUte]

Did you miss the quote in Conlaw from a Justice, who said in answer to the question of what Constitutional was, "It was whatever five out of nine justices say it is"?

It is changed. If you're saying, the justices should try for consistency, okay, we're in agreement. Where we're not in agreement is what constitutes consistency and what constitutes needed flexibility.

No Justice Marshall said that about the "law".

[Topper]

No Justice Marshall said that about the "law".

Thanks for the correction. I had forgotten the exact context.

[YOhio]

What if Same Sex Marriage meant that everyone was required by law to have the same sex, i.e. same position and frequency. Sounds like something straight out of a totalitarian regime. I bet you wouldn't see everyone hopping on the bandwagon if that were the case.

[imanihonjin]

Forgive me, but <redacted> intent. Reception is all that matters to me. Intent is a fallacy. This is not a <redacted> social movement. This is a civil rights movement.

I am not advocating that we halt change, I am advocating that society changes in a way that promotes fidelity to the Constitution. So, I am not really sure why you quoted what you quoted, as I agree with the quote as a whole.

If the meaning of the words of the Constitution have no meaning as you appear to be advocating, then we literally have no Constitution.

[imanihonjin]

UVa Coug, Jacob and imanihonjin ascribe to constitutional interpretative philosophy, while appearing noble, is rarely affected as they would have one believe.

Constitutional law requires an intimate understanding with strings of cases, interpretative constructs, and persuasive writing ability. It really isn't much different than any other long standing area of the law but because it has the appearance of supreme importance, people ascribe more to it than it deserves. My commercial paper prof ruminated that "although I don't get to talk about things as a high filutin Constitutional 'scholar', I also don't have to wake up in the morning to see what the Supreme Court did to my course outline."

These guys will have you believe that they can discern the original intent and apply it correctly all the time in all circumstances.

One of my least favorite concepts written by almost every single attorney alive, "It is clear...."

Geez, it must be nice being able to discern every other persons thoughts and intents. Perhaps you should be the sole arbitor of original intent. As to that point, the debate is no longer about original intent, and that is my problem. I would be content if inquiring minds were arguing about what the original intent was, but that has passed for most and instead we are talking about how to best change this living and breathing Constitution to meet the current needs of specific demographics.

[Non Sequitur]

What if Same Sex Marriage meant that everyone was required by law to have the same sex, i.e. same position and frequency. Sounds like something straight out of a totalitarian regime. I bet you wouldn't see everyone hopping on the bandwagon if that were the case.

Depends entirely on the position and the frequency. When I was married I could have used a little backup from the Constitution for some of my suggestions.

[imanihonjin]

Did you miss the quote in Conlaw from a Justice, who said in answer to the question of what Constitutional was, "It was whatever five out of nine justices say it is"?

It is changed. If you're saying, the justices should try for consistency, okay, we're in agreement. Where we're not in agreement is what constitutes consistency and what constitutes needed flexibility.

There shouldn't be flexibility. The Justices job should be to interpret what was meant when the words were written and apply the facts of a given case accordingly. The argument should be about what the meaning of the words were when written and not about what the words ought to mean today.