[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/polpol/ - Politically Incorrect Discussion

Politics, news, culture, society - no shills allowed

Catalog

8chan Bitcoin address: 1NpQaXqmCBji6gfX8UgaQEmEstvVY7U32C
The next generation of Infinity is here (discussion) (contribute)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 1 per post.

File: 1435332400710.jpg (39.78 KB, 460x259, 460:259, SCOTUS.jpg)

433b26 No.15517

Putting this here since /pol/ is too retarded to actually digest this.

The US Supreme Court recently legalized gay marriage as many now know. However, if you look at their legal justification there's a giant gaping hole.

To quote:

>The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices

central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs (Pg. 2 of the pdf).

This unleashes Pandora's box. Polygamy for example fair game according to this. Want to marry a dog, okay; Muslim? Get yourself to a mosque and marry a child, after all Muhammad did it too. This may have been an opinion on legalizing gay marriage but the legal justification states that basically anything is fair game.

Now this probably doesn't apply to honor killings, but who knows how far it can be stretched. But, it does apply to things like marriage and many other things.

Now this means many more things can be construed as marriage before the Supreme Court or the decision can be overturned as it is void for vagueness, because if you use their own methodology more things become legal other than gay marriage. In order for their opinion not to be vague it would have to rewrite the legal definition of marriage at the federal level.

All in all it will be interesting to see if people exploit this great opportunity, because it will take some time to close this loophole.

04cbd1 No.15518

File: 1435334350265.jpg (299.88 KB, 1000x590, 100:59, 1422795867226.jpg)

Considering how quickly degeneracy is being pushed and "normalized" into the mainstream consciousness, see shit like http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/06/21/the-next-media-cycle-to-expect-after-trans/ for example, I fail to see how this is a good thing. All it will do is speed up the process of destruction as mockery turns to reality.


2a7d58 No.15519

>>15518

I think we could see far worse stuff happening if the degenerates find out about this loophole. a few months ago a saw a HuffingtonPost article trying to destigmatise pedophilia, but later they shut it down, so sadly I cannot provide a link.


2a7d58 No.15520

>>15517

op if you would provide more info about this loophole in the law I think we could take this to the alt-right people, they would spread it over twitter and facebook faster then we could ever wish


433b26 No.15521

File: 1435341241666.pdf (428.77 KB, Obergefell v Hodges.pdf)

>>15520

1) Grab yourself a copy of the court's decision as that has the legal basis for people to scrutinize.

2) pg. 2-5 have the reasoning of the court in summary of what the majority opinion is.

It basically states the 14th amendment protects the right to marriage due to the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

The court reasons that marriage is a protected right of the constitution due to various cases. And other non-legal bases. Section 3 of the syllabus is where they combine the premises to make the argument that gay marriage is protected by the fourteenth amendment. However, the argument they use can be used for so many different things.

Essentially the loop hole is the fact that the legal basis for gay marriage can be used for polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia (at least marriage to a child). But can extend to alimony and other things of that nature. The court itself states:

>Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in Loving, where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause; and in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, where the Court invalidated a law barring fathers delinquent on child-support payments from marrying.

So one the leftist idea that liberty and equality are always coequal is denied in the first sentence. Two the court shows how the 14th amendment can defend degeneracy by allowing fathers to remarry without providing for children they already have.

The court (the majority) defends this by stating:

> Indeed, recognizing that new insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged, this Court has invoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sex based inequality on marriage,–and confirmed the relation between liberty and equality.

Now this line of reasoning should be familiar, because it basically sounds word for word like something out of Tumblr. For example:

>Women's studies can illuminate unjustified privilege in institutions, that was previously unchecked. We have invoked equal protection principles to promote safe spaces…

So that's their reasoning. The legal basis falls under the 14th amendment while their non-legal basis is Tumblr tier rationality. So what is the loop hole exactly?


433b26 No.15522

>>15521

As I stated the loop hole is basically the fact that their legal reasoning for gay marriage is vague. The essential point to take is that the legal basis can be applied in many other areas, they only chose to apply it to gay marriage at this time.

It's important to remember what the 14th amendment effects. It effects the state; the 5th amendment effects the federal level. This is important because they do not bar individuals. Individuals in this case referring to not just natural persons, but legal persons.

So the meat here is that while the state and federal level have to recognize gay marriages and whatever else comes of this. People and companies do not. Not only that, but according to their reasoning, people and companies can actively do the opposite if they so desire.

You see you can't open the door to equal protection without it protecting everything. And their legal reasoning far gay marriage has the 14th amendment basically protect everything. What this means is for example in the context of the Confederate Flag. The government can take it down, and individuals can choose to take it down, but the government cannot force individuals, nor companies to take it down. And the reason that it would be hard now to charge a person with a Confederate flag (or other things) with a hate crime is due to this opinion.

The legal basis states that the 14th amendment extends to certain personal choices, and they have highlighted what some of these things may be:

>When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

I.E. any Constitutional protected right.

Of course you'll need to take notice of other strictures such as the Patriot Act (Freedom Act now), and etc. As they can limit the movement you have when applying this loophole. Though, with this opinion maybe the Freedom Act can be completely overturned.

Anyway this gets into why hate speech just became protected. When there is a legal stricture (hate speech) that interferes with a Constitutional protection (Freedom of speech) a claim to liberty must be addressed. (And by claim to liberty it is referring to legal liberty rights).

This does raise the question of what happens when a Constitutional protection is in discord with a Constitutional stricture. The only precedent we have for this is when new amendments are added ( such as the 14th), or amendments are repealed (18th repealed by 21st). But that is neither here nor there.

The important bit is thus:

The Supreme Court of the United States basically gave a go ahead to extremism

in certain personal choices

considering Roe v Wade used the 14th amen. these personal choices can extended fairly far.


433b26 No.15527

>>15522

Lastly if you remove their argument using the 14th amendment they have no legal basis for making such a decision. I.E. they cannot simply make a legal definition of marriage including gay marriage, thus closing the loophole.

They needed to go the 14th amendment route to have a legal basis to shove it down the State's throats, but that opened up the loop hole for allowing all sorts of bullshit. Because again, and I can't hammer this in enough, their entire decision is based on the fact that

the 14th amendment protects certain personal choices

they state that these choices are central to dignity and autonomy, and intimate choices defining personal identity (transgender/transracial) and beliefs. But, that can include a lot of things.

So in the end by allowing gay marriage, they allowed a host of other things ranging from Nazi Pride parades to Furry Pride parades. So thanks Obama, you really did it this time didn't you.


2a7d58 No.15540

File: 1435357007842.jpg (108.27 KB, 848x356, 212:89, original.jpg)

>>15527

thanks for your info anon, ill post this stuff on ovenworthy and on therighstufff. they're the vocal community and they'll know what to do with this info.


2a7d58 No.15547

>>15517

alright posted a screencap of the original post and I gave a link to this thread if anyone will be intrested. We might get a few Uips of quite intelligent right-wingers


433b26 No.15548

>>15547

In all honesty I'd be interested if someone could prove me wrong, but the fact is it looks like the Supreme Court screwed up. Either that or they did it on purpose, but if they wanted to leave a mechanism for allowing more deviancy they also protected the opposite too. Because when it comes to case law, cases like this may have been *just* about gay marriage, but that doesn't mean that's all it can be used on. Therefore, I don't see away where this can *only* apply to gay marriage, it's too open ended in the important bits; only the conclusion is restrictive to gay marriage. It's like an downwards cone, and whatever is inside will fall out.


af6e63 No.15553

>>15527

If it fall under freedom of expression you could already do those things. Hell, a little over a year ago some skinheads did a public rally near where I live and got protection by the cops. No news organization will really cover you and you'll be crowded out by counter protesters but the point stands.


b102c4 No.15554

How the majority opinion of this case fit with Dred Scott v. Sanford? The 14th Amendment that was used for this decision and the 5th Amendment for the share similar language. Both decisions also included the problems arising from traveling from between states with different views on life, liberty, and property.


433b26 No.15565

>>15553

The key difference here is that the court has now stated that the 14th amendment protects personal decisions that deal with dignity and autonomy, and protects intimate choices dealing with identity and beliefs. Basically it now legalized the fact that it's okay to a trans-racial person and if you really believe you're black then it's okay to loot too, because that's a personal decision relating to dignity and autonomy. However, that doesn't protect you from criminal legislation so if you say your black, then steal something, then bum-rush the cop, well #BlackLivesMatter.

>>15554

Dred Scott v Sanford was delivered before the 14th amendment, so technically the court was right, however, the south then split from the Union which allowed the North to pass anti-slavery legislation on the federal level. Once the South was annexed it was required to add these new legislative pieces and ratify the 14th. Essentially, because of the war Dred Scott flew out the window. Now what this case does is ties the states hands with the 14th amendment. There is nothing restricting the Federal government with charging you with a hate crime, or infringing upon personal choices or intimate choices.

Therefore, this is why the secessionist movement actually has a point. State's rights basically flew out the window. Anything relating to personal choices or intimate choices has to be dealt with by Washington. And, how scary is that?


2a7d58 No.15572

File: 1435574078590.jpg (105.14 KB, 800x703, 800:703, original.jpg)

just wanted to drop this off, seems appropriate in this thread


000000 No.15641

You do know it was legal to marry a girl child in the USA untill 1930 right (Tennessee).

Northerners banned it in the 1870s because women.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]