It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by camaro68ss
When does the right of one judge have the power to overturn the voice of the people of California? Or when does the power of one judge have the power to overturn the new illegal immigration law in Arizona that was ran through the states senate and house legally?
Originally posted by camaro68ss
I understand the constitution but I see no place in it were it states it’s illegal to make gay marriage illegal.
Originally posted by camaro68ss
Arguments will be made that the judge overturned the laws to protect the minorities. But last I check this is a country that is ran by the majority vote. These judges are “protecting the minorities” in turn over turning the majority so is this country now being run by the minorities?
Originally posted by camaro68ss
Arguments will be made about the pursuit of happiness and that gays or illegal’s have the right to happiness. My argument is I have the pursuit of happiness and I want to own automatic guns.
Originally posted by camaro68ss
I want to do drugs (hypothetically speaking) and drive around without my seat belt. That is what will make me happy. Do I have the right to do that then? NO!
Originally posted by camaro68ss
A judges job is to interpret the constitution. I find no place in the constitution making these laws that got over turned unconstitutional.
Originally posted by PieKeeper
Originally posted by camaro68ss
Originally posted by camaro68ss
Arguments will be made about the pursuit of happiness and that gays or illegal’s have the right to happiness. My argument is I have the pursuit of happiness and I want to own automatic guns.
That's definitely legal, I believe you need a class 3 license.
I believe the parts of the Arizona law that were overturned violated the Supremacy Clause, and as I've already pointed out, the gay marriage ban violates parts of the 14th Amendment. At least that's what the arguments are.
....But last I check this is a country that is ran by the majority vote....
Originally posted by arcnaver
The automatic weapons law is not as easy as having a Class III license. You first have to apply for one from a LEO and jump through some Hoops in the ATF. Then and only if you have a LEO that is pro 2nd AM, will you be able to purchase a stamp for a automatic weapon that has been manufactured BEFORE a certain antiquated date. I think 80 something. I cannot own a M240G or a MK19 or anyother automatic weapon built after a certain date.
Originally posted by arcnaver
The Arizona Law.
This law mimics Federal Law. I think you will see the ruling overturned by a higher court. Then overturned again by an activist group of judges who care nothing about interpreting the law, but care more about ruling the Law. The only thing wrong with the Arizona Law, was that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government, by Law. The Fed Gov does not like it when someone else does their job for them, even if they refuse to do it themselves.
Originally posted by arcnaver
Over Five Thousand Years of precedent history speaks otherwise on Gay marriage. It does not exist.
Originally posted by arcnaver
Therefore it is not a right nor a privilege nor is it protected by the Constitution.
Originally posted by Nofoolishness
I would argue the judge made the wrong ruling because he did it under the 14th ammendment.
Originally posted by Nofoolishness
Let me reiterate. No one has ever been denied the right to marry. No matter what sexual preferance or what gays tell you.
Originally posted by Nofoolishness The truth is we can all marry the opposite sex because thats what the states and the will of the people have decided the requirment to be.
Originally posted by Nofoolishness
The problem is that gays want to change the definition set forth by the states and the will of the people.
Essentially the minority overpowering the majority.