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.

 

How can the President change the constitution he swore to up hold.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


Though I understand your argument, but the 14th does not specifically address marriage, or the laws thereof. It speaks of naturalization, and status of its citizens. Personally, I think the 14th needs to be eradicated.




posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Correct, the 14th Amendment does not specifically address marriage. What it does address is equal protection under (secular) laws in the states. Without regard to what the law addresses. So it includes marriage, getting a driver's license, working, buying and selling goods, etc.

A state cannot bar gay people from getting a driver's license because they are gay.
A state cannot bar gay people from starting a business because they are gay.
A state cannot bar gay people from having a job because they are gay.
A state cannot bar gay people from getting married to the consenting adult of their choice because they are gay.

Now, churches? You bet, a church or religion can legally discriminate against gay people because they are gay. The government has no business telling a religion it may or may not so discriminate. So a church may refuse to marry gay people, or recognize their marriage. Even though I disagree with such an attitude, I defend the rights of churches to do this.

And conversly, a church or religion has no business telling a government it must discriminate. And the opposition to gay marriage is religiously based, therefore not valid in terms of secular law.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


Ok, I had to re-read your earlier posts. My bad, I totally misunderstood completely! Yes you are correct. The 14th amendment clearly states the the pursuit of life, liberty and property shall not be abridged. So your statements are correct. Sorry for my misunderstanding.. ( shew, over the head on that one at first )



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   


This is the start of something very frieghtening. When the president just changes our foundation of our way of life and wlaks away with out any media addressing this.


Why do you not see this as a civil rights issue? There are Americans that have been denied a right that most of us enjoy. Given the equal protections clause it's really shameful that they have been denied for so long simply because of their sexuality.

Liberty in America will actually increase because of this, that's a good thing.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocky Black
 


Just write - I HATE OBAMA - on all the threads .. and your point is noted ... I really think you should read the constitution before making baseless claims.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Himal
 


Though I understand your concern, some may mis-interpret what the 14th says. It could be a lack of understanding at first glance. But any person making an opinion, though you may disagree doesn't necessarily make it " baseless". Obviously this is a topic that the OP feels strongly about, and by doing so doesn't make his opinion any more baseless than yours.

The OP could have read the Constitution, or may not have, he may have made his opinions based off real life experience, thus allowing him to make his conclusions. You coming here and attacking him does nothing.

Think about it~



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Its pretty easy to change something when it doesn't do what you want.
You are mistaking politicians for regular people. They are not, they do
what needs to be done to satisfy their needs... money and power...
and what ever it takes to protect said money and power.

Would be great to impeach them all and get some decent people in there...
But it will never happen because they have control of everything. Only thing
to do is vote... and vote WELL.

Its politics as usual... you realllllyyy expect these people to be decent, honest and caring ?
edit on 28-2-2011 by R3KR because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by R3KR
 





Only thing to do is vote... and vote WELL.


Though I agree with your statement for the most part. The above is laughable. Sorry man, but the election process is a sham. Designed to make you, me and every one else " feel " like we were a part of something. Just the electoral college vs. the popular vote should prove that.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
huh.. what?????
when the OP ask for the president to be impeached for changing the constitution (which no president can do or have the authority to do) .. he "may" be mis-informed.
when I say the OPs claim that "the president is changing the constitution" is baseless .. I am attacking him??

reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


I can see you have the OP's back and support him regardless of his "dis-information" ...



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Himal
 


I don't have anyones back, regardless of what you may believe. But suggesting a persons opinion as invalid, because the view conflicts with your own further solidifies your ignorance.



his "dis-information"


Is the OP not able to have an opinion? Do you not agree with the 1st Amendment right? A simple yes or no will suffice.
edit on 28-2-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Federal/State Governments have no authority to regulate religion. They can't even force you to get a marriage license legally.

Marriage is a religious act.

All Obama can do is decide to give Federal Social Benefits to Gays that are married. States already had authority to do the same, all have decided not to.

If Obama gives Federal Benefits to Gay Married people, why would Incest Married people be denied Federal Benefits?

Incest was illegally banned on Religious grounds. Why's Obama not decrying that illegal ban? His actions may lead to Incest Marriage becoming legal. Something he sure doesn't want in history books. He's likely just trying to appease a block of America for the upcoming election and likely won't do anything.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
Federal/State Governments have no authority to regulate religion. They can't even force you to get a marriage license legally.


True enough, but in that case a couple is not legally married. And definitely, no level of government in the US has any business in any religion at any level.


Marriage is a religious act.


No. Marriage may contain a religous aspect. That has no connection to the Fed/State recognized legal contract of marriage.

I am legally married. My marriage contains no religous aspect at all.


Incest was illegally banned on Religious grounds.


As was murder and theft. And like murder and theft, there are a plethora of secular, non-religous-based reasons to maintain a ban on incest-based marriage. And an incest-based marriage does not face the legal issues a gay marriage does... a brother can be visited by his sister in the hospital, he can have her in his will, etc, because they are family. So currently incest-based marriages have more legal protection than do gay marriages.

Opposition to gay marriage is based soley on religous grounds. That's a problem.


His actions may lead to Incest Marriage becoming legal.


Please don't go the "marry my car" route...



He's likely just trying to appease a block of America for the upcoming election and likely won't do anything.


Sadly, that is all too likely.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Perception is 8/10ths of the law...the other 2/10ths is who you know not what you know.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
My first impression whe I heard that he had instructed the AG to stop defending tat aspect of the law was that it was nothing more than a political maneuver. Don't get me wrong, I think the DOMA was a stupid, obtrusive, and pointless law, which nevertheless was passed by stupid, pointless, and obtrusive politicians. Still this was nothing more than a politcal ploy.

I personally do not see this as a "breach of oath" or even an altering of the constitution. Seriously, the AG decides all the time what cases to take and what to let slide. Sometimes it is because of weak evidence, sometimes it is because of resource constraints, and sometimes it is because they feel that the law is weak and the chances of winning a case are slim to none.

I thought fiscal conservatives would be applauding the obvious financial savings in not pursuing the letigation of cases surrounding a law that serves absolutely no real purpose. I mean, seriously, where's the money and public benefit in defending DOMA? Nothing but a big budget hole from what I can tell.

And the libertarians should be up in arms about DOMA and agreeing with the President's decision not to allow the government to further intrude into what is supposed to be a private matter between free citizens.


edit on 2-28-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
You really need to stop listening to FOX news or their counter parts.

I was listening to a political talk show today - - - where they played excerpts from Newt Gingrich rant on this.

They took each point Gingrich tried to make - - - then explained it with real facts.

Gingrich was out and out lying about every thing he said. Every point he tried to make.

Enjoy your hysteria.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocky Black
 


When Bush suspended habeus corpus.....
That WAS changing the constitution on the fly....
but it's appearently all right to be a puppet of the House of Saud...as long as you're not half black...



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocky Black
 


It's not that it's not popular...It's ignorant and ridiculous and a lie.
The president did nothing but obey the ruling of a federal court....
By the way...almost 89 % of people who react this strongly to gayness....do so because they secretly know they are gay....Me thinks thou dost protest too much!



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocky Black
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Explain to me how a site which is member driven can be "censoring" you via the numbers of stars and flags you get? Those things come from other members and NOT the staff. And our demographics cannot be that skewed because anyone with a valid email address can join.

So I am confused as to how a lack of popular acceptance equates, to you, as some form of censorship.


Regarding the OP. I trust that you were ready to impeach Bush when he passed the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Right?

Or is your Constitutional outrage against the current POTUS mired in some other issue?

~Heff

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
BTW, people let us not forget or get confused, the POTUS was NOT so much as changing the actual written Constitution, but instituted something known as Executive Orders. These orders allow for the over ruling of the laws in place. Though the founding fathers tried and attempted back in those days, to prevent something of this nature from happening....

You have Roosevelt to thanks for starting that one.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





I will change more with my words than you will with your guns



you wanna bet?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join