a lot of assuming in this post. even if these people sneaking in are in the group you mentioned is there a reason why shouldn't we protect the border?
So how is the border not protected. And if it isn't then what should we do about it. The budget for border patrols and technology like drones is at an all time high. Sure you can spend even more money (short of spending a trillion on a fence). So let Congress appropriate more money. Obama has asked for it. Btw in a 2013 article in The Economist they say we're spending too much. And that it's overkill. Basically "protecting the border" is just a catch phrase for people who like to point fingers but have no solutions. We've had no major incidents of domestic terrorism under Obama.
And of course you realize that the next step, after this...As SCOTUS invented a new right (and BTW folks, the marriage debate has never been about Human Rights...it's about tax breaks, and legal recognition.. .but I digress)..and went a step further ordering all states to give full faith and credit to gay marriages. Don't be surprised when the gun rights lobby demands equal protection/full faith and credit for CCW permit holders, under the same rationale. States like NY and NJ and California are about to get it shoved up their collective (ist) asses And Self Defense is a human right.
That post is lacking in both fact and logic. Most glaring, is the omission of ratification by the states. (2/3) (See ERA..failed) Hence the continued existence of the Second Amendment. And no, a suit can brought under a given law..but as has just been seen in the Obamacare decision, that end result revolves purely around the decision of the majority. The rest is an exercise in creative writing. In the two obamacare decisions, SCOTUS majority declared something the Solicitor General in his argument declared was not a tax nor intended to be one, a Tax. In the second decision, the washed away hundreds of years of legal terminology and established law regarding State..vs...state you libs hate Scalia, but moreso than the rest, his decisions are logically and textually consistent. His real flaw is seeing the Constitution thru Law-n-Order lenses. Thomas is his better where Liberty is concerned. And...Here's a good example of how wrong you are. Bush Gore 2000. (Actually in the FLA episode its Gore v. Harris) Every lower court found in favor of Bush. Florida's Supreme Court, (stacked by lib Governor Lawton Chiles) reversed every lower court decision, for Gore. SCOTUS stepped in and told them basically to knock it off. Then they doubled down, and SCOTUS had to step in and end it. And before any lib, goes gonzo on that line... You might want to read Chief Justice Wells scathing dissent in the penultimate round that forced SCOTUS to end the drama Wells dissent at the end. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/pre2004/ops/sc00-2431.pdf
No, I merely said your post was not quite correct. the libs run around with their hair on fire, when B.v G comes up...
You need a basic lesson in US Government and it's three branches. The example you gave is exactly what the purpose and role of our courts are. The legislature passes laws. They are elected by a referendum - it's called an election - to carry out the will of the people. The Executive branch carries out the laws. The courts evaluate the laws and determine whether those laws are constitutional under the US Constitution. In the SSM decision, the SCOTUS ruled that those states laws banning same sex marriage were in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution -the 14 th Amendment. The Supreme Courtbdid exactly what it was designed to do by the Constitution. Read Marbury v Madison decided in 1803,
I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with this one sentence (if it truly is one, run-on, sentence - the punctuation is...challenging.) This debate certainly is a matter of human rights as it discriminated against a group of people denied a right that was granted to others. On the other hand, it is also a matter of tax breaks, based upon that legal recognition. The existing question is why does the government discriminate in those tax breaks between the wed and the unwed? Identical twins living next door to each other, holding the same job at the same salary for the same period of time will have a huge discrepancy in net pay over their lifetimes, and their heirs after their deaths, based solely on their marital status. It is hard to think of a more discriminatory situation, yet it is created and supported by the very government established on the self-evident truths that all men are created equal.
If singles were consistently discriminated against and could point to a history of being discriminated against there's no reason they couldn't be a protected class. It would require a finding that this was the case and then legislation granting the protection. I think it would be hard to prove the discrimination. Typically the tax burden has been DINK > Single > SINK > DIXK > Single X Kids> SIXK. The place you get your breaks in terms of marital status is more related to the number of exemptions you get for children than to your marital status. After that it's about income averaging so couples with one income pay less than couples with 2, etc. The places I got screwed in terms of taxation were essentially not having a mortgage and not having kids. Single was part of that since it gave me greater mobility and no incentive to actually have kids but it was the lesser part.
You didn't get screwed. The government has a vested interest in making it easier to produce new taxpayers. t
What's next? Right to marry your cousin?, Brother or Sister? How about the right to have more than one spouse? All of this and more are now going to be on the table.
