Obama's Imigration Exec Order is a "STFU" to Gay Marriage Supporters

[pornstarwannabe]

This will make Libs nuts because I caught them in a double standard. Follow the logic:

1. The Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution states "that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The United States Supreme Court decided over one hundred years ago, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins,(157) that selective enforcement of a facially neutral law can constitute an equal protection violation

So, a particular law must be applied equally. Got it.

2. Libs that support Gay Marriage state that gays have to be afforded the same rights as heteros. Clearly this is not the case. DOM Act defines a marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. And the federal Gov't (and nearly every State) prohibits sex between certain men and women. So while a particular law has to be applied equally (to be constitutional per the Equal Protection Clause), we can have different laws for different groups.

So, we can have different laws for different groups. Got it.

3. Obama's Exec Order regarding Immigration: "Under the new policy, people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and were successful students or served in the military can get a two-year deferral from deportation, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said"

So, now we have an example of a law that is aimed at two different groups: under 30 and over 30. What if a guy was brought over here at the age of 10, and is now 31. He is subject to deportation. Just like gay marriage, the precedent was set: different laws can be applied to different groups of people. Are Libs clamoring aloud demanding that illegals over 30 be allowed to stay here? Nope. Libs are embracing this immigration policy, i.e. Libs endorse treating different groups of people differently.

Hence, the double standard. I've followed the Gay Marriage and Obama's new Immigration Policy. The libs that want gay marriage for all because it's "fair" are the same Libs calling the new immigration policy fair. Sorry libs, Politics is for Sound Thinkers. It's essentially a STFU to Libs that argue the "fairness" angle.

 

[kbate]

Wow your insight, logic and political knowledge leave me in awe.

I would love to shake your hand, to have an autographed picture, to subscribe to your newsletter and to read more such well crafted commentary. You definitely need to begin a blog, Lit is by no means a large enough audience for such great legal/political arguments as you make, the world itself may be too small.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Wow your insight, logic and political knowledge leave me in awe.

I would love to shake your hand, to have an autographed picture, to subscribe to your newsletter and to read more such well crafted commentary. You definitely need to begin a blog, Lit is by no means a large enough audience for such great legal/political arguments as you make, the world itself may be too small.

Typical Lib response on your part. Facts are facts and there is no denying that.

 

[kbate]

Typical Lib response on your part. Facts are facts and there is no denying that.

Your facts are wrong. You based a major portion of your argument on logical fallacies (the entire 2nd paragraph).

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Your facts are wrong. You based a major portion of your argument on logical fallacies (the entire 2nd paragraph).

Point out the error. Does not exist.

 

[njlauren]

This will make Libs nuts because I caught them in a double standard. Follow the logic:

1. The Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution states "that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The United States Supreme Court decided over one hundred years ago, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins,(157) that selective enforcement of a facially neutral law can constitute an equal protection violation

So, a particular law must be applied equally. Got it.

2. Libs that support Gay Marriage state that gays have to be afforded the same rights as heteros. Clearly this is not the case. DOM Act defines a marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. And the federal Gov't (and nearly every State) prohibits sex between certain men and women. So while a particular law has to be applied equally (to be constitutional per the Equal Protection Clause), we can have different laws for different groups.

So, we can have different laws for different groups. Got it.

3. Obama's Exec Order regarding Immigration: "Under the new policy, people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and were successful students or served in the military can get a two-year deferral from deportation, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said"

So, now we have an example of a law that is aimed at two different groups: under 30 and over 30. What if a guy was brought over here at the age of 10, and is now 31. He is subject to deportation. Just like gay marriage, the precedent was set: different laws can be applied to different groups of people. Are Libs clamoring aloud demanding that illegals over 30 be allowed to stay here? Nope. Libs are embracing this immigration policy, i.e. Libs endorse treating different groups of people differently.

Hence, the double standard. I've followed the Gay Marriage and Obama's new Immigration Policy. The libs that want gay marriage for all because it's "fair" are the same Libs calling the new immigration policy fair. Sorry libs, Politics is for Sound Thinkers. It's essentially a STFU to Libs that argue the "fairness" angle.

Couple of points here:;'

"And the federal Gov't (and nearly every State) prohibits sex between certain men and women"

Nope, those were the old sodomy laws (if you are referring to sex), the matter was decided in the Lawrence decision several years back. Basically, the court ruled that the government has no right to enforce morality in the bedroom; part of it was based on the right to privacy, the other was based on the equal protection clause (the law in question was a Texas law that made sex acts illegal between a consenting same sex couple that were legal for a hetero couple).

On the surface your argument about the immigration law is correct, but you have to be careful about the equal protection clause, it doesn't say that all groups have to be treated equally under the law, it says that if you treat groups unequally, there has to be a justifiable reason to do so and this applies across the boards where rights are concerned. Someone who is a carrier of typhoid fever can be banned from food preparation because allowing them to do so poses a risk.

You also have to be careful about immigration law, because the law there always has been discriminatory and when it comes to immigrants, who are not US citizens, the same laws may not apply because of that. Immigration laws for years have carved out exemptions; for example, though there were quotas for people from certain parts of the world , someone who came from behind the Iron Curtain were given preference as political refugees, which could be argued to be unfair, but there was a reason behind it (same way people can apply for asylum based immigration). My guess (since I don't know why they are proposing that) is that it is a lot more likely that someone under 30 was brought here by their parents , which is what the law is supposed to cover, and that someone older then 30 likely came here by themselves illegally; also, might be more likely that someone under 30 meets the criteria of having gone to college and/or served in the military.

BTW, arguing that 'libs' support this is a completely asinine assertion. Who are these libs who support this policy? Most of the 'libs' I know favor immigration, real immigration reform, and I haven't heard any of them defend that policy, I haven't seen any "lib" group argue in its behalf or the ACLU refuse to take a lawsuit challenging it (they have to be asked).

As to whether this is hypocrisy depends on the reasoning behind why those over 30 were excluded, if there is a rational basis then it well could be legal (there might be statistical studies that show that past the age of 30, very few immigrants would meet the criteria). It will be up to the courts to decide if this 'unequal protection' is legal or not, if the government can show good cause why this unequal protection is based in a rational reason, then it will stand, if not it will fall.

DOMA is illegal on many grounds, equal protection is only one of them. First of all, the right to marry is controlled by the states, and the federal government, by deciding which of those to recognize, is de facto deciding who is legally married....which is the job of the states. They are taking a role that they have no right to take according to the constitution (also, the clause telling states they don't have to recognize the marriages done in other states may be illegal under the full faith and credit clause). More importantly, when asked about same sex marriage, the proponents of banning it cannot come up with a rational argument, they talk about long held religious belief, "marriage is sacred", 'long held tradition", 'the bedrock of society", "Better way to raise children, which is what marriage is about" and every one of them is a religius/cultural argument that cannot be argued with facts and proof.

BTW the policy only defers deportation for a couple of years, it doesn't stop it in the end.

 

[kbate]

Point out the error. Does not exist.

Petitio principii

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Couple of points here:;'

"And the federal Gov't (and nearly every State) prohibits sex between certain men and women"

Nope, those were the old sodomy laws (if you are referring to sex), the matter was decided in the Lawrence decision several years back. Basically, the court ruled that the government has no right to enforce morality in the bedroom; part of it was based on the right to privacy, the other was based on the equal protection clause (the law in question was a Texas law that made sex acts illegal between a consenting same sex couple that were legal for a hetero couple).

I see. So you are saying that the government cannot restrict marriage between consenting adults, but they do. Can a man marry his mom? Can a sister marry her brother? Can cousins marry in every State of the Union? The answer to each question is NO. In fact, the Federal Government (early in the Obama term) used similar arguments to defend the DOM Act.

So governments do restrict these unions, and these restrictions are not "the old sodomy laws" that you claim. Nice try though.

 

[njlauren]

Umm, you wrote that the government prohibits sex (not marriage, sex) between certain men and women and that is not the same thing as marriage.......hate to tell you, but an adult could have sex with his mom or his cosign or whatever and it is legal...they cannot get married, but as long as they are adults, they can have sex...you used that term, not me.

With marriage laws there needs to be a basis for those laws. Laws against a son marrying his mom or cousins not being allowed to marry is based on worries about offspring, which at least have some basis in fact. Close relatives marrying causes all kinds of genetic issues with children, as anyone who ever did any reading about the royal families of europe of people in small rural towns down south would tell you about.

Where marriage laws could be subject to revision would be with cousins, if for example we could show that genetically there is no problem with that and therefore there is no basis for it. Polyamourous relationships could be challenged as well, unless they can show cause why they shouldn't be legal, since the ban on that was religious and cultural.

The equal protection clause boils down to the idea that you cannot have one set of laws for one group then for another, unless you have logical basis for that discrimination. We restrict the right to drive to those past a certain age because there is reason to believe that before that age they aren't mature enough. Insurance companies charge different rates legally for younger men, women, married men versus single men, because there is statistical proof of better driving habits in the preferred groups.

No one seems to know why the 30 year old age cutoff, one possible justification probably is that being younger they are more likely to have gone to college or otherwise would be more of a benefit to society (I don't know if they are doing it).

No right in the constitution is absolute, there are always burdens on them.

 

[unregistered]

 

[kbate]

I've always been intrigued by the liberal notion that all born inside the borders of the United States are citizens, meaning that illegal aliens born here are citizens, yet if in fact anyone born inside the borders of the United States is a "citizen" why would the United States Congress pass the The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8 USCS ß1401? Which provides for the following:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

Holy Irrelevancy Batman!

Perhaps because the constitution granted privilege and status to citizens and natural citizens but did not define either?

 

[about_average]

The libs that want gay marriage for all because it's "fair"....

Huh? Which libs would that be?
I've been discussing same sex marriage with people for over 20 years and in all that time not a single one of them has even hinted at wanting "gay marriage for all".
The people in favor of it, to a person, merely want it legal for homosexuals. Not a single one wants to force heterosexuals in to same sex marriages.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Wow your insight, logic and political knowledge leave me in awe.

I would love to shake your hand, to have an autographed picture, to subscribe to your newsletter and to read more such well crafted commentary. You definitely need to begin a blog, Lit is by no means a large enough audience for such great legal/political arguments as you make, the world itself may be too small.

Hey man! She just said your tiny dick is a match for your tiny brain.

 

[unregistered]

 

[eyer]

Perhaps not. Perhaps it has to do with rulings in the Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884), in particular 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, in which the SCOTUS interpreted the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" as excluding "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." The American Indian claimant in the case was determined not to be a citizen because the law required him to be, "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance." I know, a minor technicality.

Your offering there seems to side with Rubio not being a natural born citizen...

 

[IrezumiKiss]

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/307042_438070602881081_1237528993_n.jpg

 

[cjh]

Perhaps not. Perhaps it has to do with rulings in the Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884), in particular 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case 12, in which the SCOTUS interpreted the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" as excluding "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." The American Indian claimant in the case was determined not to be a citizen because the law required him to be, "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance." I know, a minor technicality.

You forgot to erase the footnote before "making" your cogent argument.

 

[Beco]

Wow your insight, logic and political knowledge leave me in awe.

I would love to shake your hand, to have an autographed picture, to subscribe to your newsletter and to read more such well crafted commentary. You definitely need to begin a blog, Lit is by no means a large enough audience for such great legal/political arguments as you make, the world itself may be too small.

I get his newsletter and its not that great....just saying