tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post2633265828435220894..comments2024-03-26T04:21:43.535-05:00Comments on Free Association: Scalia's Anti-Enlightenment Anti-IndividualismSheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-49074647827944865602015-07-02T14:52:41.138-05:002015-07-02T14:52:41.138-05:00"The question before the court was whether th..."The question before the court was whether the plaintiffs could FORCE THE STATE to recognize their marriages."<br /><br />No, the questions, per the 14th Amendment, were whether the states can deprive persons of liberty without due process of law and whether they can deny persons equal protection of the law.<br /><br />Of course the states were preventing marriage, as people understand that word, i.e., a commitment recognized through a state marriage license. What's more, they would not recognize and enforce private marriage contracts.Sheldon Richmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-55836798340504520052015-07-02T14:47:42.192-05:002015-07-02T14:47:42.192-05:00"what I feel the article forgot about is that..."what I feel the article forgot about is that "pesky" 10th Amendment:"<br /><br />Is it of no consequence that the 14th Amendment came after the 10th?Sheldon Richmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-5972392151712998692015-07-02T14:44:10.319-05:002015-07-02T14:44:10.319-05:00This blog entry misses the question Scalia was res...This blog entry misses the question Scalia was responding to, and so it not only misunderstands what Scalia said, but it itself makes the error it accuses of Scalia.<br /><br />The question before the court was not whether people could get married. None of the plaintiffs were prevented from being married. The question before the court was whether the plaintiffs could FORCE THE STATE to recognize their marriages. It wasn't a question of preventing the states' actions but rather a question of forcing the states to act.<br /><br />So Scalia was SUPPORTING freedom when he objected to restricting the states' policies of action. Scalia was agreeing with these ideas of self-government, not saying they were wrong. He was supporting the right of people to do what they wished so long as they didn't interfere with others' abilities to do the same.<br /><br />It all comes down to misunderstanding of what was actually before the court. The story that states were preventing marriage is factually wrong, so perceptions based on that claim themselves end up 180 degrees out of phase.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-46025589437896201072015-07-02T07:10:15.926-05:002015-07-02T07:10:15.926-05:00This article puts a lot of emphasis on the 9th Ame...This article puts a lot of emphasis on the 9th Amendment as a reason for repealing the Constitutional Amendments of many State Constitutions. However, what I feel the article forgot about is that "pesky" 10th Amendment:<br /><br />"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."<br /><br />Now I know the use of the word "State" there now means "Federal" due to the recent ObamaCare ruling. However, I assure you that back when it was originally put in by the Founding Fathers state meant state, and so it WOULD be up to the States to decide recognition of gay marriage, since marriage was always a State action anyway ("By the power vested in my by the State of _____ I now pronounce you...").<br /><br />In contrast, I believe Scalia was legitimately trying to warn us how far out of wack our system has gotten. We no longer follow the Constitution anymore, it's not good enough for people. They need more rights, more freedoms, more money out of your pocket to enforce all that stuff. 5 unelected people on the Supreme Court just eliminated many Constitutional Amendments put there by popular vote and support of the people. That is a serious problem, and it creates a terribly powerful precedent.<br /><br />Now don't get me wrong, I do agree with gay rights. However, I also agree with the democratic experiment. If we are a country based in law then we ought to follow the procedures and laws that we ourselves put forth. The gay rights movement did not do it with this one, and I lost a lot of respect for them as a result. They constantly compared their struggle to the black civil rights movement, but obviously it isn't even close. Black people won their rights in the legislature and with the people. Despite the news reports that say people "overwhelmingly support" gay marriage they didn't seem to win many elections. In fact, without judicial activism most states would still not allow gay marriage. When Scalia was commenting about how "this IS how democracy works" when he was referring to the debate, he was right. And now because of the actions of 5 people we may never know if gay people could be accepted with respect instead of forcing you to accept them at the point of a gun (and/or lawsuit if you own a wedding related business).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-22204719290500312302015-07-01T13:32:14.884-05:002015-07-01T13:32:14.884-05:00IS it "ruling" to do away with a law(s)?...IS it "ruling" to do away with a law(s)? In a sense, yes (the law is forbidden to be made/enforced). But at a more-basic level, the nullification of laws TENDS to increase liberty for PEOPLE, if not their (state) governments.<br /><br />Scalia doth complain too much, at least in this case.N. Joseph Pottsnoreply@blogger.com