The U.S. Supreme Court Is Abusing the Fourteenth Amendment

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Is the U.S. Supreme Court abusing the Fourteenth Amendment?

  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

It appears to me that in decisions such as Roe v. Wade (1973, legalized abortion), Lawrence v. Texas (2003, declared a Texas sodomy law unconstitutional), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015, legalized gay marriage nationally), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidly invoked the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; … .” I understand that clause to be a bar on the government’s ability to arbitrarily deprive people of life, liberty, or property. The clause itself does not put a limit on what can and cannot be law. The clause does not express the concept known as “substantial due process.” The Supreme Court is failing to abide by the Constitution.

Furthermore, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states “… nor shall any State … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I understand that clause to be a bar on the government’s ability to uphold some law more or less so for a particular individual than for another. The clause itself does not put a limit on what can and cannot be law. Rather, the clause puts a limit on how the government enforces laws. I understand the Equal Protection Clause has also been invalidly invoked by the Supreme Court in a similar fashion to the Due Process Clause, even in some of the aforementioned court cases. Again, the Supreme Court is failing to abide by the Constitution.

It baffles me how such invalid arguments have made it to the top in the U.S. Is anybody paying attention to what the Supreme Court is doing? It appears we’re all becoming too complacent with the way our government is operating. These sexual approvals should never have happened in the manner they have. Perhaps the Justices are too horny to decide these matters honestly.

2

The Constitution is just a historical note in the United States.

It stopped having relevance a long time go. This is a modern totalitarian police state in a tyrannical violent dying empire.

Please stay tuned to your regularly scheduled bread and circuses.

3

It depends on the axioms, the principles judges have to determine if Case A is congruent to Case B.

Like… when I was in the army, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was enforce, but we had a law against Sodomy. The sidomy rule in and of itself isn’t gay always, because a husband and wife could engadge in Sodomy and not be gay, but the rule spllued to heterosexual couples as well gay men.

So lets say a judge throws out a Sodomy case on the basis the charge was to gay guys discovered banging in a barracks… they now have magically been given gay rights. This doesn’t overturn the law by itself, because a guy fucking a girl up the ass can still be charged if discovered under identical circumstances. But BOTH gays and straights can be charged if they are doing the act in the street. What makes the law unconstitutional in total, or just not in force in situations, I’m uncertain, think it’s up to any judge to declare that precident.

I would have to see what standards judges used in each of these cases. You want the law to be somewhat stable, if common law is to work. Obviously, what the supreme court did recently regarding it’s constitutional crisis regarding gay marriage was a act of legislating law on a level higher than we afford our own legislatures to do… they introduced a hidden, invisible clause to the constitution no one can see. This is a new amendment process to the constitution we never saw before, as it came as a shock.

But thevregards of judging if a axiom is valid or not, if it’s equal or not, rests less on the law (unless specifically stated in the law), and more on judicial precedent, of judges figuring out the methodology of what these constitutional restrictions actually imply. Judges do judge… it’s a intellectually tasking profession, with a lot of grey area. We can pass laws saying “judge it this way”, but unless we do so, if they are juggling seemingly contradictory mandates from law, they gotta make it all fit somehow. Sometimes a law, especially archaic ones rarely used, get tossed to keep the larger, more important laws going.

Normally we can change it if we don’t like it. We can pass laws, saying no, that law is still in effect. We can pass amendments. I have no clue how to pass a law or constitutional amendments telling the supreme court to not create supra-constitutional laws not listed anywhere in the constitution, that nobody else but them can’t see, that isn’t listed in federal or state law, county or muninciple law, or common law… gay marriage is still in a purely constitutional sense quite illegal in many states. It remains in the law books, no federal laws oppose it, no constitutional clause rejects it. Best we have us a interpretation of the constitution, that isn’t a interpretation if the constitution, cause any interpretation of the constitution has to be derived from what is written in the constitution. I’ve gone over the shit with a microscope, I can’t find it, unless it’s hidden in numerology.

So yeah… state governors could start offering pardons from prosecutions justifiably if they wanted to, as well as the president if it got too out of hand, if the states revolted against the Supreme Court and started going by what the constitution actually says. It be a lot easier for the Supreme Court to make such cases if we didn’t have the constitution mass published and widely read, it’s trying what the Catholic church did in the middle ages, allowing only the Latin literate priesthood to read and interpret the Bible. We can read the constitution, it turns outrageous when you point to something that has nothing to do with the ideology your pushing as it’s justification. If you want that sort of stuff, fine, get a amendment passed.

In regards to anti-Sodomy laws in and of itself, unless you can show it’s harmful, it’s a Tyranny of the Majority situation. If I was a lawyer, I would of pursued it on that basis. There isn’t much if a good reason to outlaw Sodomy, save on the behavioral consequence that it’s a leading cause of STD transmission… definitely gave AIDS a global spread, undeniable. Likewise, quarantined are a Tyranny of the Majority, but it’s for health reasons. I can’t see how Sodomy otherwise isn’t included under the "Life, Liberty’ clause. I dont want Sodomy, recommend guys not do it, think it is right to stop it uf gays decide suddenly to reject condoms inmass and lie in blood donation questionaires, but generally enough seem educated enough and willing enough to cooperate that I see no reason why a Tyranny if the Majority case couldnt be successfully argued. There is no pressing reason ir argument to block this group for engading in this act. Its not like drugs destroying communities and families. The Tyranny if the Majority argument likewise cant be used to FORCE legislation. You cant demand gay marriage from a judge via tyranny of the majority, cause a judge usnt supposed to legislate. But a judge can definately stop a bad law from unnecessarily obstructing someones constitutional perogatives if no really good reason can be offered. There isnt much of a case constitutionally for legislators to empiwer the police in cock blocking powers. However, one can argue the supreme court violated the Tyranny of the Minority rule in legislating (unconstitutionsl in and of itself) an amendment, denying half the people in half country to practice democracy via their state and federal legislatures, all because a handful of high minded Philosopher Kings in the supreme vourt thought they knew better than the representative democracy they were meant to preserve.

Honestly, if I was a state givernor, I would Xerox pardons, stamping my signature on them vua my audes in my office on a weekly basis, continually enforcing my state was going to go by the old constitution, and not this new invisibke one, and would order militia to stand guard at threatened institutions, blocking federal access on pain of death to any fed crazy enough to enforce illegal mandates by the supreme court. Its nithing about the gay issue, I would do this on ither usdues as well. Like fucking hell Im giing to just surrender the republic to tyranny. You want that unwritten constitution shit, move to Canada. Short of it becomming a irrational suicide pact, I’m very much opposed to abandoning the constitution, or sneaking invusible clauses no one else can see. At least The Right to Privacy is based off of other Rights, it didnt legislate. This is blantant lefislation, a kind we dont even alliw our legislators to do on the national level. We are suppised to use constitional assrmblues to put up new amendments, or state compacts, not this freaky invidible voodoo shit you cant actually find written anywhere. You can onky find this if you read between the lines, but once you start find laws there, you find a whole lotta other bizarre laws.

4

Is this the court with 2 Bush appointees? Alito and Roberts?

5

Party and Political appointments don’t make it right Smears. The idea behind appointing justices was for the most qualified, not the most partisan. Hard to do this now that political parties have monopolize appointing supreme court clerks, I would much rather have a blind prossess here based on grades and merit, than blue-blooded party affiliation. The entire process is destroying our country. I don’t want to see a R or D in front of a judge at any level. They aren’t political parties. I can accept the idea of judges holding to schools or philosophies within jurisprudence, but don’t see how The Democratic or Republican parties have anything to do with favoring Blackstone’s position over Spooner’s approach to judging law. You shouldn’t be putting your politics meant fir the legislative or executive into the judicial branch. I am really more strict, like John Adams saying the executive should be independent too, but admit that idea isn’t feasible anymore. Parties do exist, but why the hell they exist without scandal in the Judiciary is beyond me.

6

I’m not putting politics as the basis of who should or shouldn’t be on the court. I’m saying Bush did.

7

It’s like two people conversing over a dead document. Fascinating.

8

It’s actually a living document.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_document#In_law

If you think it’s dead, try getting around the government that interprets it contrary to your interests, (and try that without having to go off the grid).

9

10

People read the constitution the same way they read the bible. The like the parts they like and they don’t like the parts that they don’t like. People like the bill of rights, but they don’t like the general welfare clause when it’s costing them tax money.

11

Voting section in this thread should also include, who gives a shit and tell me something I already don’t know along with the famous retorting addage of, don’t piss down my back by telling me it is raining.

12

Joker, this thread is just an anti abortion kook trying to bypass the whole, “when does a sperm become a person” debate and consider it to be settled that it’s a person at some point when it’s still in the womb, so that it can say that this “person” has rights under the constitution that are being violated. It’s just another angle to try and let big government put it’s hands into women’s vaginas.

In reality, teenagers, and a lot of adults don’t even have rights. So I don’t see how a damn chemical reaction that might one day lead to a human being could be sitting there in the womb and somehow have rights. I mean hell, if I was banging a girl on her period and creampied her and she squeezed it all out onto the plastic or the bathtub or whatever, do I have a moral obligation to tend to that pile of menstrual discharge and semen? I think not. So just because the same thing might have happened inside a vagina and not been squeezed out doesn’t mean I do either.

Is it immoral for a girl to squeeze out semen that’s been squirted into her vagina?

13

I don’t believe rights inherently even exist where you can then understand what I think about discussions like these.

14

Those are some thoughts I’d rather not imagine right now.

15

The Justices are becoming increasingly complacent with making sexually liberating decisions at the cost of the Constitution and they’re realizing nobody is correcting them. They’re realizing nobody really cares. If this trend continues we will become a more sexually liberal and diverse nation.

Perhaps this trend is against God. Perhaps God will impose something bad on society if this trend continues, similar to Noah’s Ark and the flood. Perhaps foreign nations or groups such as ISIS will realize our logical and moral weakness, seize the opportunity, strike us, and take America over. The legislature, in preference to the judiciary, should be used to modify our laws accordingly if we wish to become a more sexually liberal nation. It looks bad if there’s a bunch of unconstitutional laws on the books. How will people know which laws are in effect and which have been ruled unconstitutional? American law, as it already is, will become increasingly complicated and unclear.

If the trend of the Justices continues: Someday we may be able to have sex with whomever we want in public, whenever we want. We will fart, defecate, and press our anuses into each other faces publicly. We’ll be running around naked, jerking off and jerking each other off. We’ll be sticking microphones into our anuses, farting loudly on speaker for everyone to hear. We’ll become a sexually obsessed nation. We’ll be having large public and private orgies. We’ll become a bunch of pigs. It will all come at the cost of the Constitution.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with the scenario from the previous paragraph. The scenario doesn’t have to come at the cost of our fundamental principles of government. We can simply modify our laws accordingly through the power given to the people through the legislature.

16

Well, of course but what do you want- it’s not as if we can vote them out (or they would have been gone in the 2014 elections). The leftist part of the country that likes the sorts of decisions you describe couldn’t possibly care less if the decisions are Constitutional, so none of your arguments about the Constitution matter to them. The Constitution is just something they make a passing reference to if there’s a conservative or libertarian in the room they have to convince of something. Otherwise, "I want thing. How do I get thing?’ is as sophisticated as their political ethics get.

17

The government just appeals to it when convenient, and ignores it when it contradicts what it wants to do.

Kinda like religious people who cherry pick parts of the scripture they like, while the parts they dislike are obviously metaphorical, not to be taken seriously, etc.

Ultimately the scripture/constitution are just used as some higher authority to appeal to in an argument, but nobody actually abides by them and everybody just believes what they want to.

18

That seems to be the unfortunate truth of it. The USA is no longer owned by its citizens.

19

In the opinion of Obergefell v. Hodges, for example, instead of describing the technicalities of how the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are or aren’t being violated, the Justices introduce out of context and irrelevant information such as information on society, its views, American and world history, and the story of the Plaintiffs. The matter need not and should not be so complicated. These clauses are short single sentences. Perhaps the Justices are afraid they’re look too simple minded, socially outcast, or autistic. This is unfortunate. Peer pressure is such a powerful force even U.S. Supreme Court Justices have succumb to it.

That’s not the way it should be. Apparently this abuse began back in 1857 with Dred Scott v. Stanford (Wikipedia’s “Substantive due process,” Obergefell opinion). Since I’ve recently learned of this abuse having occurred that far back, I’ve lost respect for the Supreme Court and for the federal government’s workings in general. I thought the federal government was more honest than that. And as history tells, the horrible civil war that threatened the existence of the nation occurred just a few years after Dred Scott. With the decisions of Obergefell and the other aforementioned cases, it seems something awful may again occur in the foreseeable future.

Their solution would be “By invoking the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause.” Their solution grants them total national power. Perhaps someday if we want something - anything, we can just go to the Supreme Court and get it.