Check out the comment this guy made on a story on Yahoo News about State vs Federal power concerning marriage.....
Quote:
|
"The 'State's Rights' fantasy evaporated when The Constitution replaced The Articles Of Confederation. The War Between The States re-settled the issue, for the dumber than dumb out there. States have no rights, except what The Federals grant them. All real powers were granted-By The US Constitution-to The Federal Government. The states get any powers which are not already assigned to the Feds….which aint much. Marriage is a matter of interstate commerce…what with people in one state marrying a person from another state, in a third state, and honeymooning in a fourth state, etc. Married people bank in one state, get health insurance from a company in another state, get life insurance form a company in another state, pay their mortgages to a bank headquartered in another state, etc. The Feds get to control interstate commerce. As such, the Feds get to control marriage, when they choose to bother to want to do so. Too bad, so sad. If you don't like it, go live in Iran."
|
Really? Can anyone REALLY be that ignorant as to what our Founding Fathers designed for us?
The constitution grants very limited enumerated powers to the Federal Government. The vast majority are reserved to the States. James Madison (the Father of the Constitution) stressed this when trying to get skeptical States to ratify. He stated
Quote:
|
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
|
The States would never have ratified the Constitution if it was like that commenter described. He should refrain from making comments about things he knows nothing about. Really.
How about this bird...
Quote:
Apparently Mormons don't understand the phrase "Shall not establish a religion". And unless they are claiming that the state is forcing their religion to conduct same-sex ceromonies (which, of course, is not the case), then they have no case with the phrase "Or prohibit the free exercise of" either.
This case is exactly why matters of civil rights cannot be left to a "popular" vote.
|
Apparently HE does not understand who it was that the separation clause of the first amendment prohibits from "
establishing a religion". The article clearly reads "
CONGRESS shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion..." It ties the hands of the Federal Government, not the States. In fact, the hold out states refused to ratify the Constitution until this article was inserted tying the hands of Congress. Had they dreamed that one day it would be turned on its head to tie the hands of the States, they never would have ratified it. But all that aside, this is an issue not about religion but about what defines marriage within a State.
Linear Mode
