tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post6927497337669311076..comments2023-10-20T05:51:51.625-04:00Comments on The THINK 3 INSTITUTE: Law, Right and MarriageSamuel Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-41504431834869299542010-07-19T23:27:47.723-04:002010-07-19T23:27:47.723-04:00Yes, in theory Murphy and Davis could be overr...Yes, in theory <i> Murphy </i> and <i> Davis </i> could be overruled just as <i> McDonald v. Chicago </i> and <i> Loving v. Virginia </i> could be overruled.Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-52518746332505100262010-07-19T23:09:01.942-04:002010-07-19T23:09:01.942-04:00Thanks for the clarification and the acknowledgeme...Thanks for the clarification and the acknowledgement that these precedents can be overruled by the court itself as well as by amendment.Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-20651149887303194242010-07-19T23:04:14.443-04:002010-07-19T23:04:14.443-04:00The passage in my first comment was cited in Davi...The passage in my first comment was cited in <i> Davis v. Beason </i> as one of the justifications used to uphold the Edmunds-Tucker Act against a First Amendment challenge. <br /><br /><i> Davis </i> and <i> Murphy </i> are still binding as they have not been overruled.Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-7477336705602640792010-07-19T18:52:50.257-04:002010-07-19T18:52:50.257-04:00Michael: What is, strictly speaking, constitutiona...Michael: What is, strictly speaking, constitutional in the passage you cited in your first comment? It sounds like a judge's subjective value judgment to me, and how binding can that be? To get back to the point, how much more binding is it on future judges than <i>Plessy v. Ferguson</i>?Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-6977896487812285592010-07-19T16:19:42.083-04:002010-07-19T16:19:42.083-04:00What would be the basis for the Supreme Court to o...What would be the basis for the Supreme Court to overturn <i> Murphy v. Ramsey </i> and <i> Davis v. Beason </i>? (<i> Davis </i>, 133 U. S. 333 , upheld a law that prohibited polygamists and members of organizations that advocated committing polygamy from voting. It was cited as recently as <i>Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah </i>, 508 U.S. 520 . Notably, the marriage quote in <i> Murphy </i> was cited in <i> Davis </i>)Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-66102196135953483692010-07-19T14:02:59.438-04:002010-07-19T14:02:59.438-04:00Mike, you moron. No one has yet said we should ba...Mike, you moron. No one has yet said we should ban Christianity or close all churches. You are fully allowed to believe whatever superstitious nonsense you wish. But you DO NOT have the right to continue trying to shove your lies, superstition and fear down the throats of the rest of us. Keep your religion to yourself or risk you and your family becoming martyrs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-82074704914863244422010-07-19T11:22:31.455-04:002010-07-19T11:22:31.455-04:00Michael: In some cases the remedy to a reading of ...Michael: In some cases the remedy to a reading of the constitution that limits rights is not an amendment but an improved reading of the document. One court's ruling may be revised by future courts, as the <i>Brown v. Board of Education</i> court overruled the <i>Plessy v. Ferguson</i> court. The value-laden language you cite from <i>Murphy v. Ramsey</i> looks like a textbook case of extra-constitutional reasoning that's ripe for revision.Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-51458481766248637332010-07-17T14:13:41.147-04:002010-07-17T14:13:41.147-04:00The only proper procedure for recognizing new righ...The only proper procedure for recognizing new rights is to amend the Constitution, as it was amended to protect a right to women's suffrage forty-six years after the Supreme Court ruled in <i> Minor v. Happersett </i>. <br /><br />We know there is no right to polygamy under our U.S. Constitution. And under <i> Murphy v. Ramsey </i>, the Supreme Court ruled:<br /><br /><b>For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of <i> one man and one woman </i>in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that<i> reverent morality</i> which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And to this end, no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to <i>withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.</i></b><br /><br />Unlike <i> Minor's </i> relevance to women's suffrage, no constitutional amendment had been ratified to undercut <i> Murphy's </i> relevance to the state's power to define marriage, or its rationale for such definitions. And until the Constitution is amended, <i> Murphy </i>, as well as <i> Baker v. Nelson </i>, is good law.Michael Ejercitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10707862691472293497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-11067099285582107532010-07-15T12:54:54.762-04:002010-07-15T12:54:54.762-04:00To be fair, there's a difference between "...To be fair, there's a difference between "new rights" and new consumer goods. Buying what you can afford works the same way now that it did then, though it should be noted, since you mention Jefferson, that some things that could be bought and sold then can't be now. That actually begs the question of whether some other rights we now take for granted will be proven false in the future by philosophers of natural rights.Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-57420812559789310982010-07-15T11:01:56.103-04:002010-07-15T11:01:56.103-04:00Then I guess we better get rid of automobiles. TV...Then I guess we better get rid of automobiles. TVs and everything else that didn't exist when Thomas Jefferson was raping his slaves. Honestly, these conservatives are just utter imbeciles. If they want to live out their lives like that, no one in stopping them as far as I am aware, but if continue on in this insanity of attempting to force everyone else to live like that, they will have to die.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com