282

Bible or no bible, doesn’t seem like a good idea for a country that is way below reproductive replacement levels to celebrate non reproductive behavior. We can be and will be out bred and replaced by people who didn’t and won’t go down this road. If you sealed our borders we would soon be a nation people who didn’t embrace this stuff. Psst conservatives are out breeding you libs, that’s why you rely on censorship and indoctrination.

288

Interesting.

“Non reproductive behavior”.

Can this be used to justify the repeal Griswold?

Should this be used to reinstate the child tax credit?

How about state help with daycare? Seems to me that’s a threefer: 1)-encourages having children 2)-allows people to work 3)-those workers then pay taxes

What about the help to the lower wage folks? Is this an argument for Medicaid and TANF, and making them more generous?

Should the top 10% or so be taxed more to help pay for this?

Or…is this another bad faith argument to justify your distaste for gay people?

2 Likes
292

This is not the religion forum. Take it there please.

1 Like
295

So, tell me, does it not bother you that Republicans approved a bill to protect same-sex marriage and in the process, they give a finger to Constitution and federalism?

296

Denying gays and lesbians access to the same Civil Marriage status that different sex couple have will not suddenly turn them heterosexual so that gay men will marry lesbians and boink them to have children.

WW

2 Likes
297

What does your post have to do with the unconstitutionality of the Bill? Just curious.

298

Feel free to ask Zantax, as my post was a direct response to his.

WW

299

Yes, part of the answer is to make having children in America more affordable instead f just planning to replace them with foreigners. No need to encourage people not to work with more welfare but a bigger child tax credit wouldn’t hurt.

300

And you have no opinions regarding the constitutionality of the Bill?

301

My opinion was previously posted.

image
image1055×198 20.3 KB

Congress defining the effect thereof of public acts between the states is a power specifically enumerated on the Constitution.

WW

1 Like
302

Of course, those familiar with the clause you cite and its very limited and intended purpose, know its function has to do with the manner of proving judgments handed down in one state in the courts of another, and nothing to do with requiring one state to adopt and practice another state’s public Acts or policies.

One case which sheds light on this is Milwaukee County v. White Co., 296 U.S. 268

  1. The faith and credit required to be given to judgments does not depend on the Constitution alone. Article IV, § 1, not only commands that “full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state” but it adds “Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof.” And Congress has exercised this power, by Act of May 26, 1790, c. 11, 28 U.S.C. § 687, which provides the manner of proof of judgments of one state in the courts of another, and specifically directs that judgments “shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken.” .
    Such exception as there may be to this all-inclusive command is one which is implied from the nature of our dual system of government, and recognizes that consistently with the full faith and credit clause there may be limits to the extent to which the policy of one state, in many respects sovereign, may be subordinated to the policy of another. That there are exceptions has often been pointed out, Broderick v. Rosner, 294 U.S. 629, 642; Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 294 U.S. 532, 546; Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper, supra, 160; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657, 663; Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265, 293; and in some instances decided. See Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Fall v. Eastin, 215 U.S. 1.

JWK

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.
.

303

Guess we get to constitutionally carry in every state then right?

1 Like
304

Should.

Open carry should available in all states as a Constitutionally protected right.

WW

305

Can’t wait to tell Wisconsin next summer that I get to catch and keep more walleye because my state has a higher limit.

1 Like
306

According to you and would require a constitutional amendment to make it so.

I noticed you made no comment on my ANSWER to your citing the full faith and credit clause, which in fact is very limited in its purpose and was meant to provide a way of proving judgments handed down in one state in the courts of another, and nothing to do with requiring one state to adopt and practice another state’s public Acts or policies.

What say you?

308

Thank you, and I am pleased to have EDUCATED YOU regarding the limited purpose of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of our federal constitution.

JWK

“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story

1 Like
309

Thank you.

310

I say that interpretation is contrary to a plain reading of the clause, as well as years of application, and in fact is intentionally narrow (and bad faith) to inveigh against a thing you personally don’t like.

311

Well, thank you for your sophomoric and personal interpretation of the clause in question. Of course, as I previously DOCUMENTED, the Clause in question has to do with the manner of proving judgments handed down in one state in the courts of another, and nothing to do with requiring one state to adopt and practice another state’s public Acts or policies, all of which is so stated by our Supreme Court in Milwaukee County v. White Co., 296 U.S. 268:

  1. The faith and credit required to be given to judgments does not depend on the Constitution alone. Article IV, § 1, not only commands that “full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state” but it adds “Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof.” And Congress has exercised this power, by Act of May 26, 1790, c. 11, 28 U.S.C. § 687, which provides the manner of proof of judgments of one state in the courts of another, and specifically directs that judgments “shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken.” .
    Such exception as there may be to this all-inclusive command is one which is implied from the nature of our dual system of government, and recognizes that consistently with the full faith and credit clause there may be limits to the extent to which the policy of one state, in many respects sovereign, may be subordinated to the policy of another. That there are exceptions has often been pointed out, Broderick v. Rosner, 294 U.S. 629, 642; Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 294 U.S. 532, 546; Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper, supra, 160; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657, 663; Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265, 293; and in some instances decided. See Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562; Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Fall v. Eastin, 215 U.S. 1.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

312

Psst… apparently not out breeding enough, that’s why you have to rely on the electoral college to elect conservative presidents. :wink:

1 Like