Exactly. No one is calling him a racist.
Clearly he stated that these issues are of states purview not federal.
That doesn’t him a racist, just ignorant.
Allan
1 Like
Is a universal right to abortion services guaranteed anywhere in the constitution?
2 Likes
No. He’s not the ignorant one.
1 Like
So is that a yes answer?
Allan
Oh sure he is, if he doesn’t understand the 14th amendment.
Allan
Well said…
Not one smartest guy in the room leftist will get it.
But thank you for your clarity.
(Ps-very dishonest thread title and premise…wish I could say I’m surprised)
3 Likes
Whatever authority is not specifically given to the federal government devolves to the states. If abortion is not a universal right guaranteed by the constitution, any laws relating to abortion are in the individual states’ hands.
If the right to marry interracially is guaranteed by the constitution, individual states cannot legislatively annul that right.
1 Like
It’s quite relevant because Braun laid out a principle and he was asked several different times and in several different ways how he would apply that principle…and he remained wedded to it.
His later “backtrack” was actually a tacit admission his stance against “homogenizing” issues at the federal level was incoherent in the first place.
Since he cited the 14th Amendment that people can’t be discriminated on the basis of race.
Um…what does he think the 14th Amendment is other than “homogenization” of the race issue at the federal level?
If you are going to hold to a principle, then you have to be able to articulate what kinds of issues are ones that shouldn’t be “homogenized” at the federal level and which should be.
Braun didn’t do that.
This is what happens when you hold to a principle based solely on ideology and don’t think it through.
1 Like
Libs know this. Yet here they are spinning it dishonestly anyway.
1 Like
This is what happens when you for a moment don’t recall how the 14 th amendment was applied in a particular historic case. Nit pickers jump all over you and hyper partisan mags misrepresent what you said.
Um…what?
The Senator espoused a principle.
Probing how he would apply that principle is not “nitpicking”.
And I’m trying to imagine under what circumstances one “wouldn’t be able to recall” that a judgement on interracial marriage would involve the 14th Amendment.
And failing- maybe you can help?
Not specifically. I wonder: when you read the constitution, do you just stop at the 2nd amendment and call it good?
If so, may I suggest that you give the 9th ammendment a look?
Should the question of interracial marriage be left to the states?
It’s like all the carping about deregulation. Cons really like the idea, but really don’t like discussing the implications, and they really, really don’t like discussing specific scenarios.
Glad to. First issue, look at the thread title and the Salon title. They both make it look like he believes it is ok to make interracial marriages illegal. In reality, he said no such thing. It was a snap on the spot response regarding a long decided case and the issue was jurisdiction.
Second, he did not instantaneously recall the exception of the 14th amendment to his general states authority principle. He later corrected this, but of course Salon nor attack dogs accept this.
But all of this has been covered before several times…but since you apparently have difficulty understanding I tried one more time. If you still don’t get it, I doubt if I can help.
I’m just tripping that there are a ton of people still alive in this country who could have never married someone of a different race because it was illegal.
No. Discriminating by race is against the constitution.
So we agree, the 14th covers interracial marriage.
Allan
It is entirely relevant to the discussion, because that’s exactly what Senator Braun said - that Loving was wrongfully decided and that whether interracial are legal should be left to the states.
