Michael, (And Greg) Either you have not read The Full Faith in Credit Act, (*e.g*.; 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) or you do not understand the Commerce Clause of our Constitution, (as well as other clauses).
I am unaware of any Court ruling that this statute is unconstitutional, despite the militant Gay agenda's expressions to the contrary, and I see nothing that any reasonable person of intelligence could argue could be framed or construed as unconstitutional. I'm all ears. How prey tell, do you conceive this small little snippet § 1783 as being unconstitutional? On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 7:25 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > At 09:14 PM 1/9/2011, you wrote: > > Please reread DOMA. The wording is very carefully done so as to NOT step on > the states toes in any way. > > > It does not matter WHAT it might say ... as noted, the Feds have no Power > whatsoever to make such legislation. > > > Regard$, > --MJ > > “[T]he ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself > and not what we have said about it.” -- Felix Frankfurter, Graves v. New > York, 306 US 466 (1939) > > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 2:08 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > At 10:16 PM 1/8/2011, you wrote: > > If you read DOMA, that is EXACTLY what it says.... It leaves it to > each and every state. > > > Whatever DOMA says is irrelevant. The Constitution provides > NO Power To Congress To make any such legislation. In fact, > AIV, Section 1 is contrary. > > Let me READ it to you: > > Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the > public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every > other State. And the Congress may by general Laws > prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,Records and > Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. > > As is plain to see, Congress may, for instance, make a law > requiring pink paper be used for the documentation of the > public act as it is 'transferred' ... but EVERY State MUST > recognize the public acts (ie. marriage), Records and judicial > proceedings of every other State. > > There is no Power/Authority or otherwise for the Congress to > "except" some, a few or all. > > Congress 'defining' certain public acts is also contrary. It is > up to each state to make that call ... and for all others to extend > Full Faith and Credit for them. > > Them thar is the Constitution. > > > Regard$, > --MJ > > “[T]he ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself > and not what we have said about it.” -- Felix Frankfurter, Graves v. New > York, 306 US 466 (1939) > > > > > > > As to definition for Federal use ONLY it does define the terms (just > use other words you idiot) > "Marriage" and "Spouse".... the law is very exact and has no breathing > room. > > Every court/jurisdiction/local/district/state/agency or branch has the > right to "Define" terms and their applicability for use within their > domain as long as it is non-conflicting. > > On 1/8/11, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > STILL no Constitutional citation. > > > > Here is that document the House purportedly read the other day: > > http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu. txt > > > > So WHERE is the Article, Section and Clause or Amendment > > that provides Congress the Power To make such legislation? > > > > Article IV, Section 1 is contrary to your effort. > > > > This is clearly and plainly no concern nor business of the Feds. > > > > Regard$, > > --MJ > > > > “[T]he ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution > itself > > and not what we have said about it.” -- Felix Frankfurter, Graves v. > New > > York, 306 US 466 (1939) > > > > > > > > At 06:33 PM 1/8/2011, you wrote: > >> > >> ""No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian > >> tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or > >> judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe > >> respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is > treated > >> as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, > >> or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. > >> > >> This is no different than the law regarding Marriage that exists anyway. > >> It allows each and every State to exercise the Rights they ALREADY have > >> and exercise by treaty among the Several States. > >> > >> In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, > >> regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and > >> agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal > >> union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word > >> 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or > a > >> wife. > >> > >> This is simply upholding the States rights to issue permits and licenses > >> as they see fit while reserving the legal "definition" of two words ... > >> "marriage" and "spouse" on a Federal level. It does not preclude or > >> disallow civil unions that are legally binding but do not include these > >> terms. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 4:13 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> <sigh> > >> So you CANNOT support the drivel you presented. > >> > >> There, of course, is no such thing as "Article III, Amendment I" > >> > >> Want to try again? Apparently not. > >> > >> > >> Regard$, > >> --MJ > >> > >> “[T]he ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is > >> the Constitution itself and not what we have said > >> about it.” > >> Felix Frankfurter, Graves v. New York, 306 US 466 (1939) > >> > >> > >> > >> At 05:07 PM 1/8/2011, you wrote: > >>> > >>> No, I need not identify anything. You are the one that chose to bring > >>> the subject matter up, and I answered your question! It is, what it > >>> is. > >>> > >>> Read, study, (away from and apart from the > >>> > "Militiamen/TaxProtest/Anti-Illuminati/AlexJones/PrisonPlanet/Conspiratorialist > >>> web sites Michael!! > >>> > >>> <Grin>!! > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> KeithInKöln > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 10:48 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> You will need to (better) identify some Article, Section and Clause or > >>> Amendment of the US Constitution. > >>> I provided a copy for simplicity: > >>> http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu. txt > >>> > >>> Regard$, > >>> --MJ > >>> “[T]he ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is > >>> the Constitution itself and not what we have said > >>> about it.” > >>> Felix Frankfurter, Graves v. New York, 306 US 466 (1939) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> At 04:27 PM 1/8/2011, you wrote: > >>>> > >>>> For starters Michael, try "Article The Third, Amendment One" > >>>> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:34 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> DOMA is very much Constitutional. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Really? How about citing the article, section and clause or amendment > >>>> you imagine it is based. > >>>> Here is the Constitution: > >>>> http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt > >>>> Regard$, > >>>> --MJ > >>>> "[Some people] have a depraved taste for equality, which impels the > >>>> weak to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to > prefer > >>>> equality in slavery to inequality with freedom" -- Alexis De > >>>> Tocqueville. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > >>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > >>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > <http://www.politicalforum.com/%A0>* It's > >>>> active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the > latest > >>>> breaking news, and more. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > >> > >> * Visit our other community at > >> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > > > > -- > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > > * Visit our other community at > > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > > > > -- > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > > * Visit our other community at > > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > > -- > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > > * Visit our other community at > > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mark M. Kahle H. > > > > -- > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > > * Visit our other community at > > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > > -- > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > > * Visit our other community at > > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > -- > Mark M. Kahle H. > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > <http://www.politicalforum.com/%A0> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > > > -- > Mark M. Kahle H. > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
