Jump to content

sdanielmcev

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    1,534
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,491 Excellent

About sdanielmcev

  • Rank
    Super Member

Recent Profile Visitors

4,557 profile views
  1. The judge is appointed for life. And you left one out; "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Most of the anti Davis crowd here seem to fail all three sayings.
  2. Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus. Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right. Yes they are. At least in the US. A couple is legally married after the religious ceremony. Do you mean that there are no legalities involved? No documents to sign or issued? Rubbish. The state has authorised the church to perform the legalities, and they are done at some time during the religious ceremony; before, and/or after it. Not very good at trigonometry, are you? That tangent is inherent in being legally married. Otherwise it wouldn't be legal, then would it?Actually, I think your protractor is poorly calibrated. In fact I'd say your entire mathematics ability would be poor, since logic is an important requirement. Initially, church marriages were performed, end of story. When governments (plural) deemed that legalities have to be followed for a marriage to be legal, they allowed churches to become a sort of one-stop shop; religious fluff and legal fluff all in the one place. Non-religious people could still get legally married outside of a church. In fact, if people get married in a town council office, they can still go to a church to get married without duplicating any of the legal paperwork. That a minister performs both a legal and a religious functions does not make the legal part synonymous with the religious part. The legal part has nothing to do with religion, it's just there in the church for convenience and as a natural follow-on from the time before legalities had to be completed.You are arguing with yourself. Let's recap; I said marriage and matrimony are synonymous. I said after the religious ceremony a couple is legally married. You've gone off on the tangent describing how some legalities are involved in a religious ceremony. What does that have to do with what I wrote? No, I'm arguing with you....(and you didn't say matrimony and marriage are synonymous....you said the religious rite and the legal right are synonymous). Yes, lets recap...look back. You said the religious matrimony/marriage and the legal marriage/matrimony are synonymous, and you went on to say that that is because a marriage in a church is a legal one. I pointed out that the religious ceremony has nothing to do with law, and the legal paperwork has nothing to do with religion. Just because the legal paperwork occurs in a church, does not make it a religious procedure. Try again. It is there on your screen. I said nothing of the sort. You did. I never said the legal paperwork, because it occurs in a church is a religious procedure. You did. I pointed out only that after a religious ceremony, also known as the vows, a couple is married. I at no point disagreed nor stated anything about paperwork. You did. It did not figure into my statements. If you would like to respond to the poster that claimed there was a difference, fine. I pointed out only he was misusing words. You tried to change what I wrote. Not gonna happen. And it is the vows that make a marriage legal, not the paperwork. Whether in a religious setting or not. It is part of English common law. As a matter of fact, just claiming to be husband and wife is enough to be legally married in the US.
  3. Her rights end where they infringe on another's rights. How? Why are this gay couples' right more important than Ms Davis'? They are infringing on her rights, too.
  4. Funny how one set of morals can trump another set of morals. One of the discussions during the Obergfell Supreme Court hearing was about enforcement. Neither side could answer. This is why using the Supreme Court to make law is such a bad idea. It solves nothing. Kim Davis, being elected, cannot be fired from her position. She also has a right, guaranteed by the Constitution to freedom of speech, which was turned into freedom of expression. So, now, her first amendment rights are being violated by the same group that sought Constitutional protection.
  5. Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus. Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right. Yes they are. At least in the US. A couple is legally married after the religious ceremony. Do you mean that there are no legalities involved? No documents to sign or issued? Rubbish. The state has authorised the church to perform the legalities, and they are done at some time during the religious ceremony; before, and/or after it. Not very good at trigonometry, are you? That tangent is inherent in being legally married. Otherwise it wouldn't be legal, then would it? Actually, I think your protractor is poorly calibrated. In fact I'd say your entire mathematics ability would be poor, since logic is an important requirement. Initially, church marriages were performed, end of story. When governments (plural) deemed that legalities have to be followed for a marriage to be legal, they allowed churches to become a sort of one-stop shop; religious fluff and legal fluff all in the one place. Non-religious people could still get legally married outside of a church. In fact, if people get married in a town council office, they can still go to a church to get married without duplicating any of the legal paperwork. That a minister performs both a legal and a religious functions does not make the legal part synonymous with the religious part. The legal part has nothing to do with religion, it's just there in the church for convenience and as a natural follow-on from the time before legalities had to be completed. You are arguing with yourself. Let's recap; I said marriage and matrimony are synonymous. I said after the religious ceremony a couple is legally married. You've gone off on the tangent describing how some legalities are involved in a religious ceremony. What does that have to do with what I wrote?
  6. sdanielmcev

    US: Up to 305 Clinton emails might have classified data

    That vast right wing conspiracy made her do it. What is really bad are the people, in light of the mounting evidence, are still supporting her.
  7. Because I'm explaining an erroneous definition of the Constitution. Geez. I don't believe I had to explain that. My understanding of the Constitution is not based on popular belief, like some here believe. I read it, not get the information from someone who 'interprets' it for me. Your idea of the Constitution is also erroneous, as the founding Fathers did not put the Bill of Rights into the body of the Constitution, like they could have. Those are two separate, though not completely independent sections of the Constitution. One delineates power, the other restricts power. So, to you. How does that Supreme Court ruling have anything to do with what I wrote in response to the other posters' description of the Constitution? Your knowledge is not quite on the mark. The Bill of Rights, which is simply an historically accepted reference to the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, were not part of the Constitution because after the Constitution was ratified, some of the 13 states, mainly the smaller ones concerned about the possibility of being dominated by the larger, more populous ones, demanded additional limitations on federal powers. It was a federalist/anti-federalist thing. These states got their way. Those ten amendments have precisely the same force in law as the rest of the Constitution and are in fact as much a part of the Constitution as any of the original Articles AND all the subsequent Amendments. No difference whatsoever. In fact, if there were any conflict, it's the later amendment which would override the original article or earlier amendment. There is absolutely no difference in enforceability between the original Articles and any of the subsequent Amendments (excepting later amendments overriding or repealing earlier amendments, ex., the 18th Amendment - Prohibition - which required a whole new amendment, the 21st Amendment, to repeal it). All have the same standing, unless one comes along later to effectively repeal the earlier. You can call the original articles, and the Bill of Rights, and subsequent amendments different "sections" if you want to, but that's kind of an arbitrary reference with historical-, but no legal meaning. You could just as easily call all the 'odd' amendments one section and all the 'even' amendments a different one. There were actually originally 17 of these original amendments (they were actually called "Articles") passed by the new House of Representatives during the First Congress (1789). The Senate only approved 12 of them. The states ratified 10 of those 12 - Articles 3-12 - which came to be known as the Bill of Rights. Oh, and James Madison, influenced by George Mason, essentially drafted the Bill of Rights (in response to calls from some of the states as mentioned above). Both were delegates (from VA) to the 1787 Constitutional Convention (and James Madison was actually a signer). In addition James Madison was a member of the Continental Congress. George Mason famously drafted Virginia's "Declaration of Rights" which was imitated by many of the other states and used by Jefferson in the first part of the Declaration of Independence. Both would certainly have to be considered "founders". You do have a point about the original articles serving to "delineate powers" and the Bill of Rights serving to "limit" them, and this kind of goes back to the original historic debate about the "need" for a Bill of Rights. But again, legally there's no real distinction unless something later conflicts with something earlier, in which case the later amendment governs.. The amendments were discussed before ratification of the Constitution. As I was not discussing the timeline, my statement stands correct. I could go farther, but it is off topic. (BTW, maybe not disagree then agree. Unless you're John Kerry.)
  8. Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus. Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right. Yes they are. At least in the US. A couple is legally married after the religious ceremony. Do you mean that there are no legalities involved? No documents to sign or issued? Rubbish. The state has authorised the church to perform the legalities, and they are done at some time during the religious ceremony; before, and/or after it. Not very good at trigonometry, are you? That tangent is inherent in being legally married. Otherwise it wouldn't be legal, then would it?
  9. Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus. Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right. Yes they are. At least in the US. A couple is legally married after the religious ceremony. And in my opinion this is - regardless of what other posters say - the core of the problem. And you are correct. The legal aspect and the religious aspect should be separate.
  10. Civil unions carry the same legal protections as marriage. Without the moral connotation. When you post with that many inaccuracies, careful who you call troll.
  11. Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus. Religious ceremonial matrimony and civil marriage are not synonymous. That's THE POINT. The former is a religious rite, the latter a legal right. Yes they are. At least in the US. A couple is legally married after the religious ceremony.
  12. why doesn't wash? the necessity is debatable, why does your pinion fall on the necessary side ? I'd like to answer, but I'm not sure what your question is.
  13. Marriage and matrimony are synonymous. Get a thesaurus.
  14. Ah, no. The Constitution is for delineating governmental powers. The Bill of Rights limits governmental powers. Later amendments have been a mish-mash. Tell it to SCOTUS and to the Founders of the Republic.... Reynolds v United States (1878) Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court.... <<snip>>That has nothing to do with what I wrote. The right does not like it or accept it, but the SCOTUS ruling presented below established that the Constitution is superior to all illegal acts that are justified by belief in a religion. This clerk is acting illegally, in that she is in violation of her sworn oath to the US Constitution, violating the constitution of Kentucky to include being in violation of upholding the oath the clerk swore which has no provision of a personal or individual nullification of it. Here is SCOTUS again anyway this time with a bit more specificity added.... Reynolds v United States (1878) Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court....1] 1] Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. Can a man excuse his [illegal] practices because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances. http://billofrightsi...ed-states-1878/ The Court concluded that to make religious rule or religious law superior to civil law would make each person "law unto himself" and render the government ineffectual and irrelevant. http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html In a word, anarchy. Immoral anarchy. This clerk is completely wrongheaded. So? It still has nothing to do with what I wrote. Can you even follow a logical argument without your leftist psychoses taking over? If you didn't look at every statement with your conservative-hating eyes, you would see I believe Kim Davis to be wrong. And the gay couple to be grandstanding. Kim Davis' moral convictions are no more or less important than this gay couples moral convictions. It's why I said calling it marriage is a mistake. Making it a moral argument instead of a legal one. It is why John Roberts was correct in proclaiming the Obergfell decision shouldn't be a Constitutional issue.
  15. Ah, no. The Constitution is for delineating governmental powers. The Bill of Rights limits governmental powers. Later amendments have been a mish-mash. Tell it to SCOTUS and to the Founders of the Republic.... Reynolds v United States (1878) Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court.... http://billofrightsi...ed-states-1878/ That has nothing to do with what I wrote. Evitedently having a problem with the website sdaniel.... The Constitution of the U.S. is one document. All Amendments are part and partial of that one document, they are not separate entities. Thus, the Supreme Court of the U.S. rules on the constitutionality found in the total document. I do not know your background but I find your understanding of the U.S. Constitution curious. Because I'm explaining an erroneous definition of the Constitution. Geez. I don't believe I had to explain that. My understanding of the Constitution is not based on popular belief, like some here believe. I read it, not get the information from someone who 'interprets' it for me. Your idea of the Constitution is also erroneous, as the founding Fathers did not put the Bill of Rights into the body of the Constitution, like they could have. Those are two separate, though not completely independent sections of the Constitution. One delineates power, the other restricts power. So, to you. How does that Supreme Court ruling have anything to do with what I wrote in response to the other posters' description of the Constitution? The inclusion of the first 10 Amendments was agreed to as part of approving the Constituion in 1783. The U.S. Constitution delineates powers given to the national government and those reserved to the states so it addresses both. As to learning about the U.S. Constitution from others, true, their were others who taught me as I pursued my academic degrees. You didn't answer the question.
×