Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Warren's decision, as Not Me reads it (the decision makes more sense without the language in bold):

• This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a criminal statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these criminal statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.
  
  * * * * *
  
  The Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any criminal statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the criminal laws of the States. Invidious racial discrimination in the civil laws of the States is A-OK with us.
  
  There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes, which are criminal laws, rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The criminal statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, but ony when the question has come up in the context of a criminal law, this Court has consistently repudiated "distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially -- make that "only" -- suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective relating to criminal punishment and nothing else, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense."
  
  There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this criminal classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. It's just fine with us if Virginia wants to say that only people of the same race can get married to each other, so long as they don't enact criminal penalties. After all, the point of the Civil War was only to protect slaves from excessive criminal punishment. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of criminal measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Gender and sexual orientation are two different things. If a law prohibits same sex marriage for both sexes, it is not a classification based on gender, but rather, based on sexual orientation. Traditional marriage laws bar both males and females from marrying members of the same sex and they can only marry members of the opposite sex. That is gender neutral. in the sense that both sexes are restricted to marrying members of the opposite sex.

You can see it that way if you like, but that's not the argument Burger and I are making. Try your argument, replacing gender with race:

• Traditional marriage laws bar both balcks and whites from marrying members of the opposite race and they can only marry members of the same race. That is race neutral. In the sense that both races are restricted to marrying members of the same race.

Bingo! Loving!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Nothing in the discussion of the EP Clause says, "We apply the Equal Protection Clause here only because it's a criminal statute; if this were a civil case, Virginia would be free to discriminate on the basis of race."

True, but the holding of the Loving case was that a statute that criminalized interracial marriage was unconstitutional. That was the holding. The rest is dicta. Now subsequent cases may have different holdings, but the holding of Loving is that a statute that criminalizes interracial marriage is unconstitutional on both EP and fundamental rights/DP grounds.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
True, but the holding of the Loving case was that a VA statute that criminalized interracial marriage was unconstitutional. That was the holding. The rest is dicta. Now subsequent cases may have different holdings, but the holding of Loving is that a statute that criminalizes interracial marriage is unconstitutional on both EP and fundamental rights/DP grounds.

People think that Gibbons v. Ogden speaks broadly to the principles behind the Dormant Commerce Clause, but it turns out that it's just about ferryboats -- the rest is dicta. Marbury v. Madison? Not really about judicial review at all! It's about the procedures by which judges are appointed to the District of the District of Columbia.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
People think that Gibbons v. Ogden speaks broadly to the principles behind the Dormant Commerce Clause, but it turns out that it's just about ferryboats -- the rest is dicta. Marbury v. Madison? Not really about judicial review at all! It's about the procedures by which judges are appointed to the District of the District of Columbia.

No, Ty, that is not what I was saying.

While it is true that Loving held that a statute criminalizing interracial marriage was unconstitutional on EP and DP grounds, the dicta was clear that civil statutes barring interracial marriage would also be held unconstitutional should such an issue come before the court.

However, what the Loving court did not say is whether a civil statute that did not criminalize interracial marriage but did not provide for interracial marriage would be unconstitutional under EP, DP, or both.

Because of how the court was so focused on the criminal aspects of the staute in the EP portion of the opinion, I believe that the EP arguments in Loving were limited to the criminal aspects of the statute. Furthermore, based on the language of the holding in the DP part of the case (i.e, marriage as essential for our existence and survival), I don't think that the DP arguments in Loving would extend to gay marriages.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Chicago is finally on the right track, although far more needs to be done to bring the number down to the range of NYC etc.... So far, January looks like its down 30% or so from last year's homicides.

On an entirely different note, Bostonians should thank former Commissioner Evans if they should ever run into him. The world knows he was world-class, and showed its approval by giving him the top job in the British Home Office's best-practices group, which is sort of like a standard setting body for best-practices worldwide.

And how does his acting replacement stack up? After the SuperBowl, there were less than 60 crowd control officers on the streets with crowd control duties. The narcotics units and one of the mass-response units was on standby, but otherwise performing their normal duties (narcotics and, I suspect, bad neighborhood saturation). The acting replacement was apparently at home phoning it in. In the past few years, every city that has won a championship, including Boston, has seen widescale, or at least mass, disturbances and violence following the championship game. The way 1 newspaper report put it was that the championship game response plan in Boston was 15 pages long (or something like that) while the championship parade the next day was more than 50 pages long (or something like that) with far more officers dedicated to the event.

As I understand it, the actions of the acting replacement are beyond unfathomable. They are truly unexplainable, repugnant, negligent, and horrifying. But hey, the guy doesn't have much experience running the show.

So I'm just saying, if anyone ever sees Evans, please just say something nice. Boston is gonna miss him.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
No, Ty, that is not what I was saying.

While it is true that Loving held that a statute criminalizing interracial marriage was unconstitutional on EP and DP grounds, the dicta was clear that civil statutes barring interracial marriage would also be held unconstitutional should such an issue come before the court.

However, what the Loving court did not say is whether a civil statute that did not criminalize interracial marriage but did not provide for interracial marriage would be unconstitutional under EP, DP, or both.

Because of how the court was so focused on the criminal aspects of the staute in the EP portion of the opinion, I believe that the EP arguments in Loving were limited to the criminal aspects of the statute. Furthermore, based on the language of the holding in the DP part of the case (i.e, marriage as essential for our existence and survival), I don't think that the DP arguments in Loving would extend to gay marriages.

And I believe that your reading of the case would earn you a gentleman's C in a decent law school. But, it's a free country, and the thing that separates us from the Russians is your liberty to come here and post silly theories about constitutional law while I drink wine. In Russia, you would be arrested, or offered a job with the security apparatus, and I would have to drink vodka, which I don't like nearly so much. God bless America! And the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia!

[sgtclub]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

[Clark papers allege Clinton times Kosovo war for political purposes]

I'm not sure how this cuts or who it reflects badly on, but interesting in any event.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
That's because you are simply ignoring Section I of Warren's decision for the majority.

No I am not. I am noting how focused that section was on the criminal penalties of the statute in question.

I agree that the Due Process arguments aren't focused on the criminal aspects of the law.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Nothing in the discussion of the EP Clause says, "We apply the Equal Protection Clause here only because it's a criminal statute; if this were a civil case, Virginia would be free to discriminate on the basis of race."

True. And there is plenty of dicta in that opinion for one to take away from it the notion that according to the USSC, civil statutes would be equally unconstitutional. I am confident that should a civil statute not allowing interracial marriage ever come before the USSC, based on the dicta in Loving, they would have struck it down as unconstitutional.

However, that doesn't mean that you can extend that dicta to gay marriage.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If the Equal Protection Clause invalidates criminal punishment of blacks and whites who marry, why would it permit a state law that permits civil marriage between those of the same races, but no one else?

Ty, it is not like I don't see your point about how you can argue the dicta in Loving to extend to civil statutes. I do see it and agree. My disagreement with you is that while it is a natural and easily seen extention of the dicta of Loving that the USSC would strike down civil statutes that prohibited interracial marriages (they outright said that they would) you cannot do the same with that dicta to gay marriage. This is because race and sexual orientation are not equivalent in the marital context.

I am 100% convinced that no member of the Loving court felt that their holding should be extended to same sex marriage. Yet from what they wrote, it is 100% clear to both me and you that should a civil statute limiting marriage to people of the same race come before the USSC, it would be struck down.

That is the difference.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If Virginia had such a law today, do you doubt for a second that it would survive a lawsuit? Of course not.

Of course not. The court made that clear in the dicta in Loving. However, that doesn't mean that the court made it clear in Loving that same sex marriages were constitutionally mandated.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
But, it's a free country, and the thing that separates us from the [North Koreans, i.e., the next on the hit list] is your liberty to come here and post silly theories about constitutional law while I drink wine. In [North Korea, i.e., the next on the hit list], you would be arrested, or offered a job with the security apparatus, and I would have to drink [rice wine], which I don't like nearly so much. God bless America! And the Commonwealths of [Taxachusettes] and [Virgina]! (emphasis added)

Amen, bro. Now go give your wife a good fucking.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I am 100% convinced that no member of the Loving court felt that their holding should be extended to same sex marriage. Yet from what they wrote, it is 100% clear to both me and you that should a civil statute limiting marriage to people of the same race come before the USSC, it would be struck down.

You asked for an argument that applied to gay marriage but not polygamy. Now you have it. And I agree with you that the justices who decided Loving would not have OK'd gay marriage. Fifty years from now, maybe people will be reading this exchange and saying, how odd that our grandparents were still fighting about gay marriage!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You asked for an argument that applied to gay marriage but not polygamy. Now you have it.

Huh?

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
And I agree with you that the justices who decided Loving would not have OK'd gay marriage. Fifty years from now, maybe people will be reading this exchange and saying, how odd that our grandparents were still fighting about gay marriage!

Speak for yourself, grandpa. If you have read even 1 in 50 of my posts you would know that I have a social conscience and refuse to continue overburdening this earth with yet another human being when the earth is already choking to death from too many human vermin.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
The only psychological trauma (which I believe is what you meant by psychic trauma)

Bitch, please.

psy·chic adj. also psy·chi·cal (-k-kl)
1. Of, relating to, affecting, or influenced by the human mind or psyche; mental: psychic trauma; psychic energy.

Based on your idea of what constitutes dicta, it doesn't surprise me that you would have missed the operative portions of the definition. Ty has taken you entirely too seriously. Earnestness is a failing among us liberals, like hip dysplasia in retreivers.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
[a bunch of words; little meaning]

You are an idiot of the worst kind.

Now go give your wife a good fucking like Ty is doing. Oh wait, no woman would agree to marry you. Sorry for you.

Hey did I mention that Chelsea Clinton is fugly*?


*Bilmore, this is your cue to take the moral high ground and defend Chelsea so that you can claim that your hatred of Clinton is not based on partisanship, KWIM ?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
People think that Gibbons v. Ogden speaks broadly to the principles behind the Dormant Commerce Clause, but it turns out that it's just about ferryboats -- the rest is dicta. Marbury v. Madison? Not really about judicial review at all! It's about the procedures by which judges are appointed to the District of the District of Columbia.

Is there something here I'll need to know for the bar exam?