dallasnew:
President Obama is clearly on the losing side of this medical marijuana issue. What happened to progressive Obama? He's not progressive enough where he should be and way-too-progressive about extending (now unaffordable) federal entitlement programs.
Me:
The president and his administration must follow the laws on the books.
Advocate for changing them. Vote out the Republicans, and Democrats that voted in favor of these laws.
dallasnew:
How come President Obama is empowered to remove all federal justice support for DOMA, (which he admitted he intentionally removed), but he can't stop enforcement of the federal drug laws against marijuana growers and suppliers who conform to state medical marijuana laws?
Me:
DOMA is openly discriminatory, therefore in violation of the 14th amendment, by creating a lesser citizen.
SCOTUS has previously upheld Nixon's anti drug legislation.
The difference is obvious.
dallasnew:
I wasn't aware that the SCOTUS has designated those who are not heterosexual in terms of their sexual preferences to be part of a protected 'class' under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Me:
They are not singled out as not protected...Yet they are..
The 14 applys to ALL US Citizens, makes no mention of exceptions.
Bigotry is pervasive, but it's not protected, why do you believe bigotry is protected?
dallasnew:
The 14th Amendment against discrimination has, under SCOTUS case law, been held to protect only a person who belongs to a 'suspect' class. Suspect classes are defined as person(s) belonging to group(s) that have been historically discriminated against due to race, religion, ethnic origin, sex and disability. To my knowledge homosexuality has never been defined by SCOTUS as qualifying as a 'suspect' class. Although homosexuals have been and are discriminated against, the SCOTUS may not view the (arguable) choice to live as a person who is sexually attracted to members of their own sex as meeting the 'suspect' class requirements. Ergo, Obama's choice to withdraw support of DOMA cannot be based on the 14th Amendment because homosexuals aren't protected w/out a SCOTUS precedent.
Me:
SCOTUS case law? You mean ignoring the actual words in the amendment in order to allow your religious bigotry?
And you are simply incorrect.
Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.
This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which began the dismantling of racial segregation in United States education.
In Reed v. Reed in 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.
And Loving v. VA in 1967 decided that Marriage is a fundamental human right...
Seems you prefer cherry picking who is a citizen, and who the Constitution protects.
I am weary, dealing with the regressive, and the willfully ignorant.
No comments:
Post a Comment