Community Chat

[esmerelda]

---

@Lila Belle wrote:
An example of an immunity would be the 5th Am.

---

I don't understand.  What part?  Double jeopardy?

What is an "immunity" where the ruling's subject matter is concerned?

[Lila Belle]

Esmerelda, any law.

[JaneMarple]

---

@sfnative wrote:

---

@JaneMarple wrote:

Funny how if the ruling had gone the other way, there wouldn't be any arguments against the constitution. I also find it funny that since January of 2009, certain groups are all of a sudden experts on constitutional law.

---

With all due respect, one wonders about the use of the word "funny" for one.  Secondly, we would all do well to re-acquaint ourselves with the constitution from time to time.

---

Funny is funny that we seem to have so many constitutional experts coming out of the woodwork when a ruling goes against their views! Yes it's good to look at but not to discredit the people who uphold it because you didn't get your way!

[terrier3]

---

@sfnative wrote:

---

@missy1 wrote:

It was strange the mods let posters congratulate the rainbow ruling, but posters couldn't say they don't agree with it,

---

What missy said here is HUGE, regardless of which side you're on.

MODS: I hope you're taking notice of this, as this practice is truly a political one on the side of QVC.

---

The only problem with what missy1 wrote was that is was NOT correct.

[Lila Belle]

---

@esmerelda wrote:

---

@Lila Belle wrote:
An example of an immunity would be the 5th Am.

---

I don't understand.  What part?  Double jeopardy?

What is an "immunity" where the ruling's subject matter is concerned?

---

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You might try going to the library and find a book about the Constitution.  : )

[esmerelda]

---

@Lila Belle wrote:
Esmerelda, any law.

---

My question was what does the ruling protect them from?  Since the 14 amendment mentions "protection of the law."

[kittymomNC]

I may be a lot of things, but I'm not stupid and I'm not naive... there appears to be a thinly disguised effort to get this entire thread deleted.  It has just reinforced what I said in my original post, which was not to reopen something that has been deleted twice. I mistakenly got involved again where I shouldn't have, so I will stay out of it.   

      

[PamfromCT]

Unfortunately, I am not a constitutional lawyer. But I do know that regardless of who appointed our Supreme Court judges, they have a right and duty to interpret the constitution according to their interpretation. Civil rights issues are too important to be left to individual states. The SCOTUS has spoken. Both liberals and conservatives have had their moments of disagreements with decisions. No, it's not a matter of how many agree and disagree. That doesn't matter. The decision rendered was a civil issue, not a religious one. No one will force any religious institution to marry same sex couples. Time to move on to much larger and pressing challenges. Peace and good will to all!

[esmerelda]

---

@Lila Belle wrote:

---

@esmerelda wrote:

---

@Lila Belle wrote:
An example of an immunity would be the 5th Am.

---

I don't understand.  What part?  Double jeopardy?

What is an "immunity" where the ruling's subject matter is concerned?

---

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You might try going to the library and find a book about the Constitution.  : )

---

Thank you.  I have the Constitution displayed in front of me.

[esmerelda]

---

@terrier3 wrote:

---

@sfnative wrote:

---

@missy1 wrote:

It was strange the mods let posters congratulate the rainbow ruling, but posters couldn't say they don't agree with it,

---

What missy said here is HUGE, regardless of which side you're on.

MODS: I hope you're taking notice of this, as this practice is truly a political one on the side of QVC.

---

The only problem with what missy1 wrote was that is was NOT correct.

---

What part is incorrect?  Oh yes, posters could say they did not agree with the ruling, but they couldn't say it as long as those who agreed with the ruling could.  One had a much longer life here than the other.