Catholic Charities Mixes Politics with Community Services

[giblets]

Congress was created by the Constitution. What kind of ****ed up system do they have over in Canada? Ben can't seem to get the US government into his skull.

[giblets]

I don't believe that it's a prejudice per se, but arguing that the state derives a benefit from marriage and has the authority to regulate marriage in this fashion doesn't help your case.

Where did I claim that? I don't think it should be legal for some to **** their sister, so there's no point in recognizing such a marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

Congress was created by the Constitution. What kind of ****ed up system do they have over in Canada? Ben can't seem to get the US government into his skull.

A bizarre merge of English Common Law, and the Napoleonic code in Quebec.

This has nothing to do with Canada. This is true equally of English Canada as it is of America. The marriage laws are defined by English Common law, which predates the constitution of the United States.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Therefore the Constitution controls over the English Common Law as subsequent law takes precedent. Therefore, say, the 14th Amendment takes precidence over the original text of the Constitution that takes precedences over the common law. That may be a bit too complicated for Ben to figure out, however.

[Ben Kenobi]

So then habeaus corpus can be suspended with a new law. Great, glad to hear that.

[Lorizael]

So then habeaus corpus can be suspended with a new law. Great, glad to hear that.

No, habeas corpus can be suspended in case of rebellion or invasion, or if we pass a constitutional ammendment saying it can be suspended. Laws do not trump the Constitution, but the Constitution does.

[notyoueither]

But you want them to intervene to support your definition and prejudices. Don't you see this? Stands to reason that if you hate it when people who disagree with you have the power to make decisions that reflect their personal opinions, that you would choose not to do the same.

Except this is why you are demanding. Government intervention when you agree with it, and no government intervention when you disagree with it. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works.

Irony? I'm pretty sure this is irony. This has got to be irony.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, habeas corpus can be suspended in case of rebellion or invasion, or if we pass a constitutional ammendment saying it can be suspended. Laws do not trump the Constitution, but the Constitution does.

Ben is being delibertely dense (or just an idiot).

[Ben Kenobi]

No, habeas corpus can be suspended in case of rebellion or invasion, or if we pass a constitutional ammendment saying it can be suspended. Laws do not trump the Constitution, but the Constitution does.

According to Imran, new laws > old laws, so it's possible to make a change like this without a constitutional amendment.

[Lorizael]

And new laws do trump old laws, but there are also qualitative differences between laws. Christ, this is not hard.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I refer you again to my Post 233.

[Lorizael]

Yeah, I don't know why I bother.

[giblets]

I take it Ben is not a constitutional scholar?

[Ben Kenobi]

And new laws do trump old laws, but there are also qualitative differences between laws.

No, to Imran, laws he agrees with are immutable, and laws he disagrees with can be changed anytime.

He's got a very consistent legal philosophy.

[MrFun]

I take it Ben is not a constitutional scholar?

He's a bull**** "scholar."