The proper role and scope of government

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Where does the Constitution stop the Federal Government from "telling them what they must do"?

Post 226. The Constitution in it's current form states what the Federal Government cannot do.

What don't you understand about that? It really is not that difficult. You and Ibram are mixing what has happened at the state level and what is happening at the Federal level.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Post 226. The Constitution in it's current form states what the Federal Government cannot do.

What don't you understand about that? It really is not that difficult. You and Ibram are mixing what has happened at the state level and what is happening at the Federal level.

So how is it legal for states to do it, but not for the fed, under the first amendment? the first amendment applies to states too under the 14th amendment.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

So how is it legal for states to do it, but not for the fed, under the first amendment? the first amendment applies to states too under the 14th amendment.

In many cases it is a "States Right" issue. You guys are on a merry-go-round. It is quickly becoming no longer important to me if you understand it or not. Believe whatever the hell you want to believe. You are not going to change my mind as to the facts of the Constitutional aspect of this issue and so far you have completely failed to put up a cogent argument which disputes my position. We don't have to agree. Let's see how the courts settle the issue as a final resolution. It is not important to me that you see it my way, really, I just don't care.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

In many cases it is a "States Right" issue. You guys are on a merry-go-round. It is quickly becoming no longer important to me if you understand it or not. Believe whatever the hell you want to believe. You are not going to change my mind as to the facts of the Constitutional aspect of this issue and so far you have completely failed to put up a cogent argument which disputes my position. We don't have to agree. Let's see how the courts settle the issue as a final resolution. It is not important to me that you see it my way, really, I just don't care.

I know YOU don't care if I understand, but I -do- want to understand your argument. At this point, I only know that you think it's unconstitutional. But again, HOW is it unconstitutional? I feel like you FIRST were arguing it was unconstitutional on religious liberty grounds, in which case it does not matter if it's a state or the fed, with regards to constitutionality, and then you changed to a states-rights tenth amendment argument.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

I know YOU don't care if I understand, but I -do- want to understand your argument. At this point, I only know that you think it's unconstitutional. But again, HOW is it unconstitutional? I feel like you FIRST were arguing it was unconstitutional on religious liberty grounds, in which case it does not matter if it's a state or the fed, with regards to constitutionality, and then you changed to a states-rights tenth amendment argument.

No, you introduced the issue of States Rights issue by trying to compare it to same sex union court battles. Apples and Oranges.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No, you introduced the issue of States Rights issue by trying to compare it to same sex union court battles. Apples and Oranges.

No, I didn't. I didn't compare it to court battles. I asked if in states where it IS legal, you think colleges or charities or hospitals should be able to deny spousal insurance coverage only to gay couples, but provide it to hetero couples? Or rather, I said that as far as I know they ARE required to provide benefits to ALL spouses (or none I suppose), and that they can't pick and choose, even if gay couples violate their beliefs.

I'm still talking ONLY about insurance coverage and ONLY about how it relates to religiously-affiliated institutions.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

No, I didn't. I didn't compare it to court battles. I asked if in states where it IS legal, you think colleges or charities or hospitals should be able to deny spousal insurance coverage only to gay couples, but provide it to hetero couples? Or rather, I said that as far as I know they ARE required to provide benefits to ALL spouses (or none I suppose), and that they can't pick and choose, even if gay couples violate their beliefs.

You are beating a dead horse. You specifically ID'd states where this was an issue that had been or is being challenged in various levels of courts. This issue is being challenged at a state level or at least regionally from the point of STATES in-acting laws which then have been challenged in court. This has nothing to do with what Obama did via the FEDERAL government from the top down. I just don't understand what you don't understand about the difference between those processes.

I'm still talking ONLY about insurance coverage and ONLY about how it relates to religiously-affiliated institutions.

See above.... repeatedly.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Post 226. The Constitution in it's current form states what the Federal Government cannot do.

What don't you understand about that? It really is not that difficult. You and Ibram are mixing what has happened at the state level and what is happening at the Federal level.

If you invoke the First Amendment, as you did in post 226, then you are incorrectly separating the state and Federal level. It applies equally to both.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

If you invoke the First Amendment, as you did in post 226, then you are incorrectly separating the state and Federal level. It applies equally to both.

Ok, prove it. I never made such an argument about it applying equally to both. They are completely different. One is top down, the other bottom up. I would be glad to watch you show how they are the same. Please cite as you go.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

If you invoke the First Amendment, as you did in post 226, then you are incorrectly separating the state and Federal level. It applies equally to both.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Ok, prove it. I never made such an argument about it applying equally to both. They are completely different. One is top down, the other bottom up. I would be glad to watch you show how they are the same. Please cite as you go.

Logic 101: If A implies B, then (not B) implies (not A).

According to the Supreme Court, since the 14th Amendment, the states are prevented from doing anything that the 1st Amendment would prevent the Federal government from doing.

A = The First Amendment prevents the Federal Government from enforcing this rule.
B = The First Amendment prevents the states from enforcing this rule.


Many states require insurance to cover birth control, therefore (not B).

(not B) implies (not A)

Therefore, the First Amendment does NOT prevent the Federal Government from enforcing this rule.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Logic 101: If A implies B, then (not B) implies (not A).

According to the Supreme Court, since the 14th Amendment, the states are prevented from doing anything that the 1st Amendment would prevent the Federal government from doing.

A = The First Amendment prevents the Federal Government from enforcing this rule.
B = The First Amendment prevents the states from enforcing this rule.


Many states require insurance to cover birth control, therefore (not B).

(not B) implies (not A)

Therefore, the First Amendment does NOT prevent the Federal Government from enforcing this rule.

Religious freedom, Constitutional issue specifically described.

Marriage issue, states issue, marriage not specifically described in the Constitution and not being challenged from that respect.

Pretty clear to me.

[Happy Monkey]

My post was explicitly about the birth control rule, and had the cites you requested, and does not make use of any references to marriage.

You respond with some sentence fragments about marriage.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Pretty clear to me.

That makes one of you.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

My post was explicitly about the birth control rule, and had the cites you requested, and does not make use of any references to marriage.

Ibby dragged that into the discussion which is where the whole thing ended up before you chimed in. Hence, my responses were about those two issues, repeatedly.

You respond with some sentence fragments about marriage.

That makes one of you.

You came late to the party. So what, are you impotent?