2020 US General Election Thread IX: One Month and Counting

[Thermodolia]

On paper, sure, but there's nothing really stopping the Supreme Court from coming to that conclusion and redelegating same sex marriage to the states.

It would be a nearly impossible thing to prove giving the wording of the amendment.

The 14th amendment does not apply to Marriage, as marriage is a religious act and therefore not protected by the Constitution

[Necroghastia]

It would be a nearly impossible thing to prove giving the wording of the amendment.

The 14th amendment does not apply to Marriage, as marriage is a religious act and therefore not protected by the Constitution

Uh... no it's not?

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

on ogberfell you'd have to prove the 14th amendment doesnt apply to LGBT people.

It isn't hard if you clarify that marriage is not a right for anyone.

The 9th amendment says hi, unenumerated rights are a thing.

It would be a nearly impossible thing to prove giving the wording of the amendment.

The 14th amendment does not apply to Marriage, as marriage is a religious act and therefore not protected by the Constitution

Churches don’t issue marriage licenses, courthouses do, only marriage ceremonies (and only some at that since some are secular) are religious. Also one of the cruxes of Obergefell was several states weren’t honoring same-sex marriages performed outside of their jurisdiction, which is a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

[Northern Davincia]

I will give credit to Russian-style literature for having wordy prose. I still like the broad themes quite a bit.

No, but it is not impossible.

Hoping that the judges become as illogical as to resort to this pointless line of thinking?

Explain to me why the government should refuse to recognize personal unions between two people and record it. It's not like it's regulating marriages... Unless you're anti-marriage for a specific group of people.

The question was asked as to what scenario a court might rule to overturn the case, and I answered. Hope is a different matter entirely.

It isn't hard if you clarify that marriage is not a right for anyone.

The 9th amendment says hi, unenumerated rights are a thing.

The 14th amendment does not apply to Marriage, as marriage is a religious act and therefore not protected by the Constitution

Churches don’t issue marriage licenses, courthouses do, only marriage ceremonies (and only some at that since some are secular) are religious. Also one of the cruxes of Obergefell was several states weren’t honoring same-sex marriages performed outside of their jurisdiction, which is a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

With regards to the 9th Amendment, you only need to take away legal recognition of all marriage while people can still engage in personal unions themselves.

[San Lumen]

Hoping that the judges become as illogical as to resort to this pointless line of thinking?

Explain to me why the government should refuse to recognize personal unions between two people and record it. It's not like it's regulating marriages... Unless you're anti-marriage for a specific group of people.

The question was asked as to what scenario a court might rule to overturn the case, and I answered. Hope is a different matter entirely.

The 9th amendment says hi, unenumerated rights are a thing.


Churches don’t issue marriage licenses, courthouses do, only marriage ceremonies (and only some at that since some are secular) are religious. Also one of the cruxes of Obergefell was several states weren’t honoring same-sex marriages performed outside of their jurisdiction, which is a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

With regards to the 9th Amendment, you only need to take away legal recognition of all marriage while people can still engage in personal unions themselves.

I highly doubt the court would annual all marriage licenses. The court would lose any and all legitimacy it had left.

[Kannap]

The question was asked as to what scenario a court might rule to overturn the case, and I answered. Hope is a different matter entirely.

With regards to the 9th Amendment, you only need to take away legal recognition of all marriage while people can still engage in personal unions themselves.

I highly doubt the court would annual all marriage licenses. The court would lose any and all legitimacy it had left.

It still has legitimacy?

[Vassenor]

How the personal data of 200 million people was used to orchestrate deterrence-based voter suppression by the GOP.

[Thermodolia]

The 14th amendment does not apply to Marriage, as marriage is a religious act and therefore not protected by the Constitution

Uh... no it's not?

Someone could definitely argue that it is. And that therefore marriage is not a protected right for anyone gay or straight

[Thermodolia]

It isn't hard if you clarify that marriage is not a right for anyone.

The 9th amendment says hi, unenumerated rights are a thing.

But is marriage a protected right? Now while we would all say that it is, one could definitely argue that it’s not.

The 14th amendment does not apply to Marriage, as marriage is a religious act and therefore not protected by the Constitution

Churches don’t issue marriage licenses, courthouses do, only marriage ceremonies (and only some at that since some are secular) are religious.

It’s an all in one ceremony though. Marriage at place of worship also validates the marriage license so that a couple doesn’t have to stand before a judge to validate said marriage.

Under that one could definitely argue that marriage is a religious act and therefore not protected by the constitution.

Also one of the cruxes of Obergefell was several states weren’t honoring same-sex marriages performed outside of their jurisdiction, which is a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

You seem to misunderstand me and assume that I actually believe what I posted and that I wasn’t showing Lumen that it’s not hard for a court to overturn previous cases.

A court could argue that same sex marriages should never have been validated in the first place as the constitution does not cover marriage nor is it a protected right.

[Telconi]

The question was asked as to what scenario a court might rule to overturn the case, and I answered. Hope is a different matter entirely.

With regards to the 9th Amendment, you only need to take away legal recognition of all marriage while people can still engage in personal unions themselves.

I highly doubt the court would annual all marriage licenses. The court would lose any and all legitimacy it had left.

By doing an actually useful thing for once?

[San Lumen]

I highly doubt the court would annual all marriage licenses. The court would lose any and all legitimacy it had left.

By doing an actually useful thing for once?

That would be a useful thing?

[Telconi]

By doing an actually useful thing for once?

That would be a useful thing?

Yes.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

The 9th amendment says hi, unenumerated rights are a thing.

But is marriage a protected right? Now while we would all say that it is, one could definitely argue that it’s not.

It certainly could, plenty of other things aren’t necessarily enumerated rights yet are protected. Like self-defense for instance, it isn’t explicitly enumerated right, the 2nd amendment protects the right to bear arms and to form regulated militias to protect the state and country, but it’s an implied unenumerated right and protected nonetheless.

Churches don’t issue marriage licenses, courthouses do, only marriage ceremonies (and only some at that since some are secular) are religious.

It’s an all in one ceremony though. Marriage at place of worship also validates the marriage license so that a couple doesn’t have to stand before a judge to validate said marriage.

Not really, marriage licenses don’t need to be validated by a place of worship to be valid since it’s a legal document.

Under that one could definitely argue that marriage is a religious act and therefore not protected by the constitution.

Then if would fall under the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment and still be protected.

Also one of the cruxes of Obergefell was several states weren’t honoring same-sex marriages performed outside of their jurisdiction, which is a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

You seem to misunderstand me and assume that I actually believe what I posted and that I wasn’t showing Lumen that it’s not hard for a court to overturn previous cases.

I probably did misunderstand you then, my apologies, Therm.

[Vassenor]

So if marriage is a specifically religious act, what do athe9sts do?

[San Lumen]

So if marriage is a specifically religious act, what do athe9sts do?

Have a justice of the peace marry them?

[Cannot think of a name]

How the personal data of 200 million people was used to orchestrate deterrence-based voter suppression by the GOP.

Oh my...

In 16 key battleground states, millions of Americans were separated by an algorithm into one of eight categories, also described as ‘audiences’, so they could then be targeted with tailored ads on Facebook and other platforms.

One of the categories was named ‘Deterrence’, which was later described publicly by Trump’s chief data scientist as containing people that the campaign “hope don’t show up to vote”.

Analysis by Channel 4 News shows Black Americans – historically a community targeted with voter suppression tactics – were disproportionately marked ‘Deterrence’ by the 2016 campaign.

In total, 3.5 million Black Americans were marked ‘Deterrence’.

In Georgia, despite Black people constituting 32% of the population, they made up 61% of the ‘Deterrence’ category. In North Carolina, Black people are 22% of the population but were 46% of ‘Deterrence’. In Wisconsin, Black people constitute just 5.4% of the population but made up 17% of ‘Deterrence’.

The disproportionate categorising of Black Americans for ‘Deterrence’ is seen across the US. Overall, people of colour labelled as Black, Hispanic, Asian and ‘Other’ groups made up 54% of the ‘Deterrence’ category. In contrast, other categories of voters the campaign wished to attract were overwhelmingly white.

The 2016 campaign preceded the first fall in Black turnout in 20 years and allowed Donald Trump to take shock victories in key states like Wisconsin and Michigan by wafer-thin margins, reaching the White House despite losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s digital campaign, called ‘Project Alamo’ and based in San Antonio, Texas, involved a team from the now defunct British company Cambridge Analytica, working with a team from the Republican National Committee. Two senior members of the Cambridge Analytica team are working on the Trump 2020 campaign.

Cambridge Analytica collapsed after investigations by Channel 4 News, The Observer and the New York Times in 2018.

[Thermodolia]

So if marriage is a specifically religious act, what do athe9sts do?

Common law marriage i’d assume

[San Lumen]

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/13 ... 67846?s=20

Biden leads by nine or 49/40 in New Pennsylvania poll.

[Thermodolia]

How the personal data of 200 million people was used to orchestrate deterrence-based voter suppression by the GOP.

Oh my...

In 16 key battleground states, millions of Americans were separated by an algorithm into one of eight categories, also described as ‘audiences’, so they could then be targeted with tailored ads on Facebook and other platforms.

One of the categories was named ‘Deterrence’, which was later described publicly by Trump’s chief data scientist as containing people that the campaign “hope don’t show up to vote”.

Analysis by Channel 4 News shows Black Americans – historically a community targeted with voter suppression tactics – were disproportionately marked ‘Deterrence’ by the 2016 campaign.

In total, 3.5 million Black Americans were marked ‘Deterrence’.

In Georgia, despite Black people constituting 32% of the population, they made up 61% of the ‘Deterrence’ category. In North Carolina, Black people are 22% of the population but were 46% of ‘Deterrence’. In Wisconsin, Black people constitute just 5.4% of the population but made up 17% of ‘Deterrence’.

The disproportionate categorising of Black Americans for ‘Deterrence’ is seen across the US. Overall, people of colour labelled as Black, Hispanic, Asian and ‘Other’ groups made up 54% of the ‘Deterrence’ category. In contrast, other categories of voters the campaign wished to attract were overwhelmingly white.

The 2016 campaign preceded the first fall in Black turnout in 20 years and allowed Donald Trump to take shock victories in key states like Wisconsin and Michigan by wafer-thin margins, reaching the White House despite losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s digital campaign, called ‘Project Alamo’ and based in San Antonio, Texas, involved a team from the now defunct British company Cambridge Analytica, working with a team from the Republican National Committee. Two senior members of the Cambridge Analytica team are working on the Trump 2020 campaign.

Cambridge Analytica collapsed after investigations by Channel 4 News, The Observer and the New York Times in 2018.

As scummy as that is it’s unfortunately quite legal.

[Kannap]

My community college wants me to volunteer to be a poll observer for the Democrats lol

[San Lumen]

My community college wants me to volunteer to be a poll observer for the Democrats lol

do it

[Kannap]

My community college wants me to volunteer to be a poll observer for the Democrats lol

do it

Not likely.

[Cannot think of a name]

Oh my...

As scummy as that is it’s unfortunately quite legal.

Not being a court we're not restricted to only calling out things that are illegal.

[San Lumen]

do it

Not likely.

*does jedi mind trick. You will do it.

[Kannap]

Not likely.

*does jedi mind trick. You will do it.

Even less likely than before now