The United States Constitution

[San Lumen]

But it would have taken much longer and LGBT people would not have the right to marry or adopt children still. Without the courts abortion might still be illegal in many states too, there might sill be a patchwork of laws on search and seizure. The list could go on and on.

* stares off dreamily * Yeah, that'd be terrible.

Regardless, if the court system is capable of enacting such massive social reform on the whim of a few judges, then it can be used in a negative way as well. Imagine the courts declaring that necrophilia is not encompassed by any existing law in a state and is thus not punishable nor illegal. When laws are subject to the whims and whimsy of individual men they can go in very radical and undesirable directions.

And what rational sane judge is going to rule necrophilia legal?

[Katzenstaat]

Do you believe that miscegnation should be outlawed again? I do for evolutionary reasons.

No lol. That's retarded. Evolution serves us, we don't serve evolution, let alone pseudo science.

I believe in Third Reich/Communist style harshness. In order to ensure the continued existence of humanity we must do what it takes to survive.

[Katzenstaat]

Do you believe that miscegnation should be outlawed again? I do for evolutionary reasons.

So the government should be able to tell people who they can and cannot marry based on race or sexual orientation?

To protect humanity, yes to the former but the latter is fine.

Low levels of homosexuality has no evolutionary consequences.

[Katzenstaat]

If everybody does not starve and miscegnate at will some races with low testosterone will simply disappear.

[The Parkus Empire]

Jefferson would have probably disowned the country after the Union won the Civil War.

Jefferson thought slavery was wrong and wanted to put a anti slavery provision in the Declaration of Independence.

I wonder based on your views how many Supreme Court decisions you agree with. Do you agree with Reynolds v sims which said that legislative lines could not be drawn to favor one area over another? Before that decision states like Tennessee had drawn their lines so that urban areas were shafted out of their fair share of representation. Chief Justice Earl Warren famously wrote "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." You disagree with that decision too?

Jefferson's sentiments would not have to do with slavery. His vision was a union of independent states.

Yes, I disagree with the ruling, since its validity was based on being after Colegrove v. Green, whereas validity in law is bases on prior ruling. The matter should have been federally legislated.

[San Lumen]

So the government should be able to tell people who they can and cannot marry based on race or sexual orientation?

To protect humanity, yes to the former but the latter is fine.

Why? What if a gay white male wants to marry a black or asian man?

[Washington Resistance Army]

If everybody does not starve and miscegnate at will some races with low testosterone will simply disappear.

lol

[The Parkus Empire]

No lol. That's retarded. Evolution serves us, we don't serve evolution, let alone pseudo science.

I believe in Third Reich/Communist style harshness. In order to ensure the continued existence of humanity we must do what it takes to survive.

You are off topic

[Katzenstaat]

To protect humanity, yes to the former but the latter is fine.

Why? What if a gay white male wants to marry a black or asian man?

This is an exception.

[Katzenstaat]

If everybody does not starve and miscegnate at will some races with low testosterone will simply disappear.

lol

Isn't it true? Of course Japan is going to disappear even before whites..

[San Lumen]

Jefferson thought slavery was wrong and wanted to put a anti slavery provision in the Declaration of Independence.

I wonder based on your views how many Supreme Court decisions you agree with. Do you agree with Reynolds v sims which said that legislative lines could not be drawn to favor one area over another? Before that decision states like Tennessee had drawn their lines so that urban areas were shafted out of their fair share of representation. Chief Justice Earl Warren famously wrote "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." You disagree with that decision too?

Jefferson's sentiments would not have to do with slavery. His vision was a union of independent states.

Yes, I disagree with the ruling, since its validity was based on being after Colegrove v. Green, whereas validity in law is bases on prior ruling. The matter should have been federally legislated.

And you really think that a system designed to keep a certain political party in power would have willingly given it up? What is it you think the courts should be able to do? Clearly not much based on what you've said thus far.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

It doesn’t matter what equal protection was “meant” to do, what matters is what the letter of the amendment says and laws against miscegenation and laws that enforced segregation violate the letter of the equal protection clause.

So you're a strict reconstructionist?

A what?

[San Lumen]

Why? What if a gay white male wants to marry a black or asian man?

This is an exception.

No your being contradictory.

[Republic of the Cristo]

* stares off dreamily * Yeah, that'd be terrible.

Regardless, if the court system is capable of enacting such massive social reform on the whim of a few judges, then it can be used in a negative way as well. Imagine the courts declaring that necrophilia is not encompassed by any existing law in a state and is thus not punishable nor illegal. When laws are subject to the whims and whimsy of individual men they can go in very radical and undesirable directions.

And what rational sane judge is going to rule necrophilia legal?

Maybe a liberal one with an agenda to pursue. It's the possibility of the abuse of power, and that is why each position of government is constrained to an extent in it's abilities to ensure something as radical as this can not occur ( or this was the intention at least ).

[Katzenstaat]

This is an exception.

No your being contradictory.

Agreed. My bad.

[Washington Resistance Army]

lol

Isn't it true? Of course Japan is going to disappear even before whites..

Not because of any dumb shit to do with testosterone.

[Katzenstaat]

Isn't it true? Of course Japan is going to disappear even before whites..

Not because of any dumb shit to do with testosterone.

Then why? Civilization lowers testosterone levels you know..

Do you agree that miscegnation has to be banned?

[San Lumen]

Not because of any dumb shit to do with testosterone.

Then why? Civilization lowers testosterone levels you know..

Do you agree that miscegnation has to be banned?

This is really a topic for another thread.

[The Parkus Empire]

Jefferson's sentiments would not have to do with slavery. His vision was a union of independent states.

Yes, I disagree with the ruling, since its validity was based on being after Colegrove v. Green, whereas validity in law is bases on prior ruling. The matter should have been federally legislated.

And you really think that a system designed to keep a certain political party in power would have willingly given it up? What is it you think the courts should be able to do? Clearly not much based on what you've said thus far.

I think the courts should uphold the law according to intent, nothing more, nothing less. If female suffrage could be passed by an all male legislature elected by all male voters, this could be fixed as well.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Not because of any dumb shit to do with testosterone.

Then why? Civilization lowers testosterone levels you know..

Do you agree that miscegnation has to be banned?

Because their birth rates have declined heavily as it has with everywhere else in the developed world because families no longer need to have 10 kids for 1 of them to survive.

I really don't care about miscegenation enough to have an opinion.

[Katzenstaat]

Then why? Civilization lowers testosterone levels you know..

Do you agree that miscegnation has to be banned?

This is really a topic for another thread.

Not just miscegnation needs to be banned. Low-testosterone groups need to be protected or they will go extinct.

[Katzenstaat]

Then why? Civilization lowers testosterone levels you know..

Do you agree that miscegnation has to be banned?

Because their birth rates have declined heavily as it has with everywhere else in the developed world because families no longer need to have 10 kids for 1 of them to survive.

I really don't care about miscegenation enough to have an opinion.

But what does that mean in the issue of survival? For example if China is full of Africans and half-Africans where the hell shall the Chinese go? They will be a tribe without a state.

There is no way low-testosterone groups can survive without banning miscegnation or at least all sex between certain groups of men with women of the group.

[The Parkus Empire]

And you really think that a system designed to keep a certain political party in power would have willingly given it up? What is it you think the courts should be able to do? Clearly not much based on what you've said thus far.

I think the courts should uphold the law according to intent, nothing more, nothing less. If female suffrage could be passed by an all male legislature elected by all male voters, this could be fixed as well.

See here, for instance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832

[San Lumen]

And you really think that a system designed to keep a certain political party in power would have willingly given it up? What is it you think the courts should be able to do? Clearly not much based on what you've said thus far.

I think the courts should uphold the law according to intent, nothing more, nothing less. If female suffrage could be passed by an all male legislature elected by all male voters, this could be fixed as well.

And intent can be interpreted differently based on how one reads the law. many amendments in the bill of rights are very broad. The first amendment says no law shall be made to restrict the freedom of speech yet It is illegal to threaten a elected official especially the president. Is that law unconstitutional according to you?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Because their birth rates have declined heavily as it has with everywhere else in the developed world because families no longer need to have 10 kids for 1 of them to survive.

I really don't care about miscegenation enough to have an opinion.

But what does that mean in the issue of survival? For example if China is full of Africans and half-Africans where the hell shall the Chinese go? They will be a tribe without a state.

There is no way low-testosterone groups can survive without banning miscegnation or at least all sex between certain groups of men with women of the group.

You have no idea what you're talking about