Gays

[tailfins]

The Tenth? Dude, unfortunately nobody has taken the Tenth seriously in a hundred years.

That's part of the problem. What other parts of the Constitution are activists judges not taking seriously? You could say that activists judges are not taking the entire Constitution seriously.

[indago]

That's part of the problem. What other parts of the Constitution are activists judges not taking seriously? You could say that activists judges are not taking the entire Constitution seriously.

Along with the government toadies...

[fj1200]

In the case of Sitz...

You missed a couple of questions while your head was in the sand.

But you do acknowledge the supremacy clause right? For years the Alabama Constitution banned interracial marriage, long after the Loving decision, and was moot per Loving: Was Alabama's interracial marriage ban constitutional while it was still on the books post Loving?

[fj1200]

That's part of the problem. What other parts of the Constitution are activists judges not taking seriously? You could say that activists judges are not taking the entire Constitution seriously.

Too much of it. Where is marriage in the Constitution? The Federal one that is.

[indago]

You missed a couple of questions while your head was in the sand.

It was, according to the Alabama State Constitution. It was repealed by amendment in 2000

Point out, in Article Four of the Bill of Rights, where it is written "except for alcohol check lanes".


.

[fj1200]

It was, according to the Alabama State Constitution. It was repealed by amendment in 2000

Point out, in Article Four of the Bill of Rights, where it is written "except for alcohol check lanes".

That's where you're wrong and why you're also wrong about what the Michigan Constitution says, maybe, about gay marriage. The Alabama ban was clearly unconstitutional no matter what the AL constitution said after the Loving decision. Any attempt by the state to impose their ban would have been struck down.

And where does 4A say "except for alcohol lanes"? The 17th word.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So sayeth SCOTUS in re: Sitz. You, me, and the drunk dude in his car may not like it but there it is.

[indago]

That's where you're wrong...

Moot! Repealed 7 November 2000

And where does 4A say "except for alcohol lanes"? The 17th word.

So sayeth SCOTUS in re: Sitz. You, me, and the drunk dude in his car may not like it but there it is.

But that wasn't the intent of the alcohol check lanes, now was it! The alcohol check lanes stopped ALL vehicles, to see if they had committed a crime.


"unannounced investigatory seizures are, particularly when they take place at night, the hallmark of regimes far different from ours" — Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens





This Gestapo mentality was totally rejected, and rightly so, by the Michigan Supreme Court, as previously noted.

[indago]

GET OVER SAME-SEX FEELINGS


Journalists Suhasini Raj and Nida Najar wrote for The New York Times 13 January 2015:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The government of Goa, on India’s western coast, is setting up a program to get young gay people to lead “a normal life,” according to the state’s minister for sports and youth affairs. ...The new policy treats gay youths as a problem group to be addressed with government action, along with drug addicts, dropouts, migrants and others. ...“They are that part of our society who have not yet experienced the true pleasures and bliss of life,” Mr. Tawadkar said. “What does a normal life feel like? Do they know? No.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


article

homosexuality was a “bad habit"

[fj1200]

Moot! Repealed 7 November 2000

Moot or not it shows you the failure of your reasoning.

But that wasn't the intent of the alcohol check lanes, now was it! The alcohol check lanes stopped ALL vehicles, to see if they had committed a crime.

"unannounced investigatory seizures are, particularly when they take place at night, the hallmark of regimes far different from ours" — Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens

This Gestapo mentality was totally rejected, and rightly so, by the Michigan Supreme Court, as previously noted.

Argue intent all you want; alcohol check lanes are Constitutional. And Michigan is well within their rights to not allow them as they are not compelled to require check lanes, only allow them if the state wishes. Besides, Stevens can say anything he likes, he was in the minority.

Just like the unfortunate Kelo decision, the State isn't required to sell property seized by eminent domain only that it is Constitutional. You know, the Federal one, the one that matters.

[fj1200]

Journalists Suhasini Raj and Nida Najar wrote for The New York Times 13 January 2015:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...“They are that part of our society who have not yet experienced the true pleasures and bliss of life,” ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have they started a government program to buy hookers for gay kids? Also this seems to be some sort of gestapo mentality that you would be against.

...The new policy treats gay youths as a problem group to be addressed with government action, along with drug addicts, dropouts, migrants and others. ...

Curious.

[indago]

Argue intent all you want; alcohol check lanes are Constitutional. And Michigan is well within their rights to not allow them as they are not compelled to require check lanes, only allow them if the state wishes.

Not allowed!

From Michigan Supreme Court Opinion

Because the United States Supreme Court established that Michigan's sobriety checkpoints do not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the specific question presented in this case is whether sobriety checkpoints are unreasonable under art 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution. Before addressing this issue, we must first address the more fundamental question, how we interpret the Michigan Constitution.

And, as previously noted, the Michigan Supreme Court declared: "we hold that sobriety checklanes violate art 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution."

State Checkpoints...Conducted?.....Frequency....Legality

Michigan...................No..................... ............Illegal under state Constitution

ILLEGAL

[aboutime]

Not allowed!

From Michigan Supreme Court Opinion

And, as previously noted, the Michigan Supreme Court declared: "we hold that sobriety checklanes violate art 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution."

State Checkpoints...Conducted?.....Frequency....Legality

Michigan...................No..................... ............Illegal under state Constitution

ILLEGAL

indago. So, it sounds like you'd prefer to just look the other way, and hope not to get into any accidents with DUI candidates? Or....are you, by any chance. One of those people who DRINK, then DRIVE, and always try to avoid those checklanes to avoid being caught?
Which would you prefer?

[tailfins]

indago. So, it sounds like you'd prefer to just look the other way, and hope not to get into any accidents with DUI candidates? Or....are you, by any chance. One of those people who DRINK, then DRIVE, and always try to avoid those checklanes to avoid being caught?
Which would you prefer?

"Sobriety checkpoint" is a canard. They are ticket factories and shakedown sites. I prefer to look the other way for someone having a burnt out tail light or for someone who forgot to buckle their seat belt.

[aboutime]

"Sobriety checkpoint" is a canard. They are ticket factories and shakedown sites. I prefer to look the other way for someone having a burnt out tail light or for someone who forgot to buckle their seat belt.

Call it whatever you like. And you, like others seem to prefer taking your chances with your own life, and the lives of your family by just looking the other way? Hope you don't look away too quickly, and meet one of those ticket factory victims you defend..as the DUI, or DRUNK who kills somebody you know, or love.
Of course. DRUNKS have a right to be on the road WITH YOU. Don't they?

[fj1200]

Not allowed!

Dude, chill out. I stated precisely that...

... alcohol check lanes are Constitutional. And Michigan is well within their rights to not allow them as they are not compelled to require check lanes, only allow them if the state wishes.

... but you're missing the point.