Should we repeal "Don't ask, don't tell?"

Should we repeal this atrocity?

  • Total voters
    23
Yurt said:
i don't believe it would...when you're military, you're federal, P&I is solely about the states and between states, not the federal government
Click to expand...

Bump. The 14th does not apply because the p&i are already protected from federal violations by the bill of rights and other amendments. The 14th has no effect between states. A right recognized and protected in California does not necessarily apply in Florida. Florida is bound to honor the court rulings of California, but that is from the "Full Faith and Credit" clause and has nothing at all to do with the 14th.
 
RStringfield said:
Bump. The 14th does not apply because the p&i are already protected from federal violations by the bill of rights and other amendments. The 14th has no effect between states. A right recognized and protected in California does not necessarily apply in Florida. Florida is bound to honor the court rulings of California, but that is from the "Full Faith and Credit" clause and has nothing at all to do with the 14th.
Click to expand...

you're a moron
 
RStringfield said:
Based on what? What did I say that you find to be in error?

You apparently did not know what the 14th means. I was just wondering if you figured it out yet? :pke:
Click to expand...

the 14th applies to the states...i've already had this argument with you and you lost, but you refuse to see reality, you have zero case law to support your erroneous view of the 14th amendment
 
Yurt said:
the 14th applies to the states...i've already had this argument with you and you lost, but you refuse to see reality, you have zero case law to support your erroneous view of the 14th amendment
Click to expand...

I never argued that. The 14th applies to the states and I noted that from the beginning and throughout. You are just making a straw man argument here.

That does not mean that the Feds may violate the privileges and immunities of citizens granted under the constitution as you implied. If the 14th prohibits states from violating the rights granted under the constitution then, obviously, the feds are prohibited from violating those rights.

I did give you a case, Bolling vs Sharpe, where these very things were decided, in clear agreement with what I have argued. DC claimed that "equal protection of the laws" applied only to the states. The court rejected this absurdity by pointing out that "equal protection of the law" was not a new right, but a part of due process rights. It goes back to the Magna Carta where due process and equal protection of the law were assumed to be one and the same. If you want to look it up, I believe it's article 39 (I can check if necessary).

You have no case law that shows that the feds may violate the privileges and immunities where a state may not. I have never even heard anyone (but you) argue such an absurd premise.

The 14th was passed because prior to it, many of the privileges and immunities granted under the constitution ONLY applied to the federal government. The 14th did not switch it to ONLY applying to the states. It simply extended the reach of the P&I to the states.
 
Last edited:
i have no clue what the fuck you're talking about, you not making any sense and you're supposedly arguing against some point i never made...your entire post is strawman
 
Bullshit. You claimed the p&i's don't apply to the feds. They do. You also claimed that the p&i of another state applies to all states. They don't.

I can go back an pull up other posts where you made it clear that this was your argument, but it was obvious in your initial post.

You are attempting to split hairs and pretend you never argued any of this in order to backpedal, just as Dixie claimed he never said or argued that negligence was necessary for liability.

Look, if you acknowledge NOW that the p&i's do apply to the feds (and therefore they may not deny equal protection of the laws) and that 14th does not extend the rights of one state to another (as you argued made DOMA necessary) then I will drop it.

We can pretend that you never argued such absurd points. But really, I don't see why you feel the need to do that. I remember, in my youth, screwing up the import of the 14th, as I assumed the P&Is had always applied to the states. I am sure I will find I was in error on something again in the future. We live and we learn, unless you are a dumbfuck Republican who insists on holding on to errors no matter how obvious.... cough... 1/3.
 
p&i does NOT apply to the feds retard...there is only ONE federal government, so how you can claim the p&i applies to the federal government is mind boggling...the very purpose of the clause is for the STATES

Concepts contained in the U.S. Constitution that place the citizens of each state on an equal basis with citizens of other states in respect to advantages resulting from citizenship in those states and citizenship in the United States.

The Privileges and Immunities Clauses are found in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. Both clauses apply only to citizens of the United States. Aliens and corporations are not citizens and, therefore, are not entitled to this protection. These clauses have proven to be of little import because other constitutional provisions have been used to settle controversies. In large part the insignificance of the clauses has been based on restrictive readings of the clauses by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Article IV provides that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities in the several states." The purpose of the clause was to facilitate the unification of the independent states into one nation so that citizens traveling throughout the country would receive the same treatment as the citizens of the states through which they passed.

The privileges and immunities that are protected under Article IV include the right to receive protection from state government; the right to acquire and possess all kinds of property; the right to travel through or reside in any state for purposes of trade, agriculture, or professional endeavors; the right to claim the benefit of the writ of Habeas Corpus; the right to sue and defend actions in court; and the right to receive the same tax treatment as that of the citizens of the taxing state.

This clause forbids a state from unjustly depriving citizens from other states of any rights derived from state citizenship solely on the basis of nonresidence. Yet the Supreme Court has never interpreted it to preclude all deferential treatment of in-state citizens. As a result, the Privileges and Immunities Clause does not bar differential state standards governing the practice of certain professions. Out-of-state doctors, lawyers, and other professionals may be required to prove their competency based on standards that are higher than those applied to their in-state counterparts. Tuition rates at public Colleges and Universities are typically lower for in-state students. Out-of-state residents are charged more for hunting and fishing licenses than are in-state residents. Such discrepancies are generally accepted as justifiable because they advance legitimate state interests.

The Supreme Court has struck down state laws that infringed rights guaranteed by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. In Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518, 98 S. Ct. 2482, 57 L. Ed. 2d 397 (1978), the Court ruled that the state of Alaska failed to show a reasonable purpose for a state law that required employers to give a hiring preference to in-state residents who applied to work on the construction of oil or gas pipelines.

However, the Supreme Court has rarely used the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV to invalidate discriminatory laws. The due process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are commonly applied to determine the validity of state laws that unjustly discriminate between residents and nonresidents of a state.

The Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause has virtually no significance in Civil Rights law. The clause states, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This clause protects a person's rights as a citizen of the United States from unreasonable State Action or interference.

The privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship that cannot be unreasonably abridged by state laws include the right to travel from state to state; the right to vote for federal officeholders; the right to enter public lands; the right to petition Congress to redress grievances; the right to inform the national government of a violation of its laws; the right to receive protection from violence when in federal custody; the right to have free access to U.S. seaports; the right to transact business with and engage in administering the functions of the U.S. government; the right to have access to federal courts; and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

The Supreme Court has narrowly construed the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873). The case involved a Louisiana state law that gave one meat company the exclusive right to slaughter livestock in New Orleans. Other packing companies were required to pay a fee for using the slaughterhouses. These companies filed suit, claiming that the law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court upheld the Louisiana Monopoly law, ruling that the Privileges and Immunities Clause had limited effect because it reached only privileges and immunities guaranteed by U.S. citizenship, not state citizenship. Because the law in question dealt with states' rights, the Fourteenth Amendment had no effect. The Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to grant former slaves legal equality, not to grant expanded rights to the general population. In addition, the Court was concerned that a broad interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment would give too much power to the federal government and distort the concept of Federalism, which grants the states a large measure of power and autonomy.

The Court has consistently followed the restrictive interpretation given the Privileges and Immunities Clause by this decision. The clause has little significance today in invalidating state statutes that present a constitutional question. When state laws infringe the fundamental rights of U.S. citizenship, the Court usually invokes the Equal Protection Clause to analyze the constitutionality of the state action.

However, the Supreme Court has used the Privileges and Immunities Clauses in two recent cases. In Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 118 S.Ct. 766, 139 L.Ed.2d 717 (1998), the Court ruled that a New York tax law that effectively denied only nonresident taxpayers an Income Tax deduction for Alimony paid violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause. In Saenz v. Doe, 526 U.S. 489, 119 S.Ct. 1518, 143 L.Ed.2d 689 (1999), the Court struck down a California law that limited new residents to the Welfare benefits they would have received in the state of their prior residence. It based its decision in part on the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the right to travel is protected "not only by the new arrival's status as a state citizen, but also by her status as citizen of the United States." The Privileges and Immunities Clause guaranteed the right of a citizen to "become a citizen of any State of the Union." It did not permit the states to "select their citizens."
Click to expand...

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Privileges+and+Immunities
 
See now you are arguing what you claimed you were not.

The p&i's do apply to the feds, but not via the 14th. If the p&is did not apply to the Feds there would be no p&i's prohibited from violation by the states via the 14th.

We were not discussing article 4. You post an article about the p&i clause of article 4, which the article indicates is mostly irrelevant, when you were clearly arguing the clause in the 14th previously. I will have to look into the arguments here on the article 4 (as it is interesting), but it is not relevant to our discussion of the 14th.
 
I looked over the p&i clause in article iv (which we were not discussing). All it does is say that the states may not discriminate against the citizens of other states. For instance, they can't tax an immigrant from another state at a higher rate than their own citizens or make something illegal for them that is not illegal for their own citizens. It does not say anything about how they must treat there own citizens nor does it mean that a right to marry in Hawaii means that all other states must must conduct gay marriages for their own citizens (full faith and credit does mean they must honor the marriage of those married in Hawaii). It would, however, mean that Hawaii could not deny someone from California the right to marry under its laws. See Paul v Virginia.

The funny thing is, that the P&I clause in article iv shows that you are wrong about the P&I clause in the 14th in regards to the feds.

in article iv...
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

in the 14th...
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

It's intent is the same it just changes the parties. Article iv, it means that a state may not deny rights recognized by the state to citizens of another state. In the 14th, it means the states may not violate the rights of a US citizen (i.e. those rights recognized by the federal government). That clearly means that a state can not be prohibited from violating a right that does not exist under the feds. The feds are bound by those same P&Is, otherwise there can be no prohibition on violating said right by the states. Bolling vs Sharpe ruled just that.
 
RStringfield said:
I looked over the p&i clause in article iv (which we were not discussing). All it does is say that the states may not discriminate against the citizens of other states. For instance, they can't tax an immigrant from another state at a higher rate than their own citizens or make something illegal for them that is not illegal for their own citizens. It does not say anything about how they must treat there own citizens nor does it mean that a right to marry in Hawaii means that all other states must must conduct gay marriages for their own citizens (full faith and credit does mean they must honor the marriage of those married in Hawaii). It would, however, mean that Hawaii could not deny someone from California the right to marry under its laws. See Paul v Virginia.

The funny thing is, that the P&I clause in article iv shows that you are wrong about the P&I clause in the 14th in regards to the feds.

in article iv...
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

in the 14th...
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

It's intent is the same it just changes the parties. Article iv, it means that a state may not deny rights recognized by the state to citizens of another state. In the 14th, it means the states may not violate the rights of a US citizen (i.e. those rights recognized by the federal government). That clearly means that a state can not be prohibited from violating a right that does not exist under the feds. The feds are bound by those same P&Is, otherwise there can be no prohibition on violating said right by the states. Bolling vs Sharpe ruled just that.
Click to expand...

lol
 
Yurt said:
lol
Click to expand...

Weak and non responsive. Since yurt is too much of a pussy, can anyone else point out an error in what I posted?

Your argument, yurt, is that the 14th somehow reversed the policy of the US government being prohibited from violating the privileges and immunities (rights) of citizens, while the states could... to prohibiting the states from and allowing the feds to violate the privileges and immunities of citizens. This is an absurd argument and one I have never encountered before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top