#constitutional debate

🎧 Listen now as Second Amendment Mixed Messaging is explored in this thought-provoking audio interview examining history, policy tension, and why constitutional debates continue to matter today.  🚨 Listen Here In this episode of Lest We Forget History, Lillian Cauldwell explores Second Amendment Mixed Messaging and the growing tension between individual rights and government authority. The…

🎧 Listen now as Second Amendment Mixed Messaging is explored in this thought-provoking audio interview examining history, policy tension, and why constitutional debates continue to matter today.  🚨 Listen Here In this episode of Lest We Forget History, Lillian Cauldwell explores Second Amendment Mixed Messaging and the growing tension between individual rights and government authority. The…

Starring April McClain Delaney in Much Ado About Venezuela Welcome back to Political Party Animals, the only political desk where the curtain never quite closes and every constitutional crisis comes with a matinee. This week’s headliner: April McClain Delaney, who burst onto the national stage to declare that President Donald Trump must be impeached—immediately—over the Venezuela…

Delhi News: लोकसभा में वक्फ संशोधन विधेयक 2025 को लेकर लंबी और गर्मागर्म बहस के बाद इसे पास कर दिया गया। अब सबकी नजरें राज्यसभा पर टिकी हैं, जहां गुरुवार को इस बिल को पेश किया जाएगा। सरकार और विपक्ष के बीच इस मुद्दे पर तीखी बहस की उम्मीद है। आइए, इस विधेयक की पूरी कहानी को विस्तार से समझते हैं और जानते हैं कि यह क्यों इतना चर्चा में है। लोकसभा में 12 घंटे की बहस के बाद बिल पास लोकसभा में बुधवार…

Waqf Amendment Bill 2025: अल्पसंख्यक एवं संसदीय मामलों के केंद्रीय मंत्री किरेन रीजीजू ने सोमवार, 31 मार्च 2025 को घोषणा की कि सरकार संशोधित वक्फ विधेयक 2024 को संसद में पेश करने के लिए पूरी तरह तैयार है। यह बयान ऐसे समय में आया है, जब विपक्ष और कुछ मुस्लिम संगठन इस विधेयक का कड़ा विरोध कर रहे हैं। रीजीजू ने विपक्ष पर समाज में तनाव फैलाने और लोगों को गुमराह करने का सनसनीखेज आरोप लगाया है। आइए, इस…

Delhi News: संसद के बजट सत्र में सोमवार, 24 मार्च 2025 को कर्नाटक में मुस्लिम आरक्षण के मुद्दे पर राज्यसभा में जमकर हंगामा हुआ। भारतीय जनता पार्टी (बीजेपी) ने कांग्रेस अध्यक्ष और राज्यसभा में विपक्ष के नेता मल्लिकार्जुन खरगे से इस मामले पर स्पष्टीकरण की मांग की। बीजेपी का आरोप है कि कांग्रेस संविधान को बदलकर मुस्लिम समुदाय को आरक्षण देने की कोशिश कर रही है, जिसे लेकर सत्तापक्ष और विपक्ष के बीच…

I usually use this to post about personal issues, but I’m goin’ political for this post.

Gay marriage is now legal, which is... amazing. This whole issue went pretty much exactly the way that I thought it would. The backlash is unfortunate but predictable. Bigots always get the loudest right before history proves them wrong.

What’s disappointing, however, is that the reaction to this amazing development is pretty much split exactly down party lines. I’d have loved to have seen one Republican rep saying something like “Okay, hey, I know I might catch flack for this, but you know what? We were kinda in the wrong on this one. Is preventing some people from getting married such an important issue for us to be concerning ourselves with when the deficit is skyrocketing and immigration and, hell, all these other things that are just begging for our attention?”

Hell, I’m sure more than one of them think this. They can’t all be complete assholes, right? But if you pay attention, you’ll notice that almost every republican reaction has the same verbage. “I’m upset that the democratic will of millions of Americans has been overturned by five unelected officials.” The same statement. At least a dozen times. 

Kinda skirts the question doesn’t it. Even the ones who oppose this ruling seem to have trouble facing it head on. “Is preventing people from getting married a good or bad thing” is not addressed because at this point the answer is pretty fucking self-evident. They know, on some level, that they’re playing the villains here, so they have to spin it in a way that makes them look like they’re “defending freedom” rather than “being homophobic douches.” 

So guess what. I’m sinking to their level here. I’m going to argue on their terms. The Supreme Court’s duty, their literal job description is to overturn the democratic will of the American people when it conflicts with the founding notions upon which the law is built i.e. the constitution. No they are not elected, they are appointed. That is also in the constitution. So what, you ask, is the constitutional matter at hand?

Amendment 14, section 1:  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This leaves you with only one debatable recourse, to argue that marriage does not constitute a privilege under law (a laughable point, but whatever). To this I posit thus: you are free to disagree with the supreme court’s ruling on the matter, but that does not make the ruling any less valid. Even if you disagree with the interpretation of legal privileges to include marriage, you have to concede that it is, at the very least, a reasonable interpretation thereof. Since it is the Court’s literal responsibility to interpret the constitution’s application, by definition any law denying the right of any two adult people to marriage is unconstitutional.

Therefore, this is not a gross miscarriage of justice. This is not an unamerican decision. This is not a dangerous precedent. And by God this is not the end of traditional marriage. 

You have only three options here: 

agree that the Supreme Court did their duty with due diligence and accept that marriage is now a constitutional right

realize that your arguments against this are motivated from a personal, not legal standpoint, whether that be being homophobic yourself or merely to appeal to your homophobic constituents. I’m honestly not sure which is more deplorable. 

Reject the entire court system as it now stands (a positively unamerican standpoint that would require you to admit that the founding father’s did something wrong. LeGasp!).