Legally sanctioned marraige had many functions. The orderly and standardized transfer of property, especially fee tail estates, was one purpose of the institution. However, this is not the sole or even primary purpose of legally sanctioned marriage. One can already, without too much trouble, establish ways of transfering property to whomever desired without having to merry him/her
( ... )
It sounds like John is longing for someone to have a real debate with. I would comply, on this issue however I think that we will never agree on a way to frame the debate.
The article speaks of a town that has passed a law that does not allow more than 3 people who are unrelated to live in a single family dwelling (apartments are ok). I differ from John in that, I think a law can be wrong even if it was correctly voted on and approved by our elected legislators.
If I wanted to I could point out John's beliefs that businesses should be able to conduct business anyway they wish (largely free from government control), and that this does <\b> conflict with his view on this law, however there is no point in stating the inconsistency that all who know John would see
( ... )
The problem is that courts are forced to deal with contrived rights because they can't bitchslap Texas into the 20th century (speaking of a Texas law that banned homosexual relationships). As you obviously know the courts can not simply say, "God damn it, knock the stupid shit off", they are instead forced to rely on previous decisions and contrived rights based on the constitution
( ... )
Courts can't "bitchslap" 'bad' lawsjsoapsJune 1 2006, 08:27:20 UTC
The problem with your rant is that the Supreme Court does "bitchslap" those with whom they merely disagree. Lawrence v Texas (539 U.S. 558), the case which struck down Texas' anti-sodomy law, was a horribly constructed opinion. The Texas law in question was stupid and a poor use of state resources. It was almost never enforced. The majority opinion in Lawrence cites this awful line from Planned Parenthood v Casey (505 US 833
( ... )
Comments 6
Reply
Reply
The article speaks of a town that has passed a law that does not allow more than 3 people who are unrelated to live in a single family dwelling (apartments are ok). I differ from John in that, I think a law can be wrong even if it was correctly voted on and approved by our elected legislators.
If I wanted to I could point out John's beliefs that businesses should be able to conduct business anyway they wish (largely free from government control), and that this does <\b> conflict with his view on this law, however there is no point in stating the inconsistency that all who know John would see ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment