Election Investigations

[Ken]

LOL at you thinking that any bipartisan or nonpartisan group want to actually question the election of the planned, establishment candidate. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing to be gained from that, and everything lose. Biden is the establishment choice, his win was never in question.

Trump was the actual president and controlled the executive branch. When he was first elected he had majorities in both houses of congress, in the governorships of a majority of states, in the legislatures of a majority of states, and in the appellate courts and supreme courts at both the state and federal levels. That is about as establishment as you can possibly get.

ROFL now at you suggesting Trump was an establishment choice.

There is no such thing called the "establishment" that votes. People vote, that is all.

But Trump did indeed control the established government of the United States and his party controlled a majority of institutions and offices across the country at both the federal and state level.

[Josh]

“ I'm not sure what you actually are wanting "compromise" on. Do you want to roll back the 14th Amendment constitutional right of gay people to marry in this country (which 70% of the country supports) because 30% object?”

This is blatantly false. States like California held plebiscites and a majority of the voters chose to outlaw gay marriage. States like Ohio had legislatures who outlawed it.

The 14th amendment was not written in favour of gay marriage. None of the writers or signers of it promoted gay marriage.

The Supreme Court simply forced it on all 50 states. Same as how abortion was forced on all 50 states. Liberals force things on everyone else and then claim “the majority supports it, so it must stay”.

[ohio jones]

I'm not sure what you actually are wanting "compromise" on. Do you want to roll back the 14th Amendment constitutional right of gay people to marry in this country (which 70% of the country supports) because 30% object?

This is blatantly false. States like California held plebiscites and a majority of the voters chose to outlaw gay marriage. States like Ohio had legislatures who outlawed it.

The 14th amendment was not written in favour of gay marriage. None of the writers or signers of it promoted gay marriage.

Not to mention that it took 147 years for the constitutional right of gay people to marry to be "discovered" in the 14th Amendment.

[barnhart]

While the only irregularity of the election was the refusal of the loser to concede and his conspiracy to overthrow the election, the part about accepting conservatives' concerns as legitimate is important. Of course, it would help if conservatives respected liberals, also. The mutual lack of respect is what needs to change.

It may have been irregular but not unprecedented, in my living memory there has been a increasing undercurrent of rejecting the authority of the other guys when they win. Gore was capable of concession under shady circumstances, but many rejected Bush as "selected not elected". I heard and read many people refer to Obama as "not my president" and support lies that he was not legitimate because of his religious background/birth/nationality, including Trump who was received similarly because he lost the popular vote. Now I hear the similar voices rejecting the authority of Biden. This is not entirely new. It is counter to clear biblical teaching.

[temporal1]

It may have been irregular but not unprecedented, in my living memory there has been a increasing undercurrent of rejecting the authority of the other guys when they win.

Gore was capable of concession under shady circumstances, but many rejected Bush as "selected not elected".
I heard and read many people refer to Obama as "not my president" and support lies that he was not legitimate because of his religious background/birth/nationality, including Trump who was received similarly because he lost the popular vote.
Now I hear the similar voices rejecting the authority of Biden.

This is not entirely new.
It is counter to clear biblical teaching.

Outside divine intervention, voters are the only hope for improvement.
As long as THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS, and this is rewarded in the polls, the expectation is: MORE.

Voters would really have to wise up and reject it in the polls.
i don’t expect it. but would be happy to be surprised.

A government can only be as effective as the willingness of citizens to be governed. Without respect, there will be strife.

When i was young, we were taught in public schools, and at home, to respect elections.
Everything was unceremoniously thrown out in the 1960’s.

Today, public schools are proud recruitment centers for lib SJWs. Strife as a way of life.
The Public Treasury should not be pirated for partisan politics. Ending this practice should be a TOP priority.

The Public Treasury is pirated - to skew elections - right under everyone’s noses!

[Falco Underhill]

Times change. There was a time when the Supreme Court ruled that the 14 Amendment didn't apply to women (Minor v. Happersett) or black people (Plessy v. Ferguson) either. Now it does.

That's incorrect. No Court ever denied the 14th Amendment applied either to blacks or to women. At times there was a question of how it applied to them, but never whether it applied to them.

That's kind of a distinction without a difference don't you think?

In both cases the court carved out specific exceptions for how the 14th Amendment DIDN'T apply for those groups. For women in the case of voting and the precedent was applied to other rights. And for blacks in the case of segregation, voting rights, and education, and other Jim Crow laws.

Abortion and same-sex rights were brought in under the 14th Amendment via the "substantive due process" doctrine, which is a phrase not found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. It's a doctrine that has always had its detractors among justices of the Supreme Court — and not just among conservative ones either. (Example, Hugo Black.)

The cases you referenced never invoked the "substantive due process" doctrine for the simple reason that it was never doubted the 14th Amendment applied to women and blacks in the first place.

So, to me you're confusing the substantive due process doctrine of the court with the 14th Amendment itself, but I do see a distinction with an important difference there.

[Josh]

At the time the 14th amendment was written, marriage was only between a man and a woman and had lots of legal privileges - more than it does now.

I will repeat my question: did the writers of it intend to legalise gay marriage? Did the writers of it intend that the government should no longer regulate or give special privileges to heterosexual marriages?

[Ken]

That's incorrect. No Court ever denied the 14th Amendment applied either to blacks or to women. At times there was a question of how it applied to them, but never whether it applied to them.

That's kind of a distinction without a difference don't you think?

In both cases the court carved out specific exceptions for how the 14th Amendment DIDN'T apply for those groups. For women in the case of voting and the precedent was applied to other rights. And for blacks in the case of segregation, voting rights, and education, and other Jim Crow laws.

Abortion and same-sex rights were brought in under the 14th Amendment via the "substantive due process" doctrine, which is a phrase not found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. It's a doctrine that has always had its detractors among justices of the Supreme Court — and not just among conservative ones either. (Example, Hugo Black.)

The cases you referenced never invoked the "substantive due process" doctrine for the simple reason that it was never doubted the 14th Amendment applied to women and blacks in the first place.

So, to me you're confusing the substantive due process doctrine of the court with the 14th Amendment itself, but I do see a distinction with an important difference there.

Plessy v. Ferguson was a case about segregated railway cars. But the precedent was applied to everything from education to voting rights to zoning and land use (segregated neighborhoods) to higher education to workplace discrimination to the military. So essentially essentially the courts were saying that the 14th Amendment equal protection clause applied to black people EXCEPT for K-12 public education, voting rights, property ownership, higher education, military service, government jobs, etc. etc. Rights don't mean anything if you are denied them in every meaningful walk of life.

It would be like the courts telling Mennonites that they have a First Amendment right to freedom of religion. EXCEPT when it comes to pandemic restrictions, mandatory public education, wearing of religious dress in public, where you are allowed to build your churches, mandatory military service, recognition of marriages, freedom to publish and disseminate religious materials, etc. etc.

Substantive due process is just an analysis that determines that a particular law is inherently unfair on its substance as opposed to procedural due process which is more narrowly limited to an analysis of whether the specific procedures contained within a law are unfair or violate due process. It isn't something the court invented for gay marriage. The courts have invoked substantive due process for hundreds of cases from Dredd Scott and the fugitive slave laws to minimum wage laws to mandatory sterilization to mandatory public education.

[Ken]

At the time the 14th amendment was written, marriage was only between a man and a woman and had lots of legal privileges - more than it does now.

I will repeat my question: did the writers of it intend to legalise gay marriage? Did the writers of it intend that the government should no longer regulate or give special privileges to heterosexual marriages?

You think you are being clever but you aren't. The authors of the 14th Amendment set out a general universal principle of equal rights, not a detailed legal code of how they should be applied or not applied. The 14th Amendment has subsequently been applied in thousands of ways that the authors didn't specify or anticipate from housing segregation to military service to voting rights to asylum claims. None of which were specified in detail in the 14th Amendment either. In fact, EVERY SINGLE 14th Amendment legal case in the past 150 years contained specific elements that weren't necessarily specified in the text of the amendment or anticipated by its authors. That is how the law works. An hundred years from now there will no doubt be many new cases applying the principal of equal protection in new ways and in new circumstance that we don't anticipate much less the amendment's authors from 150 years ago. That is the nature of constitutional rights.

Did the authors of the First Amendment in 1787 specifically intend to grant Amish families an exemption from compulsory public education laws that would not even exist for another 150 years? No, they did not. Public education didn't even exist in 1787. They set out basic universal rights and left it to future generations to apply those principles in future circumstances.

[Falco Underhill]

Plessy v. Ferguson was a case about segregated railway cars. But the precedent was applied to everything from education to voting rights to zoning and land use (segregated neighborhoods) to higher education to workplace discrimination to the military. So essentially essentially the courts were saying that the 14th Amendment equal protection clause applied to black people EXCEPT for K-12 public education, voting rights, property ownership, higher education, military service, government jobs, etc. etc. Rights don't mean anything if you are denied them in every meaningful walk of life.

It would be like the courts telling Mennonites that they have a First Amendment right to freedom of religion. EXCEPT when it comes to pandemic restrictions, mandatory public education, wearing of religious dress in public, where you are allowed to build your churches, mandatory military service, recognition of marriages, freedom to publish and disseminate religious materials, etc. etc.

Substantive due process is just an analysis that determines that a particular law is inherently unfair on its substance as opposed to procedural due process which is more narrowly limited to an analysis of whether the specific procedures contained within a law are unfair or violate due process. It isn't something the court invented for gay marriage. The courts have invoked substantive due process for hundreds of cases from Dredd Scott and the fugitive slave laws to minimum wage laws to mandatory sterilization to mandatory public education.

None of that changes the fact that substantive due process was never invoked (insofar as i know, anyways) for blacks or women because the 14th Amendment clearly applied to them. The same cannot be said for abortion rights and gays rights. Their being recognized as rights to be covered by the 14th Amendment is due to their being created under the substantive due process doctrine. There's simply no denying that fact, imo.

Also, I am not arguing here whether or not substantive due process should be "ditched!" I'm only pointing out that how it was used in Roe v Wade and Obergfell will likely be the issue if and when either of those cases are ever overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Maybe they will try to save it in accordance with principles similar to these espoused by the Stanford Law Review —

https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/onlin ... ay-street/

Only guesses. Maybe we'll see something entirely different. It’s notoriously difficult to predict how the courts will rule (regardless that a draft decision was leaked)!

One thing maybe we can all agree on -- these justices do need our prayers! (1 Timothy 2:1-2)