WI: Sodomy legalized in 1986?

I think, and hope, that Faeelin's



was a joke playing off the Catholic Church's policy on homosexuality to "love the sinner, hate the sin" and to use peer pressure and shaming to "bring them to Christ". I'm not Catholic and could be wrong about their policy under the current Pope, and I've never tried to bring people to Christ, nor do I ever want to, since I am a Jew.

If that person didn't mean it as a joke, then Lost Freeway I'm sure they just took your quote the wrong way, I understood what you were saying.

You are in fact, wrong about the policy, "love the sinner, hate the sin" was always an Evangelical cop out, never Catholic doctrine. And it was actually Ghandi who said it most recently before the religious right got a hold of it.

Also Popes don't change policy, just emphasis.
 
Well, if the amendment attempted to change the equal distribution of Senators without eliminating that clause from the Constitution or was added in an unconstitutional fashion, then the Supreme Court could very well strike it down. But anyone trying to alter the distribution of Senators would be aware of this already, and it's unlikely that an Amendment would be accepted if it were passed in an unconstitutional fashion unless the rule of law was no longer evident.

You're mistaken, that's not how amendments work. An amendment automatically supersedes a clause it contradicts it does not have to specifically mention the clause it is changing, though for the ability to make it clear what they mean and eliminate any possible misunderstanding of the amendment they usually mention it, and SCOTUS has no authority to strike down an amendment in any fashion and if for some weird reason SCOTUS did say "we are striking down the amendment that ended prohibition and we're going back to the Prohibition Era!" Congress would be so incensed you'd see Congress curtail SCOTUS' abilities (Constitution only says there has to be a Chief Justice, doesn't say there has to be any other members or how many, though an odd number does work better).
 
You're mistaken, that's not how amendments work. An amendment automatically supersedes a clause it contradicts it does not have to specifically mention the clause it is changing,
This has one very specific exception I was referring to, which is explicitly spelled out in Article V,

United States Constitution Article V said:
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The first clause of that sentence is obviously no longer valid, but direct your attention to the second clause: no amendment that will change the equal distribution of Senators may be made without the consent of each and every state so affected (that is, all of them). Therefore, any amendment that would change the composition of the Senate by making different states have different numbers of Senators would either have to explicitly repeal this clause or be unanimously adopted. If either of those were not the case, then the amendment would itself be unconstitutional.

though for the ability to make it clear what they mean and eliminate any possible misunderstanding of the amendment they usually mention it, and SCOTUS has no authority to strike down an amendment in any fashion
Untrue. Provided that you accept the principle of judicial review at all, then the Supreme Court clearly has the ability to reject amendments that are passed in violation of Article V's statements on how to amend the Constitution, because such amendments themselves violate the Constitution. For example, if an amendment was added after a national popular referendum, without a prior amendment adding that to Article V as a method of ratification, then it would be an ipso facto invalid amendment, because to amend the Constitution you must have approval of 2/3rds of Congress or have 2/3rds of the states request a convention, then have 3/4ths of the states approve the amendment, not a national popular referendum.

There have been no amendments that have actually violated this provision, so it is of course theoretical. But if you accept judicial review at all, then this is a clear power of the courts.

and if for some weird reason SCOTUS did say "we are striking down the amendment that ended prohibition and we're going back to the Prohibition Era!" Congress would be so incensed you'd see Congress curtail SCOTUS' abilities (Constitution only says there has to be a Chief Justice, doesn't say there has to be any other members or how many, though an odd number does work better).
If the Supreme Court struck down the 21st Amendment they would clearly be going mad, because that was passed in perfect accordance with legal procedures. I was referring to amendments that either sought to alter Senate distribution without either the consent of all the states or removing the protection clause first, none of which have been proposed, or to amendments that were passed aside from Article V's procedures, again none of which have passed. There is also the possibility of amendments that violate self-limiting clauses in their formulation (e.g., section 6 of the 20th Amendment, "This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission."), but this is again a theoretical question.

But, provided you accept judicial review, there are clearly situations where the Supreme Court would be justified in striking down an amendment as illegal.
 
This has one very specific exception I was referring to, which is explicitly spelled out in Article V,


The first clause of that sentence is obviously no longer valid, but direct your attention to the second clause: no amendment that will change the equal distribution of Senators may be made without the consent of each and every state so affected (that is, all of them). Therefore, any amendment that would change the composition of the Senate by making different states have different numbers of Senators would either have to explicitly repeal this clause or be unanimously adopted. If either of those were not the case, then the amendment would itself be unconstitutional.


Untrue. Provided that you accept the principle of judicial review at all, then the Supreme Court clearly has the ability to reject amendments that are passed in violation of Article V's statements on how to amend the Constitution, because such amendments themselves violate the Constitution. For example, if an amendment was added after a national popular referendum, without a prior amendment adding that to Article V as a method of ratification, then it would be an ipso facto invalid amendment, because to amend the Constitution you must have approval of 2/3rds of Congress or have 2/3rds of the states request a convention, then have 3/4ths of the states approve the amendment, not a national popular referendum.

There have been no amendments that have actually violated this provision, so it is of course theoretical. But if you accept judicial review at all, then this is a clear power of the courts.


If the Supreme Court struck down the 21st Amendment they would clearly be going mad, because that was passed in perfect accordance with legal procedures. I was referring to amendments that either sought to alter Senate distribution without either the consent of all the states or removing the protection clause first, none of which have been proposed, or to amendments that were passed aside from Article V's procedures, again none of which have passed. There is also the possibility of amendments that violate self-limiting clauses in their formulation (e.g., section 6 of the 20th Amendment, "This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission."), but this is again a theoretical question.

But, provided you accept judicial review, there are clearly situations where the Supreme Court would be justified in striking down an amendment as illegal.

Equal Senate suffrage does not mean equal Senate distribution. And yes that section has been violated, during Reconstruction no former Confederate State voluntarily of its own free will agreed to have its Senate (or any other) representation taken from it. And since it was (and is) the law and policy of the Federal government that secession does not exist and never has, those states, from the view of the Constitution never left the Union, and therefore the stripping of their Senate suffrage was a violation of the Constitution. But the thing is- who was going to stop it? The Constitution is only as strong as the person who is using it to stop an unconstitutional act. As President Andrew Jackson would tell you.
 

jahenders

Banned
That's certainly not the common definition of sodomy. Most dictionaries define it along the lines of Webster's, "anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal."

Some lawyers may define it differently, but I would tend to expect most pundits to use a more common definition.

It's horrific that sodomy is still a legal term. I have to admit, I'm amused by these Republican pundits who refer to gay sex as sodomy, without realizing the full definition.
Sexual pleasure + no pregnancy = sodomy.
I'm pretty sure most figures in the Christian Right fit that definition of sodomy.
 
That's certainly not the common definition of sodomy. Most dictionaries define it along the lines of Webster's, "anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal."

Some lawyers may define it differently, but I would tend to expect most pundits to use a more common definition.

"Some lawyers" is actually the entire judicial system. That's why the word sodomy is STILL used as the name of a crime- for forceable sodomy being anal or oral activity during rape (a separate crime from rape itself), and for "copulation with an animal" as your dictionary states (which is itself not always a crime in all jurisdictions, and sadly enough there have people who get away with sodomy/beastality because their defense is "well, the raccoon was dead" and there is no crime against having sex with a dead animal)
 
Top