Article 1 Section 8 Explained

Posted: May 9, 2012 in Guest Posts
Tags: ,

It is my pleasure to share this work with the readers of Less Than Unique.

Special thanks to Josh Tucker for allowing me to post his work on this topic. His explanation of Article 1 Section 8 is very well done. We are lucky to have people like Josh out there working on quality projects like this.

I encourage everyone that reads this to share it with friends.

(Click on images to enlarge)

  1. Jeff says:

    Thank you for sharing this. I wanted to ask your thoughts on gay marriage, free association, and what happened in North Carolina. As I see it, since marriage is a religious issue first and foremost, and a contractual issue as well, the state(s) have no business getting involved. Churches are protected by the U.S. Constitution against being forced to marry anyone they do not wish to marry and gay couples are protected in terms of being able to enter into a contract with one another. Sorry to post this question on this post, but I wanted to get your thoughts.

    • swburke21 says:

      I don’t see any reason that gay people shouldn’t be able to get married just like straight people. Like you said, if a church doesn’t want to hold or recognize the ceremony that is their business. By the principles of natural law there is no wrong being committed and under the Constitution all persons are to be treated equally.

      I see no reason why marriage should even be regulated by government at all. The reason they are involved now is because of income taxes. Since I also don’t think that the income tax should exist I can see no justification for government being involved in marriage.

      But all of that is in regard to the Federal Government. It seems to me that if the people of a state like North Carolina want to ban gay marriage then they can do so through the correct legal procedures. They should also have to amend their state constitution if it says anything about equal treatment of all citizens though. I don’t agree with banning gay marriage at all, but ultimately if it is done at the state level the residents have more options than if a Federal ban were to occur. They can move, they can protest their government more effectively, they can be more influential in elections of policy makers in their state, etc.

      Ultimately, a gay marriage ban is just another example of the tyranny of the majority that our system is supposed to be protective of. It should not ever happen at the Federal level.

      • Jeff says:

        I agree with you on 95%. However, are states allowed to violate the U.S. Constitution with their own? It seems to me that a state should be unable to pass a law that violates free association.

        Again, thanks for posting Article One. More people need to read the darn document. RP2012.

      • swburke21 says:

        Good point, let me ponder it for awhile.

      • swburke21 says:

        So the supremacy clause is something to the effect of, the constitution is “the supreme law of the land”. This seems to infer that state law cannot supercede federal law…..but there is a caveat here.

        If a Federal law is unconstitutional then no state need abide by it.

        My interpretation of this is that if a state declares gay marriage illegal then they are in violation of the US Constitution, even if their state constitution allows it. However, if a Federal law declares gay marriage illegal then states can allow it in spite of Federal law, similar to state and Federal marijuana laws.

        Also, there are certain areas that Federal law is not applicable to. In these circumstances it is up to the courts to determine the legality of state legislation.

        It is possible that gay marriage falls into the cracks and it is up to states to decide.

        I am by no means a constitutional scholar, but that is my interpretation.


  2. Jeff says:

    I couldn’t agree more. The feds need to stay out of this one, as they do with most things. However, if a state does something unconstitutional, it’s up to the courts. So yea, there could be a gray area here. As a general principle, liberty should allow you to marry the person of your choice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s