By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Some Americans Calling for Death of Woman Who Urinated on Flag

bigtakilla on 19 July 2017
Final-Fan said:
bigtakilla said:

It's not a law that a black man can't marry a white woman.

Essentially it's like saying the neighbor who is burning crosses shouting the N bomb with a white hood is perfectly acceptable. It's in his constitutional rights.

It may be his legal right of expression, but hardly acceptable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924

Virginia's anti-miscegenation law was overturned as unconstitutional in 1967 but was not formally repealed by the legislature until 1975. 

Is it your position that a police officer would have been within his rights to arrest a black man and his white wife in 1973 for getting married even though that law was ruled unconstitutional six years earlier?  This is exactly analogous to the idea that a police officer is within his rights to arrest someone for flag-burning today. 

Difference, those laws were repealed, not still laws and enforced. 

Now, essentially if you're asking if I think people were very accepting of interracial weddings in 1924, I'd say no. Hell, even in 1973, I'm not sure how accepted interracial marriage was, but enough to get the law repealed. My beliefs have nothing to do with it.



Around the Network
bigtakilla on 19 July 2017
SpokenTruth said:
bigtakilla said:

But it still happens, that's the point.

And it's unconstitutional.  That's the infinity bigger point.

Doesn't change anything, this is a point no one's arguing as well as it seems is mine. 

 



Final-Fan on 19 July 2017
bigtakilla said:
Final-Fan said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924

Virginia's anti-miscegenation law was overturned as unconstitutional in 1967 but was not formally repealed by the legislature until 1975. 

Is it your position that a police officer would have been within his rights to arrest a black man and his white wife in 1973 for getting married even though that law was ruled unconstitutional six years earlier?  This is exactly analogous to the idea that a police officer is within his rights to arrest someone for flag-burning today. 

Difference, those laws were repealed, not still laws and enforced. 

Now, essentially if you're asking if I think people were very accepting of interracial weddings in 1924, I'd say no. Hell, even in 1973, I'm not sure how accepted interracial marriage was, but enough to get the law repealed. My beliefs have nothing to do with it.

I am not convinced that you understood my original post.  Allow me to rephrase.  In 1967, that law was ruled unconstitutional.  In 1975, it was repealed.  So, during the time in between 1967 and 1975, taking 1973 as a hypothetical example, do you think it would have been legally fine for the police to arrest blacks and whites for marrying each other?  Or would those officers have been breaking the law by wrongfully arresting those who were breaking no valid law? 

This is an exactly similar situation to the flag-burning thing.  The law has already been ruled unconstitutional; the law has not yet been repealed; police are arresting people for breaking an invalid law. 

Do you agree that this situation with anti-flag-desecration laws is in these key ways the same as the anti-miscegenation laws were in between the time they were ruled unconstitutional and the time they were repealed?  If not, why not? 

And, as SpokenTruth pointed out, what about all the other laws (literally hundreds if not thousands) that have been ruled unconstitutional, yet have not been repealed? 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

bigtakilla on 20 July 2017
SpokenTruth said:
bigtakilla said:

Doesn't change anything, this is a point no one's arguing as well as it seems is mine. 

 

No one is arguing for your point because it's irrelevant. 

By the way, there are literally thousands of laws still on the books that have been ruled unconstitional.  Repeals take time and cost money.  Why bother going through all that when the Supreme Court effectively nullified it for you anyway?

If you think people getting arrested is irrelevant, sure, and if you think being compensated makes it okay, then I say you don't really know what freedom is.