Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!news.heimat.gr.jp!taurus!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.tiscali.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: Kevin Gowen <kgowenNOSPAM@myfastmail.com>
Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan
Subject: Re: Initial impressions from the Japanese premier of Fahrenheit 9/11
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:26:02 -0400
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <2pc4ibFirknhU8@uni-berlin.de>
References: <2oqf3jFd9vt9U6@uni-berlin.de>   <luqii05cqflg0v5g61gipij6o8ue8f3u9d@4ax.com> <4129F2FF.B82967DE@yahoo.co.jp> <cgcs4g$ot9$7@news.Stanford.EDU> <4129FD3E.160E8BB@yahoo.co.jp> <cge00p$nls$2@news.Stanford.EDU> <6i3li059pbntf97b3hd8ptjc7m1u7dtnpd@4ax.com> <412B0FC7.EE4155C@yahoo.co.jp> <cgff5l$sqj$1@news.Stanford.EDU> <412B4843.5E450997@yahoo.co.jp> <cggkmj$p32$1@news.Stanford.EDU> <412C6355.AEC0D3B3@yahoo.co.jp> <cgi495$qcr$4@news.Stanford.EDU> <412CD3A8.6D9ADE87@yahoo.co.jp> <cgj8a3$mor$1@news.Stanford.EDU> <412D5398.B7359970@yahoo.co.jp> <2p61hjFgunrvU6@uni-berlin.de> <412DED7F.24D3339D@yahoo.co.jp> <2p78pjFh6ku5U2@uni-berlin.de> <412F4092.44120190@yahoo.co.jp> <2pabfkFill0hU1@uni-berlin.de> <413017FD.E393651C@yahoo.co.jp> <2pbejhFirknhU5@uni-berlin.de> <413086B5.CB85308@yahoo.co.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de KxXDcPvmdH9CfMDYwR6QhQer4OBTwmnWxdmIrgzsIi+2+UDAii
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <413086B5.CB85308@yahoo.co.jp>
Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.life.in-japan:17639

Eric Takabayashi wrote:

> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> 
> 
>>The Supreme Court found income tax to be unconstitutional. When that
>>happens, Congress has two choices: change the law or change the
>>Constitution. So, the 16th Amendment was added.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Would anything added to or taken away from the Constitution through due process,
> such as restrictions on free speech, or support for gay marriage, also thus be
> "constitutional" by definition?

If it is in the Constitution, it is constitutional. I think the issue of
marriage is a state issue, which means that a state can define marriage
any way it wants but I don't think a state should be required to
recognize marriages from other states that define it differently.

Of course, the federal government can also define marriage for the
purposes of tax penalties/rebates/credits, Social Security entitlements,
etc. This happens now with immigration law, for example. Some countries
permit polygamous marriages, but the federal government is not going to
allow a citizen/alien to bring over each of his four wives with a stack
of I-130 forms.

- Kevin