Can Congress pass a law, making polygamy a federal crime and enforce such a law against members of the Mormon?
Topic: Can Congress pass a law, making polygamy a federal crime and enforce such a law against members of the Mormon?
June 26, 2019 / By Annabella Question:
Reynolds v. U.S
98 U.S 145 (1875)
What is the Holding?
I did read my Homework, just need to make sure. Am thinking Yes, but then.
This is a court case from 1875, and thats what the court question themselves. This is not present time
Best Answers: Can Congress pass a law, making polygamy a federal crime and enforce such a law against members of the Mormon?
Winston | 7 days ago
The Supreme Court held that Congress had that power.
Personally I think it was just an early example of judges deciding that they had the right to interpret the laws in a "progressive" manner, namely in any way they saw fit to achieve the ends they wanted to achieve. This mistaken notion has been used repeatedly when judges decided they knew better than the Founding Fathers, and were impatient with the Constitutional process, which they believe slowed the "evolution" to a more just and fair society.
Congress does have the right to pass any law which promotes the common welfare. It was argued that polygamy is harmful to women and children and therefore the common welfare could be promoted if polygamy was outlawed. In that same theory it could be argued that same-sex marriage is harmful to the common welfare and should be outlawed. Judges today believe that there is no evidence that same-sex marriage is harmful. They might also believe that polygamy is not harmful, but an individual choice, but instead of repealing the laws against polygamy they favor just ignoring them.
👍 182 | 👎 7
Did you like the answer? Can Congress pass a law, making polygamy a federal crime and enforce such a law against members of the Mormon?
Share with your friends
Originally Answered: If Congress abolished the Federal Reserve?
All of the above. IT will take a couple of decades to fix it, once started. The system will have to be changed gradually.
It is pure myth that there is not enough gold and silver in the world.
Speaking of gold and silver, did you read the essay written by Alan Greenspan about gold (1967 I believe).
He knew way back then that money backed in gold was the only way to protect economic freedom. It almost seems surreal that he became a part of the system that is the polar opposite of "sound money".
The article is embedded in this page:
The whole article is worth the time to read. I'll quote the last 2 paragraphs here:
"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."
- Alan Greenspan, "Gold and Economic Freedom", 1967
It "kinda" makes Greenspan sound like one of those "conspiracy kooks", doesn't it?
Not Constitutionally. The federal anti-polygamy laws were both ex post facto laws and bills of attainder.
However, Jesus can manage his own affairs; currently he does not allow polygamy, so for those of us who try to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, that's enough.
👍 70 | 👎 0
Well, Congress could pass such a law, but it would likely be help unconstitutional by the courts because the Federal government is only allowed very specific powers under the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution since marriage is reserved as a power left to the states.
Before Utah could be admitted to the union in 1896, they had to put as a part of the Utah Constitution a part that prohibited polygamy.
People who belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) are prohibited from plural marriage and can be excommunicated for practicing it.
Plural marriage is still against the law in Utah. The statute is still on the books, but the Attorney General said that he is not going to enforce the law because it is a "personal choice". There may be other laws on the books that are not enforced either such as fornication and adultery. Also, sodomy used to be against the law and with Lawrence v Texas, the law was held to be unconstitutional because of a person's privacy rights. If gays have a privacy right, so should people who practice plural marriage.
So if Congress could pass a law, and if it passed scrutiny of the 10th Amendment, then it would also have to pass scrutiny of a person's right to privacy.
The people who practice plural marriage may call themselves "Mormons", but they can't be members of the largest brach of Mormonism (LDS).
The LDS Church hasn't practiced plural marriage for over a hundred years.
👍 64 | 👎 -7
That's what they did with the Edmunds Tucker act. A husband could be encarcerated if he so much as sent money to a former wife.
👍 58 | 👎 -14
When do people understand? Mormon polygamy is over for more than a hundred years. Other groups which still practice polygamy do not belong to the lds church. And any law against them would not change anything. What a useless effort!
👍 52 | 👎 -21
No Mormon has more than one wife. Any who do are excommunicated, and therefor by definition are not Mormons anymore.
This has been so for over one hundred years. Apparently you never got the telegraph...
👍 46 | 👎 -28
Originally Answered: Will Congress pass a budget soon?
Not Congress. It is 100% Harry Reid .. from last year .. from my Senator
Texas Senator John Cornyn weekly newsletter:
Over 1,600 Days Without a Budget
It's been over 1,600 days since the United States Senate, under the leadership of Harry Reid, has passed a budget. Sen. Reid has candidly admitted that the reason he has refused to bring a budget to the floor for a vote is that he doesn't want his Democratic colleagues to have to take a tough vote during an election year.
This shows a disappointing lack of leadership. We've been having elections every other year since the founding of our Republic. A fiscal blueprint for a country over $15 trillion in debt should not be held hostage to politics. But that seems to be the way Sen. Reid would have it. In response, Senate Republicans offered several different budgets on the floor for votes this week. Each was voted down by our Democratic colleagues, including the President’s budget, which failed to receive even one vote.
With the United States borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends and a national debt now larger than our economy, we must put in place a spending plan that prevents the sort of financial crises we're seeing in countries like Greece and Spain. Every family and business in America has to set a budget, and the federal government should be no different. This means making hard choices to solve a tough problem, which is precisely what Texans expect of the people they send to Congress.
Texas Senator John Cornyn: "Uncle Sam Needs to be Put on a Diet"