Player FM 앱으로 오프라인으로 전환하세요!
UCSD Elizabeth Ranz interviewed Mark Henkel -1- May 2009
Manage episode 344652085 series 2139220
National Polygamy Advocate ™ Mark Henkel was interviewed by Elizabeth Ranz for UCSD, on May 28, 2009, Part 1, for an essay she was writing, "Polygamy in Contradistinction to Gay Marriage." The student writer from University of California San Diego was seeking to learn how and why polygamy was not having the same level of political popularity as same sex marriage. In this Part 1 segment of the positive, educational interview, in order to build a foundation for his set of comprehensive answers to that main question, Mark Henkel opened by detailing the US Supreme Court's decision of Reynolds V. United States in 1878. He established four background points under which he would make his arguments. Anti-polygamy laws are unconstitutional in the States under the Tenth Amendment. The Reynolds case was only affirming an 1862 law where the federal government is only allowed authority under the "jurisdictional management" clause for non-State territories (Article 4, Section, 3, Paragraph 2). Would-be conservatives fall into hypocrisy to rely on that case under which "those 1878 liberal activist judges" concocted a nationwide precedent using a law that was limited only to non-State territories. For this Part 1 segment, Mark Henkel concluded his opening foundation, "The Reynolds case can not survive under a State's challenge to it. If a State was to allow polygamy, the federal anti-polygamy case of Reynolds would absolutely crumble in a heartbeat." The remaining parts of this interview will be aired in the next coming episodes of this podcast.
320 에피소드
Manage episode 344652085 series 2139220
National Polygamy Advocate ™ Mark Henkel was interviewed by Elizabeth Ranz for UCSD, on May 28, 2009, Part 1, for an essay she was writing, "Polygamy in Contradistinction to Gay Marriage." The student writer from University of California San Diego was seeking to learn how and why polygamy was not having the same level of political popularity as same sex marriage. In this Part 1 segment of the positive, educational interview, in order to build a foundation for his set of comprehensive answers to that main question, Mark Henkel opened by detailing the US Supreme Court's decision of Reynolds V. United States in 1878. He established four background points under which he would make his arguments. Anti-polygamy laws are unconstitutional in the States under the Tenth Amendment. The Reynolds case was only affirming an 1862 law where the federal government is only allowed authority under the "jurisdictional management" clause for non-State territories (Article 4, Section, 3, Paragraph 2). Would-be conservatives fall into hypocrisy to rely on that case under which "those 1878 liberal activist judges" concocted a nationwide precedent using a law that was limited only to non-State territories. For this Part 1 segment, Mark Henkel concluded his opening foundation, "The Reynolds case can not survive under a State's challenge to it. If a State was to allow polygamy, the federal anti-polygamy case of Reynolds would absolutely crumble in a heartbeat." The remaining parts of this interview will be aired in the next coming episodes of this podcast.
320 에피소드
모든 에피소드
×플레이어 FM에 오신것을 환영합니다!
플레이어 FM은 웹에서 고품질 팟캐스트를 검색하여 지금 바로 즐길 수 있도록 합니다. 최고의 팟캐스트 앱이며 Android, iPhone 및 웹에서도 작동합니다. 장치 간 구독 동기화를 위해 가입하세요.