1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 30, 2022, 04:30:37 AM »

Yes, the definition of unilateral was posted already. It means that if the blue and red states don't like each other's laws and would rather govern themselves, secession is possible.

How do you get that from this:

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature..."

Essentially, they (Texas) could not unilaterally (may NOT take the authorized action to secede without the consent, approval, vote, or joinder of any other person, such as Owners, mortgagees, and the Association (The US Governmment).

It's pretty clear. What laws or rulings are you looking at that say the SCOTUS' interpretation of the Constitution was wrong?

As bad as the constiutional argument was to get there in that case, the feeling Justices wanted to express about secession had at least a little logic.

They are saying that single state could not do it alone. If the Nortern states decided that they did not want to tolerate slavery in the Union they could have decided with the Southern states to split apart in secession. There was a secessionist solution there. They could have mutually split apart from each other if they wanted to, without resorting to violence.

You were simply incorrect about it being impossible to leave and about it necessitating war. If the states do not like each other's laws they are free to split up, even by the opinion of that court.

As an alternate to secession, it was also possible for the states to simply decide that slavery was prohibited with the proper process of a Constitutional amendment and could have simply accepted the loss with sportsmanship and understanding if the country was not ready for it. Waiting for a super majority of states to agree on slavery would have solved the issue. A number of other countries largely came to reject slavery, so there is no excuse for calling for violence or workarounds when you are unable to pass a law in your own. Britain was able to pass legislation properly and end slavery without bloodshed. France managed to do it. Spain did it. Germany did it. All did it by their established and accepted process of abridging their national laws.

In this case when you are told that you need a Constitutional amendment for abortion and to follow the rules the liberal response is "Noooo" and an insistance that everyone must accept an unwritten law about abortion. It is pretty sad that you can't seem to accept rules and the proper process of amending the Constitution to your liking.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 30, 2022, 03:32:49 AM »

Yes, the definition of unilateral was posted already. It means that if the blue and red states don't like each other's laws and would rather govern themselves, secession is possible.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 30, 2022, 12:37:16 AM »

Interesting interpretation of constitutional law you're making. I'll stick with lawyers making the actual interpretation, not you.

In the meantime, according to lawyers, you are wrong:

1.1 The distinction between a (mere) justification and having a claim-right
We begin with a distinction between unilateral and consensual secession. The former is secession without the consent of the state from which a portion of territory is taken by the seceding group or without constitutional sanction.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/secession/

From Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII), Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law re Texas v White 1869:

Conclusion
In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit. The Court held that Texas had remained a state, despite joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision. The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/74us700

Wow. You did not even read your own posted text you pasted from "the lawyers" -

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union"

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 29, 2022, 11:56:49 PM »

Wrong, not according to me. According to the SCOTUS.

If you have an issue with it, put forth a case to the SCOTUS to reverse Texas v White. Or, take the issue to the ICJ and see if they will back you up.

In the meantime, the SCOTUS ruling on Texas v White interprets that State succession is forbidden by the constitution, whether you like it or not. Simple as that.

You have been wrong in so many ways, and you are fundamentally wrong on this too. The ruling did not determine that secession is forbidden. It ruled that unilateral secession is forbidden.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/

White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) - States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the United States, so the Confederate states during the Civil War always remained part of the nation.

Even according to this botched ruling that you cannot seem to defend the validity of if your life depended on it, secession is not forbidden.

Your original argument was that states should not have differing laws because it wasn't like the EU to where states could leave. You are incorrect. According to the ruling you are unable to defend it is possible for secession to occur. The majority states do have an option if they don't like that some states have different laws that they don't like; they could secede, or try to force those states to secede, or potentially accept their secession.



So, you're wrong. You have been wrong on every level, and are wrong about what you think this ruling determined.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 29, 2022, 04:35:32 AM »

So again, the issue has not been determined.

Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there. Your opinion doesn't matter. Just like my opinion doesn't currently matter against the SCOTUS recent ruling. Until such point I put forward a case to challenge that decision and the SCOTUS rules in my favor.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.

Simply wrong. The courts of a country do not "rule" on the topic of secession. If a territory of Algeria is feeling persecuted and wants to form its own country because of irreconcilable differences it is not for the persecutors to decide. That falls into an outside structure such as International Law. When you have a dispute with someone you appeal to an outside source or structure, not the person you are having a dispute with. In secession the US Colonies originally appealed to outside principles of Natural Law and the Law of Nations, under principles which are still used and cited by territories who have seceded from their countries.

In International Law the topic of secession is still a very much debated and controversial subject and is nowhere near settled:

E-International Relations - Is There a Right to Secession in International Law?

...

Conclusion

The principle of self-determination, particularly the right to remedial secession, is still a much-debated topic in international law. Its development from a colonial to post-colonial doctrine has been highly controversial for many states, scholars and international lawyers alike. The lack of recent ICJ opinion and judgement on the matter has only served to add further confusion to the principle, and there is a pressing need for the Court to resolve this before its ambiguous interpretation impacts further on the international legal system.

According to you, if a country doesn't want its territories to secede, that's the end of the story and there is no need for any form of outside law to determine that. This would be a ridiculous position to hold and is clearly and blatantly wrong.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 28, 2022, 11:53:39 PM »

None of this changes the fact that Texas v White still stands as succession is unconstitutional therefore forbidden. Same for RvW. So until those rulings are changed, States have the right to decide their abortion laws & States are forbidden from the succession.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.

Actually, no. When the US Colonies seceded from Great Britain the Declaration of Independence derived its power of one political body to secede from another from Natural Law and the Law of Nations. It didn't matter what the courts of Great Britain said. They did not need to "take it up with the courts". What the British courts said in that case was irrelevant, as the Colonies no longer recognized the authority of Great Britain.

It was not an explicit declaration of war, but a declaration that the authority would no longer be recognized and that they had a right to self govern. The Declaration of Independence has been widely held as legitimate, and exists in a special extra-legal category which applied beyond the laws of any country.

So again, the issue has not been determined. The United States broke away from Great Britain, which has been seen as a natural right, and it simply did not matter what British judges had to say about it.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 28, 2022, 08:05:06 PM »

Here is liberal justice hero Ruth Bader Ginsburg explaining that she thought justices were legislating on the bench with the Roe vs. Wade ruling -

The fact remains that the SCOTUS ruled that succession was (is) forbidden and that is the current law of the land. You said it wasn't. But it is.

Incorrect. SCOTUS rulings are not laws. Rulings that do attempt act as new laws can be overturned as unconstitutional. SCOTUS merely acts to clarify an existing law. This is why Roe vs. Wade was thrown out. Justices were creating legislation from the bench. You have made no effort to show that the 1869 Texas v. White ruling is constitutional, or that there was an existing law on this at all.

You know that there was not an existing regulation. This is the exact sort of behavior this Supreme Court is ruling against.

Asking whether secession is legal is also a nonsensical question. When one political body secedes from another, the seceding body is rejecting the authority of the first. All laws in effect in the original nation are no longer applicable to the seceding nation, since it is no longer part of that original nation. This is what occurred when the United States peacefully seceded from Great Britain. It did not matter if it was legal in the British system of government for the US to do it or not. It was then the British government who acted as aggressors against the United States for walking away. The British government could have opted to let them go peacefully, but did not.

You are doing the equivalent of appealing to a British judge ruling that the US could not secede from Britain. It could and did, and that ruling would be irrelevant to the US. The British chose to become the aggressors. They could have simply chosen to let them leave, or perhaps have tried harder to negotiate their grievances before it got to that point. The US did make a good faith effort to negotiate with Britain at the time but were rebuffed on multiple occasions, leading to eventual secession.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 28, 2022, 08:34:07 AM »

The Constitution doesn't say anything about leaving. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue of secession. It neither gives states the right to secede nor denies it. Where do these "rules" come from then? The Constitution is silent on the issue.

Doesn’t matter.

Actually, it kind of does. The current Supreme Court just made a determination that if it's not spelled out in the Constitution then it can be ruled unconstitutional. This is why you were worried about the reversal of other rulings based on loose concepts being ruled unconstitutional.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/supreme-court-overturned-roe-v-wade-what-s-next-abortion-n1296339



By this standard a lot of those old creative interpretations based on vague concepts are unconstitutional.

The 1869 Texas v. White ruling incredulously took the definition from the Articles of the Confederation declaring its union to be "perpetual" and also took the "more perfect union" phrase from the US Constitution to creatively and illogically declared that a state can't ever leave the US. Clearly reprehensible.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 28, 2022, 08:02:59 AM »

According to the Medium article posted the 1869 Supreme Court relied on the Articles of the Confederation in its constitutional argument, which is curious if true.

https://medium.com/politicoid/constitutionality-of-secession-19ce11c3b671

The Supreme Court opinion relied on the supposed perpetual nature of the union. Whence did they obtain this idea? The Articles of Confederation. Indeed, the formal name of this document is “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.”

The perpetual nature of the union, under the Articles of Confederation, is addressed in section XIII in the following phrase: “And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual…” (Page on yale.edu). The ruling also made use of the preamble of the Constitution, something rarely done. But I guess all bets are off, when you are relying on the Articles of Confederation to support your constitutional argument. Specifically, the ruling made use of the fact that the Constitution was an attempt to “form a more perfect union” (Preamble).

Utilizing on these two ideas, Supreme Court Justice Chase asked “What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?” (LII / Legal Information Institute) One question that must be asked is “why must a perpetual union be inherently the most perfect kind of union?”

It doesn't really sound like that ruling was thought through. It defined the union from the Articles of Confederation as "perpetual" and then takes the "more perfect union" statement in the US Constitution to declare that it was a binding agreement that would last forever.

This site characterizes it in the same way:

https://encyclopedia.federalism.org/index.php/Texas_v._White_(1869)

The case of Texas v. White (1869) is particularly important because in it the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, gave its judgment on the large issue that the Civil War had raised: could a state lawfully secede from the union? The Court sided with the victors in the war; secession, it held, was not constitutionally permissible. The Court appealed to the provision in the Articles of Confederation declaring the union to be “perpetual,” and to the preamble of the Constitution “ordaining” a “more perfect union.” “It is difficult,” Chase remarked, “to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?” Chase concluded, “The Constitution in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states.”

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 28, 2022, 07:25:11 AM »

Yeah, the Supreme Court has made invalid interpretations in the past and its past rulings are regularly overruled. One was just overruled a few days ago.

When Texas left the Union it was stripped of its representation as a State:

https://tnm.me/news/political/texas-vs-white-why-the-supreme-court-is-dead-wrong-on-texas-independence/

"This U.S. Supreme Court decision is full of contradictions. The most obvious of these is the contention that Texas never ceased to be a state, yet, the people of Texas were denied representation as a state until they agreed to certain “reconstruction” acts of the U.S. Congress."

A state denied representation and rights of a state as guaranteed by the Constitution, how does that work? If you think the Civil War decided the issue and not the Constitution, as you have argued previously, then by all intents Texas was not a State.

On what basis exactly, does Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase say that the states couldn't leave?

The Constitution doesn't say anything about leaving. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue of secession. It neither gives states the right to secede nor denies it. Where do these "rules" come from then? The Constitution is silent on the issue.

The tenth amendment gives powers not determined in the Constitution to the states to decide on their own:

https://medium.com/politicoid/constitutionality-of-secession-19ce11c3b671

How does another nation become a state in the union? Congress must vote to allow the nation to become a state. This is clearly written in ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 1 (Article IV). However, there is nothing in the constitution about how a state can go about leaving the union. Neither is there anything in the constitution saying that a state cannot leave the union. Therefore, as per the tenth amendment, the federal government has no authority on the matter, and it is the decision is left to each individual state. To demand that the states lack the power to seceded is to ignore the tenth amendment itself

What is the rebuttal to this? The Confederate states used the same argument:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/legal-and-political-magazines/tenth-amendment

The Confederate states did not consider secession an act of rebellion. In fact, they argued that leaving the United States was well within the states’ legal powers under the Constitution. Jefferson Davis (1808–1889) of Virginia was elected president of the Confederacy. He and other Confederate leaders argued that the states had voluntarily entered the Union when they ratified the Constitution; therefore, it was logical that any state could voluntarily leave it.

Davis also used the Tenth Amendment as a justification for secession. Since the Constitution did not give the federal government any powers to regulate secession (in fact, the Constitution made no mention of secession whatsoever), the Tenth Amendment must grant the power of secession to the states.

There has to be something more coherent than "nah-uh" and mumblings about how a perfect union is forever here.

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 28, 2022, 05:51:08 AM »

They weren't kicked out. They left. It says right here on this "Today in History" Library of Congress page:

https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/november-06/

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 28, 2022, 05:34:08 AM »

You keep acting as if South Carolina wasn't part of the USA.

It wasn't. They weren't readmitted into the Union until July 9, 1868.



United States = the Union

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: FL GOP are homophobic crybabies

« on: June 28, 2022, 05:05:47 AM »

It was projection all along:

https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsession-with-transgender-pornography/

Or the democrats living in red areas are hypersexualized deviants.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 28, 2022, 02:36:00 AM »

The link clearly says that Lincoln attempted to send hundreds of troops via ship into South Carolina on January 9, 1861. This is less than a month after South Carolina peacefully left the Union.



So a State indicated that they were leaving, and then was met with Lincoln trying to send hundreds of troops into their State. Lincoln was warned that attempting to send further ships would be seen as an act of aggression. Lincoln decided to do so anyway. It doesn't matter if the ships were armed or not. The Chinese military can't send ships into the harbor of any country and expect it to be fine, especially if they kept doing it after being warned not to do so.

As you admitted the constitution doesn’t recognize self-declared independence as legal, so it was still US territory.

The Constitution doesn't say anything at all about secession or the power to leave.

The Constitution does say this though:

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It says that if it's not in the Constitution it's up for the States to decide themselves. The tenth amendment was ratified in 1791 and is the source of the broad and expansive powers of the States.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 28, 2022, 02:17:04 AM »

It wasn't a US port anymore. South Carolina had already given their notice that they were leaving the Union peacefully, yet we can see below that at least at one point Lincoln attempted to send hundreds of troops via ship into South Carolina. When a foreign government sends troops into your country uninvited it's usually seen as an act of war.

In January of that year the Union was fired upon when trying to send a military vessel into the harbor:

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-sumter

"A standoff ensued until January 9, 1861, when a ship called the Star of the West arrived in Charleston with over 200 U.S. troops and supplies intended for Fort Sumter. South Carolina militia batteries fired upon the vessel as it neared Charleston Harbor, forcing it to turn back to sea."

Lincoln later announced he was sending ships anyway, even though he was already fired upon, and was specifically warned by South Carolina that it would be an act of aggression:

"Lincoln announced his intention to send three unarmed ships to relieve Fort Sumter. Having already declared that any attempt to resupply the fort would be seen as an act of aggression, South Carolina militia forces soon scrambled to respond."

From what stack had posted, the first shot from the Confederates had exploded in the air. It's possible that this was ineptitude, but this could have been interpreted as a warning shot to go away. Lincoln was clearly the aggressor in this situation.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 28, 2022, 01:42:01 AM »

So the bottom line is that you would be ok with some States making interracial marriage illegal if SCOTUS says it's not a constitutional right?

Actually I wouldn't. But I would accept that different cultures have the right to govern themselves and make their own laws. The United States does not go around invading countries because of their marriage laws.

The Constitution doesn't bring it up specifically. But I'm pretty sure it's been "explored", mostly between 1861 through 1865.

According to this Georgia was readmitted into the Union in 1870, a full five years after the Civil War. How is that possible if it was impossible to leave?

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/georgia-civil-war-108886



Seems to say that it was established that it was possible to leave.

However, it's not so clear that there had to be murder involved.

"George Sholter James, the commander of the mortar battery that fired the first shot of the American Civil War, was born in Laurens County, South Carolina in 1829. He was the second son of a prominent attorney and merchant and spent most of his young life in Columbia, the state capital. At the age of seventeen, James left his college studies for the adventure of fighting in the Mexican-American War."
https://www.nps.gov/people/george-s-james.htm

Looks like the South, not the North, started the killing.

That occurred when the Union sent a military supply vessel into their harbor.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/fort-sumter

On April 4, Lincoln informs southern delegates that he intends to attempt to resupply Fort Sumter, as its garrison is now critically in need. To South Carolinians, any attempt to reinforce Sumter means war. “Now the issue of battle is to be forced upon us,” declared the Charleston Mercury. “We will meet the invader, and the God of Battles must decide the issue between the hostile hirelings of Abolition hate and Northern tyranny.”

Read your link carefully:

"Captain George S. James ordered his battery to fire a 10-inch mortar shell, which soared over the harbor and exploded over Fort Sumter, announcing the start of the war."

It doesn't even say that it killed anyone or damaged any property. The first shot shell flew over the entire harbor and exploded in the air. It was a warning shot due to the entrance of the vessel. A shell that explodes in the air and which doesn't actually kill anyone is hardly a start of the "killing".

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 28, 2022, 12:15:46 AM »

So you're saying that there needs to be an amendment for every right that isn't specifically named in the constitution?

Correct. The Constitution originally just gave men the right to vote. There was a successful Constitutional amendment for the right for women to vote, for which a super majority of States agreed. By this standard there should be something specific in the Constitution about abortion if you are insisting on the national right to abortion. If a super majority of the States can't agree on it then it is a subject that is still too controversial for a national blanket law.

Obviously, this topic is too controversial for such an amendment. The Constitution is clear: It is given to the States to decide. The same standard is given to all other "rights".

The argument you are making is that you know that there is an agreed upon procedure in place, but you simply don't care. This is a fault on your part.

I'm not sure why you bring up the EU. If a nation state doesn't want to play under EU rules, they can leave whenever they want. I.e., Brexit.

If a US State doesn't want to play under US Fed rules, they can't leave. Not at least without having to go to war over it. I.e., US Civil War.

Apples & Oranges

Actually the Constitution doesn't mention what happens when a State wants to leave the Constitution at all. Some say the lack of a procedure means that it is impossible to leave, but that has not been fully explored. The Constitution doesn't bring it up at all.

But the Constitution definitely does not say that if a State leaves the Constitution that people must start killing each other. That would clearly be a naked act of aggression, and the North was probably guilty of that when they started killing people for wanting to break away from the Constitution.

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 27, 2022, 11:01:50 PM »

Why have a United States? I mean all men are created equal, right? Should it be a State's right to allow slavery? Should it be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal? Because that's what the people want?

This is NOT what you want to do, however. You don't want a proper amendment to the Constitution. You have certain rights which you are demanding and want to force it onto people without going through the proper procedure.

Is what you’re saying that it should be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal in the absence of a specific amendment protecting interracial marriage? Thereby potentially resulting in some States making interracial marriage illegal an punishable? And that’s ok with you?

The things you are bringing up are simply no longer applicable. Many years ago people did not like interracial marriage because it was an unknown, like sodomy, and thought that it would lead to the degradation of society. This is no longer the case, and now interracial marriage is widely supported by over 90% of the population.

Going by your fantasy, if the Supreme Court determined that it was one of those rulings that was improperly made, and several States then made interracial marriage illegal, which is extremely doubtful at this point, the States could simply band together simply make a proper Constitutional amendment on that subject. If by another stretch of fantasy they could not get a 3/4ths majority then it is not accepted well enough and society has not progressed enough that it should be a national blanket rule.

If the States failed to get the required agreement they would then treat each other like countries in the EU who have objectionable laws to each other: Peacefully, diplomatically, and under mutual understanding that they are part of a Constitution or Charter with an understood and agreed upon method for amendment.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 27, 2022, 09:09:11 PM »

Why have a United States? I mean all men are created equal, right? Should it be a State's right to allow slavery? Should it be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal? Because that's what the people want?

In the case of slavery, the states were able to garner the 3/4th requirement and amended the US Constitution in 1865:

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xiii



This is NOT what you want to do, however. You don't want a proper amendment to the Constitution. You have certain rights which you are demanding and want to force it onto people without going through the proper procedure.

This is like demanding the moderators of this website to enforce a specific rule based on a vague word you found about 'liberty', imagining and demanding the 'liberties' you should have, even though you know full well that the rules are created specifically. You need go through the proper process to get that amended.

In 1920 there was another landmark amendment, Women's Right to Vote:



Again, this went through the proper procedure and wasn't implicitly granted through vague words about liberty and freedom.

The Constitution is very specific and landmark rights are not granted on singular words like "liberty" or "freedom" or "privacy", which can mean almost anything. So tell us why you are refusing a proper Constitutional amendment.

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion

« on: June 27, 2022, 05:00:37 PM »

Incorrect. Party affiliation has shifted in recent months. Washington Post issued a warning just today:

Would you like to see a further swing to the right and have SCOTUS overturn: Griswold v. Connecticut (right to access contraceptive), Lawrence v. Texas (states could not outlaw consensual gay sex) Obergefell v. Hodges (established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage), and Loving v. Virginia (protects the right to interracial marriage)

They’re all predicated on the 14th amendment just like RvW. And Thomas seems to want to venture down that path, except for Love v Virginia, of course.

I would like to see it discussed in light of the RvW precedent, sure. It is possible that the Constitution was never intended to decide that, and should be a topic left to the states. Each state has its own culture, as different as a country, and each have populations as large as European countries. I don't see why a state should be forced to recognize or reject anyone's marriage. A state might want to recognize polygamous marriages like some countries do. Another state might reject those marriages. I don't see why they should be prohibited from doing that if it's what its people really want. The Constitution was originally intended as a loose unifying framework for these massive states, who already had their own laws. The bulk of health laws were always given to the states.

If your argument is... "But but but my state might make my sodomy illegal!!!", your state can already make a lot of the things you do illegal. But they generally don't. Anti-sodomy laws were a thing of the past due to unknowns and perceived societal harm. But there is data on that now, and is unlikely to regain societal support. Polygamy is currently thought to harm society and is illegal, also due to perceived unknowns. If there was enough polygamist support, a patchwork of states might start to legalize polygamy. A blanked ban on a national level would prevent that development and acceptance from naturally occurring.

If the European Union went into different countries and started enacting specific health and wellness laws at their own determination and pointed at a vague word in the EU Constitution like "liberty"  as their justification that would be a no-go, obviously. This is the current situation with the rulings you referenced. It is unjustifiable to take a vague word and use it to enact specific laws. The people must decide for themselves if they want their states to codify it, or if they want to rally their states together and meet the 3/4ths requirements to codify it into the US Constitution.

There is already a process to amend the Constitution, but you want to ignore that for some reason and rely on an extremely vague word.