Attorney General Pam Bondi caves in to Judge Hinkle’s same sex marriage tyranny!

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Imagine how silly you are all going to look in 20 years.

Actually, they all look silly now, particularly this:

"Attorney General Pam Bondi caves in to Judge Hinkle’s same sex marriage tyranny!"

 

[johnwk]

But the fact remains, Ginsburg, in delivering the opinion, never established that under the 14th Amendment the people of America decided to prohibit distinctions based upon gender in addition to their intentional prohibition against state legislation based upon “race and color”!

john w k,
2009

American Constitutional Research Service Judicial tyranny the ACLU and Justice Ginsburg s inventions exposed

Its the exact same blog post from 2009, word for word.....posted over and over and over again. Please stop spamming us.

So, you have a problem with my posting historical facts which expose Ginsburg's judicial tyranny?

TOUGH!

JWK




If the American People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

 

[BULLDOG]

But the fact remains, Ginsburg, in delivering the opinion, never established that under the 14th Amendment the people of America decided to prohibit distinctions based upon gender in addition to their intentional prohibition against state legislation based upon “race and color”!

john w k,
2009

American Constitutional Research Service Judicial tyranny the ACLU and Justice Ginsburg s inventions exposed

Its the exact same blog post from 2009, word for word.....posted over and over and over again. Please stop spamming us.

So, you have a problem with my posting historical facts which expose Ginsburg's judicial tyranny?

TOUGH!

JWK




If the American People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

Actually, I think this web site has a problem with it. I could be mistaken, I'm pretty sure but repeatedly posting the same exact thing is not allowed.

 

[johnwk]

Bottom line is the decision has been made, and all the whining in the world won't change it. Just add this to the long list of things the right wing fought for and lost. If I were you, I'd be spending time whining about immigration reform. You'll loose that one too, but at least that one isn't completely over yet.

You consider defending our constitutionally limited system of government as "whining"?

I can assure you our Washington Establishment loves your kind. Do you have children?


JWK



We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"And, significantly, Attorney General Pam Bondi — Florida’s chief legal opponent to gay marriage — said the state would not try to block county clerks from issuing licenses, beginning as early as 12:01 a.m. Tuesday.”

It's refreshing to see a conservative republican at last obey the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

 

[johnwk]

But the fact remains, Ginsburg, in delivering the opinion, never established that under the 14th Amendment the people of America decided to prohibit distinctions based upon gender in addition to their intentional prohibition against state legislation based upon “race and color”!

john w k,
2009

American Constitutional Research Service Judicial tyranny the ACLU and Justice Ginsburg s inventions exposed

Its the exact same blog post from 2009, word for word.....posted over and over and over again. Please stop spamming us.

So, you have a problem with my posting historical facts which expose Ginsburg's judicial tyranny?

TOUGH!

JWK




If the American People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

Actually, I think this web site has a problem with it. I could be mistaken, I'm pretty sure but repeatedly posting the same exact thing is not allowed.

So, repeatedly quoting from our Constitution, is frowned upon?


JWK

 

[BULLDOG]

Bottom line is the decision has been made, and all the whining in the world won't change it. Just add this to the long list of things the right wing fought for and lost. If I were you, I'd be spending time whining about immigration reform. You'll loose that one too, but at least that one isn't completely over yet.

You consider defending our constitutionally limited system of government as "whining"?

I can assure you our Washington Establishment loves your kind. Do you have children?


JWK



We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

What you are doing is whining. It's done grow up and get over it. Nobody is going to make you get gay married.

 

[johnwk]

"And, significantly, Attorney General Pam Bondi — Florida’s chief legal opponent to gay marriage — said the state would not try to block county clerks from issuing licenses, beginning as early as 12:01 a.m. Tuesday.”

It's refreshing to see a conservative republican at last obey the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

Pam Bondi took an oath to support the Constitution, and not a judges circumvention of it. Keep in mind our Constitution, and only those laws made in pursuance of our Constitution are the supreme law of the land!

JWK

 

[BULLDOG]

"And, significantly, Attorney General Pam Bondi — Florida’s chief legal opponent to gay marriage — said the state would not try to block county clerks from issuing licenses, beginning as early as 12:01 a.m. Tuesday.”

It's refreshing to see a conservative republican at last obey the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

Pam Bondi took an oath to support the Constitution, and not a judges circumvention of it. Keep in mind our Constitution, and only those laws made in pursuance of our Constitution are the supreme law of the land!

JWK

That's exactly the authority that the judge used when he/she made the decision. Why do teabaggers always think that just a little more complaining will make them right?

 

[johnwk]

Bottom line is the decision has been made, and all the whining in the world won't change it. Just add this to the long list of things the right wing fought for and lost. If I were you, I'd be spending time whining about immigration reform. You'll loose that one too, but at least that one isn't completely over yet.

You consider defending our constitutionally limited system of government as "whining"?

I can assure you our Washington Establishment loves your kind. Do you have children?


JWK



We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

What you are doing is whining. It's done grow up and get over it. Nobody is going to make you get gay married.

This has nothing to do about being gay, sweetheart. It has everything to do with the circumvention of our Constitution, its legislative intent, and substituting the whims and fancies of those who hold an office of public trust as being the rule of law.


JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Beginning Tuesday, Florida will become the nation’s 36th state, plus the District of Columbia, where same-sex couples can marry or have their legal marriages recognized. The U.S. government has recognized same-sex marriage since June 26, 2013, when the Supreme Court declared a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, setting off an avalanche of lawsuits throughout the nation.”

Lost in all the political rancor, ignorance, fear, and hate exhibited by those hostile to the equal protection rights of same-sex couples, is the good news that gay Americans in Florida are moving closer to realizing their comprehensive civil rights.

 

[BULLDOG]

Bottom line is the decision has been made, and all the whining in the world won't change it. Just add this to the long list of things the right wing fought for and lost. If I were you, I'd be spending time whining about immigration reform. You'll loose that one too, but at least that one isn't completely over yet.

You consider defending our constitutionally limited system of government as "whining"?

I can assure you our Washington Establishment loves your kind. Do you have children?


JWK



We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.

What you are doing is whining. It's done grow up and get over it. Nobody is going to make you get gay married.

This has nothing to do about being gay, sweetheart. It has everything to do with the circumvention of our Constitution, its legislative intent, and substituting the whims and fancies of those who hold an office of public trust as being the rule of law.


JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

What ever. You lost . How you deal with is your choice, but make no mistake.........It's over, and you lost..

 

[JakeStarkey]

The rule of law is set by the legislatures and the Courts, not the johnwk's. Thank heavens.

And do not post plagiarized old commentary from years ago. Or get reported, your choice.

 

[Skylar]

You are repeating yourself and offering opinions not based upon the text and legislative intent of our Constitution.

Not word for word block posts that take up an entire from half a decade ago. You're spamming us.

Quit it.

Privileges are established as each state sees fit, so long as there are no distinctions based upon race as intended to be prohibited under the 14th Amendment.

Obvious nonsense. The 14th explicitly states that the privileges and immunities are those of the citizens of the United States. Not the States.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

From Section 1 of the 14th amendment

Remember, before the 14th, the BIll of Rights didn't apply to the States. It applied only to the Federal government. One of the proposed purposes of the 14th amendment was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States. And the courts have ruled, one amendment at a time, that that's exactly what the 14th did. Its called the doctrine of 'selective incorporation'. And it renders the state subject to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights.

Rendering your claim that these privileges and immunities are defined by the States more blithering nonsense. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

And, whatever a state's laws are, no "person" within a state's jurisdiction, may be denied the equal protection of those laws.

Again, no. Check out the Loving decision. In that ruling they found that the State's laws had to be constitutional as well. If the State's laws created invalid restrictions upon federal citizens, these restrictions were constitutionally invalid. And its Loving V. Virginia that Hinkle based his ruling on, contrary to your obviously fallacious assertions otherwise.

Have you even read the Hinkle decision? Because I'm looking at it...and it doesn't say what you do.

Where, in the text our federal Constitution, or its documented legislative intent, are the states prohibited from making distinctions based upon sex?

The constitution prohibits unequal protection under the law. And if a state's legal definitions create that inequality, that definition and law are constitutionally invalid. Again, see the Loving Decision. And while you're at it, take a look at Romer V. Evans.

The basis of inequality is irrelevant. Without a compelling state interest and a very good reason, the State lacks the authority to enact it.[/QUOTE]

 

[Skylar]

Its the exact same blog post from 2009, word for word.....posted over and over and over again. Please stop spamming us.

So, you have a problem with my posting historical facts which expose Ginsburg's judicial tyranny?

TOUGH!

JWK

I have a problem with block spamming of blog posts from your website that take up an entire page and use laughably inconsistent pseudo-legal reasoning.

You cite the 1883 ruling as your basis for dismissing the 1996 ruling. The problem is....they're both the USSC. If the USSC doesn't have authority in 1996, it doesn't have authority in 1883. And if the USSC is authoritative, then the very ruling you're dismissing is authoritative. Ending your entire argument.

You're literally citing and ignoring the same source based soley on its agreement with you. And that's comically inconsistent. Demonstrating the absurdity of your pseudo legal 'reasoning'.

 

[johnwk]

Where, in the text our federal Constitution, or its documented legislative intent, are the states prohibited from making distinctions based upon sex?

The constitution prohibits unequal protection under the law.

Is that you admission that you cannot provide the words from our Constitution?


JWK

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"And, significantly, Attorney General Pam Bondi — Florida’s chief legal opponent to gay marriage — said the state would not try to block county clerks from issuing licenses, beginning as early as 12:01 a.m. Tuesday.”

It's refreshing to see a conservative republican at last obey the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

Pam Bondi took an oath to support the Constitution, and not a judges circumvention of it. Keep in mind our Constitution, and only those laws made in pursuance of our Constitution are the supreme law of the land!

JWK

Would you mind quoting where, in the Constitution of the United States, it says "except homosexuals"?

Thanks.

 

[Skylar]

This has nothing to do about being gay, sweetheart. It has everything to do with the circumvention of our Constitution, its legislative intent, and substituting the whims and fancies of those who hold an office of public trust as being the rule of law.

JWK

Says you. And I don't really care what your personal interpretations of the constitution are. Nor does any court. First, because your reasoning is self contradictory clap trap, where you cite and ignore the exact same sources. Citing and ignoring USSC rulings at your whim.

Second, because I've caught you straight up misrepresenting legal rulings, where you made up a basis for the Hinkle ruling that Hinkle clearly didn't use.

Third, because you're willfully ignorant. Not only making up a fallacious basis for Hinkle's ruling, but ignoring the very basis he did use: Loving V. Virginia.

And fourth, because I don't recognize you as having a sufficient understanding of basic constitutional issues to comment on this topic intelligently. For crying out loud, you didn't even know that the Bill of Rights didn't apply before the 14th amendment. Or that the privileges and immunities cited in the 14th amendment are for US citizens. Not State citizens.

Rendering your personal opinion unworthy of consideration.

 

[johnwk]

The basis of inequality is irrelevant. Without a compelling state interest and a very good reason, the State lacks the authority to enact it.

So now you are suggesting a state law can be adopted which discriminates against Blacks if the state has a "very good reason" for the law?

Do you realize how silly your posts are?

JWK

 

[Skylar]

Where, in the text our federal Constitution, or its documented legislative intent, are the states prohibited from making distinctions based upon sex?

The constitution prohibits unequal protection under the law.

Is that you admission that you cannot provide the words from our Constitution?


JWK

As I've already established, the constitution prohibits unequal protection in the law. It doesn't limit itself to any particular basis of inequality. It merely prohibits inequality.

This 'class by class' mention you demand doesn't exist....because the constitution doesn't limit itself to any particular class. It applies to everyone.