Schlafly: Treat Gay Marriage Ruling ‘Like Abe Lincoln Treated Infamous Dred Scott Case’--- ignore it

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[
What are the names and code #s on the laws that you claim judges and bureaucrats write. All laws have to be filed with at least a law #.

Not anymore. The govt calls the new law an "interpretation" or a "regulation". But they're laws.

At least you're consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

Courts rule to either uphold or invalidate laws and measures – to do either is not to create 'new' laws.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Tell us SS, when the Supreme Court strikes down a gun control law, is it writing a new law? Did it just repeal that law and therefore shouldn't do so as it has no authority?

Yes - they obviously repealed the law. They don't call it that for obvious reasons but it's a repeal and thus in violation of the constitution clause "all legislative functions herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."

Wrong again.

When a law or measure is invalidated by the courts that ruling does not 'repeal' the law; rather, the invalidated law is no longer enforceable – indeed, there are still laws on the books that have been ruled un-Constitutional, which have been neither repealed nor amended.

 

[Camp]

Is that old whore Schlafy still causing trouble? She must be a hundred years old. Wonder if she's still giving hummers under the Capitol steps?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Check the 14th amendement. The States lack the authority to violate the equal protection clause. Any State law that does is constitutionally invalid. And thus overturned. .

So why do states have affirmative action programs? THINK

Because those affirmative action programs are Constitutional provided other factors are taken into consideration in addition to race, where such programs pursue a compelling governmental interest, and provided these programs are narrowly tailored to achieve a specific goal. (Grutter v Bollinger)

 

[ShootSpeeders]

So why do states have affirmative action programs? THINK

Because those affirmative action programs are Constitutional provided other factors are taken into consideration in addition to race, where such programs pursue a compelling governmental interest, and provided these programs are narrowly tailored to achieve a specific goal. (Grutter v Bollinger)

Where does the 14A say anything about a compelling governmental interest as a valid excuse to deny the equal protection clause?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

When a law or measure is invalidated by the courts that ruling does not 'repeal' the law; rather, the invalidated law is no longer enforceable – indeed, there are still laws on the books that have been ruled un-Constitutional, which have been neither repealed nor amended.

HAHAHA. Did you really say that?. Invalidating a law does NOT repeal it? HAHA

 

[Syriusly]

Judges can't write laws though they did here. The first words of the constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states". The states should ignore this court-made law and say "you want a law legalizing this, then have congress pass it".

Schlafly Treat Gay Marriage Ruling Like Abe Lincoln Treated Infamous Dred Scott Case We Don t Have to Obey
july 31 2015 Long-time conservative activist, best selling author, and syndicated columnist Phyllis Schlafly said the 5 (of 9) judges on the Supreme Court who voted for homosexual marriage “made it up” because there is nothing in the Constitution about such arrangements, and added that Americans, like Abraham Lincoln, should treat the ruling like the Dred Scott case: don’t accept it or obey it.

“That’s right, there's nothing in the Constitution about homosexual marriage,” said Schlafly during a July 29 interview on PIJN News, hosted by Gordon Klingenschmit.

“The judges made it up,” she said, “and some people think that because they did, and the Supreme Court has spoken, therefore we have to accept it. We don't.”

Wow- Schlafly showing the lack of education among the far right once again.

 

[Syriusly]

The SC dumped unconstitutional laws, dumbass, they didn't write new ones. That is what they do.

By nullifying laws against gay marriage they legalized it. That's writing a law.
.

Another fine example of the lack of education among the far right.

Since you love Youtube video's I offer you a lesson on how a law becomes a law, from Schoolhouse Rock

 

[Syriusly]

So why do states have affirmative action programs? THINK

Because those affirmative action programs are Constitutional provided other factors are taken into consideration in addition to race, where such programs pursue a compelling governmental interest, and provided these programs are narrowly tailored to achieve a specific goal. (Grutter v Bollinger)

Where does the 14A say anything about a compelling governmental interest as a valid excuse to deny the equal protection clause?

LOL- why can states ban convicted felons from owning guns?

Why can a state forbid someone from yelling 'fire' in a crowed theater?

Because States can have compelling interests that can over ride constitutional protections- but they have to be able to prove that compelling interest.

 

[Syriusly]

[
What are the names and code #s on the laws that you claim judges and bureaucrats write. All laws have to be filed with at least a law #.

Not anymore. The govt calls the new law an "interpretation" or a "regulation". But they're laws.

No- just stupid far right wingnuts think so.

 

[Debra K]

Judges can't write laws though they did here. The first words of the constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states". The states should ignore this court-made law and say "you want a law legalizing this, then have congress pass it".

Schlafly Treat Gay Marriage Ruling Like Abe Lincoln Treated Infamous Dred Scott Case We Don t Have to Obey
july 31 2015 Long-time conservative activist, best selling author, and syndicated columnist Phyllis Schlafly said the 5 (of 9) judges on the Supreme Court who voted for homosexual marriage “made it up” because there is nothing in the Constitution about such arrangements, and added that Americans, like Abraham Lincoln, should treat the ruling like the Dred Scott case: don’t accept it or obey it.

“That’s right, there's nothing in the Constitution about homosexual marriage,” said Schlafly during a July 29 interview on PIJN News, hosted by Gordon Klingenschmit.

“The judges made it up,” she said, “and some people think that because they did, and the Supreme Court has spoken, therefore we have to accept it. We don't.”

Wow- Schlafly showing the lack of education among the far right once again.

I agree. The author of the opening post and his alleged authority on the issue, Phyllis Schlafly, have placed overwhelming ignorance on display. What these people know about constitutional law (or Abraham Lincoln, for that matter) couldn't even fill a thimble. Sadly, they don't even know enough to be ashamed of their own ignorance.

 

[Debra K]

So why do states have affirmative action programs? THINK

Because those affirmative action programs are Constitutional provided other factors are taken into consideration in addition to race, where such programs pursue a compelling governmental interest, and provided these programs are narrowly tailored to achieve a specific goal. (Grutter v Bollinger)

Where does the 14A say anything about a compelling governmental interest as a valid excuse to deny the equal protection clause?

ShootSpeeders: If you possessed even a rudimentary understanding of constitutional law, you wouldn't have to ask that question. The only thing you're doing here is placing your own ignorance on display. If you're old enough to access a computer and ask really stupid questions on a message board, then you're old enough to research the question and discover the answer. Why are you against self-education?

 

[Skylar]

Judges can't write laws though they did here. The first words of the constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states". The states should ignore this court-made law and say "you want a law legalizing this, then have congress pass it".

Schlafly Treat Gay Marriage Ruling Like Abe Lincoln Treated Infamous Dred Scott Case We Don t Have to Obey
july 31 2015 Long-time conservative activist, best selling author, and syndicated columnist Phyllis Schlafly said the 5 (of 9) judges on the Supreme Court who voted for homosexual marriage “made it up” because there is nothing in the Constitution about such arrangements, and added that Americans, like Abraham Lincoln, should treat the ruling like the Dred Scott case: don’t accept it or obey it.

“That’s right, there's nothing in the Constitution about homosexual marriage,” said Schlafly during a July 29 interview on PIJN News, hosted by Gordon Klingenschmit.

“The judges made it up,” she said, “and some people think that because they did, and the Supreme Court has spoken, therefore we have to accept it. We don't.”

Wow- Schlafly showing the lack of education among the far right once again.

I agree. The author of the opening post and his alleged authority on the issue, Phyllis Schlafly, have placed overwhelming ignorance on display. What these people know about constitutional law (or Abraham Lincoln, for that matter) couldn't even fill a thimble. Sadly, they don't even know enough to be ashamed of their own ignorance.

They're arguing their feelings. They really don't care about historical accuracy. Any bit of history that contradicts what they want to believe is discarded anyway. So the difference between 'ignorance' and 'knowledge' is largely irrelevant to their argument.

 

[Syriusly]

Judges can't write laws though they did here. The first words of the constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states". The states should ignore this court-made law and say "you want a law legalizing this, then have congress pass it".

Schlafly Treat Gay Marriage Ruling Like Abe Lincoln Treated Infamous Dred Scott Case We Don t Have to Obey
july 31 2015 Long-time conservative activist, best selling author, and syndicated columnist Phyllis Schlafly said the 5 (of 9) judges on the Supreme Court who voted for homosexual marriage “made it up” because there is nothing in the Constitution about such arrangements, and added that Americans, like Abraham Lincoln, should treat the ruling like the Dred Scott case: don’t accept it or obey it.

“That’s right, there's nothing in the Constitution about homosexual marriage,” said Schlafly during a July 29 interview on PIJN News, hosted by Gordon Klingenschmit.

“The judges made it up,” she said, “and some people think that because they did, and the Supreme Court has spoken, therefore we have to accept it. We don't.”

Wow- Schlafly showing the lack of education among the far right once again.

I agree. The author of the opening post and his alleged authority on the issue, Phyllis Schlafly, have placed overwhelming ignorance on display. What these people know about constitutional law (or Abraham Lincoln, for that matter) couldn't even fill a thimble. Sadly, they don't even know enough to be ashamed of their own ignorance.

They're arguing their feelings. They really don't care about historical accuracy. Any bit of history that contradicts what they want to believe is discarded anyway. So the difference between 'ignorance' and 'knowledge' is largely irrelevant to their argument anyway.

Shootspeeder is like the guy who boasts about never having read an actual book- and then wants to lecture you on history.