States have obligation to ignore SCOTUS ruling on SSM

[ShootSpeeders]

Once again judges are repealing laws and they can't do that. The very first words of the federal constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."

Federal judges are not allowed to write, rewrite, or repeal laws. Those are legislative powers.

 

[Stephanie]

THERE is this too. we all need to get behind it

snip;
Scott Walker responds to SCOTUS gay marriage decision, calls for NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Posted by The Right Scoop on Jun 26, 2015 at 12:48 PM in Politics | Leave a

Scott Walker has penned his response to the Supreme Court decision, calling it a grave mistake and calling for a constitutional amendment to reaffirm that the states have the ability to define marriage:


all of it here:
Read more: http://therightscoop.com/scott-walker-responds-to-scotus-gay-marriage-decision-calls-for-new-constitutional-amendment/#ixzz3eBnKEpLs

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ignorant nonsense.

Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land, law the states are subject to.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I
Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land, law the states are subject to.

So how do you reconcile that with the constitution quote i just gave that says only congress can write laws. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

THERE is this too. we all need to get behind it

snip;
Scott Walker responds to SCOTUS gay marriage decision, calls for NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

OK - but there's no need for that. He should point to the constitution quote i gave above and point out that federal judges are not allowed to repeal laws.

 

[Skylar]

Once again judges are repealing laws and they can't do that. The very first words of the federal constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."

Federal judges are not allowed to write, rewrite, or repeal laws. Those are legislative powers.

The Federal judiciary has authority over all cases that arise under the constitution. This one arose under the constitution.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The Federal judiciary has authority over all cases that arise under the constitution. This one arose under the constitution.

Nothing in the constitution about SSM so how can you say this arose under the constitution. Judges should have said we have no jurisdiction. THINK

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Ignorant nonsense.

Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land, law the states are subject to.

Not true. Laws are the law of the land. Supreme Court opinions are not.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Once again judges are repealing laws and they can't do that. The very first words of the federal constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."

Federal judges are not allowed to write, rewrite, or repeal laws. Those are legislative powers.

The Federal judiciary has authority over all cases that arise under the constitution. This one arose under the constitution.

Except for cases that congress removes their jurisdiction over.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ignorant nonsense.

Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land, law the states are subject to.

Not true. Laws are the law of the land. Supreme Court opinions are not.

Utter nonsense. Learn how laws are made.

 

[my2¢]

The Court will get away with it, they always have. We should be truthful about this country's character and go back to the Pledge of Allegiance as originally written and quit fooling ourselves.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The Court will get away with it, they always have. .

They have so far. But states need to stand up and point out that the constitution says judges are not allowed to repeal laws.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Federal judiciary has authority over all cases that arise under the constitution. This one arose under the constitution.

Nothing in the constitution about SSM so how can you say this arose under the constitution. Judges should have said we have no jurisdiction. THINK

The right to due process and equal protection of the law are in the Constitution.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Ignorant nonsense.

Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land, law the states are subject to.

Not true. Laws are the law of the land. Supreme Court opinions are not.

Utter nonsense. Learn how laws are made.

Uh...by definition laws are the law of the land. Supreme Court opinions are not laws. Just opinions of what they mean. Unfortunately, those opinions determine how those laws are enforced. In some defacto way the courts can shape the laws by this opinions but if those opinions were the law, as you suggest, then we don't have any democracy since the court makes the laws and not the legislative branch. I suppose it is better that we be ruled by the few than we rule ourselves. Long live the dictatorship.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The Court will get away with it, they always have. .

They have so far. But states need to stand up and point out that the constitution says judges are not allowed to repeal laws.

It is really impossible for the Supreme Court to enforce its decisions by itself. What if a state did not comply with the Supreme Court?

 

[my2¢]

The Court will get away with it, they always have. .

They have so far. But states need to stand up and point out that the constitution says judges are not allowed to repeal laws.

Thomas Jefferson lost that fight (about the Supreme Court being the final word) a couple of hundred years ago. The only way to change it is through a Constitutional Convention and good luck getting the required states to agree on anything in this age of non-compromise.

 

[Skylar]

The Federal judiciary has authority over all cases that arise under the constitution. This one arose under the constitution.

Nothing in the constitution about SSM so how can you say this arose under the constitution. Judges should have said we have no jurisdiction. THINK

Read the 9th amendment. Enumeration isn't a requirement for a right to exist.

Think.

 

[Skylar]

The Court will get away with it, they always have. .

They have so far. But states need to stand up and point out that the constitution says judges are not allowed to repeal laws.

Thomas Jefferson lost that fight (about the Supreme Court being the final word) a couple of hundred years ago. The only way to change it is through a Constitutional Convention and good luck getting the required states to agree on anything in this age of non-compromise.

And who gives a fuck what Jefferson thought? The man had virtually nothing to do with the writing of the constitution. He wasn't a delegate for any state, wasn't a member of any committee that wrote the constitutoin, didn't participate in any debates, didn't attend a single session of any constitutional convention, wasn't even in the country when the constitution was written or ratified.

You couldn't get a more useless founding father on the meaning of the constitution than Jefferson. Hamilton and Madison? Different story.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ignorant nonsense.

Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land, law the states are subject to.

Not true. Laws are the law of the land. Supreme Court opinions are not.

Utter nonsense. Learn how laws are made.

Uh...by definition laws are the law of the land. Supreme Court opinions are not laws. Just opinions of what they mean. Unfortunately, those opinions determine how those laws are enforced. In some defacto way the courts can shape the laws by this opinions but if those opinions were the law, as you suggest, then we don't have any democracy since the court makes the laws and not the legislative branch. I suppose it is better that we be ruled by the few than we rule ourselves. Long live the dictatorship.

Time to learn how law is made, it's not what you think...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Court will get away with it, they always have. .

They have so far. But states need to stand up and point out that the constitution says judges are not allowed to repeal laws.

It is really impossible for the Supreme Court to enforce its decisions by itself. What if a state did not comply with the Supreme Court?

Then the Feds step in, and they have, many times before.