States have obligation to ignore SCOTUS ruling on SSM

[my2¢]

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

Yeah as opposed to Jefferson, it was Hamilton who had his head up his ass and reasoned the Judicial branch would be the weakest of the 3 branches. .

 

[IsaacNewton]

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?

The Executive branch is the enforcement branch. They send troops, like when southern states refused to desegregate their schools in the sixties. The national guard was sent in to force them to do it.

I think churches are free to not issue marriage licenses but state governments can't override the Federal Constitution.

If they could California would have told the Scotus to take 'citizens united' and stick it.

 

[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?

The Executive branch is the enforcement branch. They send troops, like when southern states refused to desegregate their schools in the sixties. The national guard was sent in to force them to do it.

I think churches are free to not issue marriage licenses but state governments can't override the Federal Constitution.

If they could California would have told the Scotus to take 'citizens united' and stick it.

Licenses are from the state. The clergy are allowed to sign them.

 

[IsaacNewton]

So churches can only perform wedding 'ceremonies'?
No licenses?

Interesting.

 

[Skylar]

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

Yeah as opposed to Jefferson, it was Hamilton who had his head up his ass and reasoned the Judicial branch would be the weakest of the 3 branches. .

I didn't say that. Can you adjust your quote please.

And it was Hamilton that concluded that interpreting the constitution was the role of the Judiciary. Which he articulated in the Federalist Papers.

 

[Katzndogz]

So churches can only perform wedding 'ceremonies'?
No licenses?

Interesting.

You can't mean that you didn't know that.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Read Marbury v. Madison.

 

[Roadrunner]

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

Congress writes them.

They mean what the court says they mean.

This particular court goes further, it redefines terms in the law, contrary to all reason and logic, and corrects the errors of Congress rather than send the laws back to Congress for fine tuning.

Very dangerous.

 

[my2¢]

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

Yeah as opposed to Jefferson, it was Hamilton who had his head up his ass and reasoned the Judicial branch would be the weakest of the 3 branches.

My apology Skylar for my response mistakenly appearing as part of your quote.

 

[IsaacNewton]

So churches can only perform wedding 'ceremonies'?
No licenses?

Interesting.

You can't mean that you didn't know that.

I didn't know that. I'm an agnostic, I'm not an expert on churches. So solly.

 

[Camp]

I'm thankful that hard core racist are such dumb people.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I think churches are free to not issue marriage licenses but state governments can't override the Federal Constitution.

.

HAHAHA. States are NOT overriding the constitution. They are abiding by it. The C says all legislative powers rest in congress and that means the courts cannot repeal laws like the SCOTUS is doing now. The SCOTUS is the institution violating the constitution. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Read Marbury v. Madison.

That was where the scotus GRANTED themselves the authority to rewrite and repeal laws. The constitution itself says they don't have it. Read the first sentence of the constitution after the preamble. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states".

 

[Skylar]

Read Marbury v. Madison.

That was where the scotus GRANTED themselves the authority to rewrite and repeal laws. The constitution itself says they don't have it. Read the first sentence of the constitution after the preamble. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states".

Judicial review predates the constitution. Your argument is literally that the judiciary had jurisdiction over cases that arise under the constitution....but no authority to rule on any case.

That's silly.

Of course the judiciary has the authority to adjudicate. Of course they have the authority to rule on cases within their jurisdiction. Of course they can interpret the constitution. Its their role:


"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

Federalist Paper 78

But you know better than Alexander Hamilton on what the role of the judiciary is?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Yeah as opposed to Jefferson, it was Hamilton who had his head up his ass and reasoned the Judicial branch would be the weakest of the 3 branches.

.

The judiciary would be the weakest of the three if they adhered to the constitution. But they gave themselves the power to decide if a law is constitutional or not and thus became the most powerful of the three. They have final say on every issue now.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Judicial review predates the constitution. Your argument is literally that the judiciary had jurisdiction over cases that arise under the constitution....but no authority to rule on any case.

That's silly.

Judicial review means judges have the right to state their opinion on whether a law is constitutional or not. That's fine. But out judges in america claim that when they say a law is unconstitutional - that REPEALS the law. That means the court is giving itself legislative powers. THINK

 

[Camp]

I think churches are free to not issue marriage licenses but state governments can't override the Federal Constitution.

.

HAHAHA. States are NOT overriding the constitution. They are abiding by it. The C says all legislative powers rest in congress and that means the courts cannot repeal laws like the SCOTUS is doing now. The SCOTUS is the institution violating the constitution. THINK

Hey stupid. The SCOUTUS has been the arbitrator of these decisions since the founding of the nation. A disturbed racist asshole that mocks the First Lady is not going to change the way America interprets the power of the SCOTUS.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I'm thankful that hard core racist are such dumb people.

I agree. All these crazy libs fighting for affirmative action are the dumbest people in america - thank god.

 

[Skylar]

Judicial review predates the constitution. Your argument is literally that the judiciary had jurisdiction over cases that arise under the constitution....but no authority to rule on any case.

That's silly.

Judicial review means judges have the right to state their opinion on whether a law is constitutional or not.

Says you, citing you. Judicial review in our system of law is where the judiciary checks a given law against the constitution and decides if the law is constitutionally valid. If a law violates the constitution, deference goes to the constitution.

Not the law.

You've made up your own personal definition of judicial review. Citing yourself.

Um....who gives a shit?

 

[Syriusly]

And the Conservative wing nut butt hurt continues.