States have obligation to ignore SCOTUS ruling on SSM

[frigidweirdo]

You'd expect people who are commenting on Constitutional law to at least have some idea of what the three branches of government are all about.

Congress can make laws. However the Supreme Court can declare any law unconstitutional. This isn't the SC making laws, this is them protecting the constitution. It's called separation of powers, in case some people haven't heard about this.

So the SC taking down laws because they have said they are unconstitutional is perfectly within the judicial power. Congress can simply make another law which is constitutional.

When is the congress and the states going to do so? How is the very plain language of the ACA being changed? How are state laws that say man and woman being changed?

As far as I see they are not being changed by the legislature, they were changed by the SCOTUS. Especially when Roberts changed penalty to tax.

Well, they can only change things within the new ruling, and that is that gay people have to have equality. So......

 

[Freewill]

You'd expect people who are commenting on Constitutional law to at least have some idea of what the three branches of government are all about.

Congress can make laws. However the Supreme Court can declare any law unconstitutional. This isn't the SC making laws, this is them protecting the constitution. It's called separation of powers, in case some people haven't heard about this.

So the SC taking down laws because they have said they are unconstitutional is perfectly within the judicial power. Congress can simply make another law which is constitutional.

When is the congress and the states going to do so? How is the very plain language of the ACA being changed? How are state laws that say man and woman being changed?

As far as I see they are not being changed by the legislature, they were changed by the SCOTUS. Especially when Roberts changed penalty to tax.

Well, they can only change things within the new ruling, and that is that gay people have to have equality. So......

I can see them shooting down DOMA, that is a law. But just saying that Gay marriage is a right without changing one law is just BS.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You'd expect people who are commenting on Constitutional law to at least have some idea of what the three branches of government are all about.

Congress can make laws. However the Supreme Court can declare any law unconstitutional. This isn't the SC making laws, this is them protecting the constitution. It's called separation of powers, in case some people haven't heard about this.

So the SC taking down laws because they have said they are unconstitutional is perfectly within the judicial power. Congress can simply make another law which is constitutional.

When is the congress and the states going to do so? How is the very plain language of the ACA being changed? How are state laws that say man and woman being changed?

As far as I see they are not being changed by the legislature, they were changed by the SCOTUS. Especially when Roberts changed penalty to tax.

Well, they can only change things within the new ruling, and that is that gay people have to have equality. So......

I can see them shooting down DOMA, that is a law. But just saying that Gay marriage is a right without changing one law is just BS.

Why? The 14A should have made gay marriage legal. It's taken 100 and something years to make it happen.....

 

[JQPublic1]

You'd expect people who are commenting on Constitutional law to at least have some idea of what the three branches of government are all about.

Congress can make laws. However the Supreme Court can declare any law unconstitutional. This isn't the SC making laws, this is them protecting the constitution. It's called separation of powers, in case some people haven't heard about this.

So the SC taking down laws because they have said they are unconstitutional is perfectly within the judicial power. Congress can simply make another law which is constitutional.

I concur completely. Shootspeeders hasn't the reasoning ability to understand that state legislatures and Congress make laws but they do NOT have the power to interpret the Constitutionality of those laws. Only the federal courts do; and , ultimately, the SC if it gets that far.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All Alabama counties complying with gay marriage ruling LGBT groups report AL.com

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

You really have no idea what you're talking about....


Why it is proper for the Federal Government and the federal courts to have the last word

The Founders read that republican government was one in which:

• The power of government is held by the people.
  
  
• The people give power to leaders they elect to represent them and serve their interests.
  
  
• The representatives are responsible for helping all the people in the country, not just a few people.
  
  http://www.civiced.org/resources/curriculum/lesson-plans/450-lesson3-what-is-a-republican-government
  
  
  Nothing here trumps or negates the constitution and the bill of rights, which the people ratified through their elected representatives as they later did with the 14th amendment.
  
  The constitution is clear on the principle of federal supremacy
  

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers.

Nullification is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Judicial review is an established principle: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/judicial+review

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Forget it people!! It's over. You'll have to move on to oppressing the immigrants now that it's no longer easy to target blacks and gays.


Bobby Jindal Gives Up Last Stand Against Gay Marriage Licenses In Louisiana

While most of the remaining states with gay marriage bans immediately began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples last Friday, the day of the Supreme Court ruling, state officials in Louisiana looked for ways to postpone the inevitable.

Jindal argued that he wanted to wait until a lower court applied the Supreme Court's decision to Louisiana. On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit formally overturned Louisiana's gay marriage ban, seemingly giving Jindal the go-ahead.

But the governor persisted in his stall, releasing a statement indicating that he would wait for a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. When that court said this means you on Thursday, Jindal had no choice but to give up his resistance.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Congress can make laws. However the Supreme Court can declare any law unconstitutional. ..

Yes - The constitution gives congress power to write laws. Now where does it give the scotus power to nullify them?

If the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to nullify laws passed by Congress- Congress could pass a law tomorrow outlawing Christianity.

And there would be no mechanism to overturn that law.

They can nullify laws if they deem them unconstitutional. The sad thing about this bunch is they struck down DOMA on the grounds the constitution doesn't address marriage, then ruled that denying gays marriage was unconstitutional. Pretty sad.

Wrong. DOMA was struck down on the rational that if a state grants same sex marriage, the federal government should respect that state's right to do so and that those same sex couples should have all of the benefits of marriage-including federal benefits. Yes, Kennedy was deferring to states rights in that case-but he never said that states rights with respect to marriage were absolute. In fact many prior case have set limits on the state's right to regulate marriage. At that time, the right to marry was not a question before the court.

Now, Kennedy followed the law and invoked the 14th Amendment to ensure that gays have equal protection under the law and extended to right to marry to same sex couples as had been done previously for interracial couples, prisoners, men who owe child support and others. What is sad is how poorly you understand this stuff that you bloviate about.

 

[IsaacNewton]

So that little fake 'revolt' ended after less than a week. LOL

All these people have now learned, you can't force your religion on the rest of society. Not here anyway, maybe in Rihad.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

All Alabama counties complying with gay marriage ruling LGBT groups report AL.com

Me likie...

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Why? The 14A should have made gay marriage legal. It's taken 100 and something years to make it happen.....

The 14A bans all affirmative action but we still have AA everywhere.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I concur completely. Shootspeeders hasn't the reasoning ability to understand that state legislatures and Congress make laws but they do NOT have the power to interpret the Constitutionality of those laws. Only the federal courts do; and , ultimately, the SC if it gets that far.

Where does the constitution say courts have authority to decide if a law is constitutional or not.? THINK

 

[Freewill]

You'd expect people who are commenting on Constitutional law to at least have some idea of what the three branches of government are all about.

Congress can make laws. However the Supreme Court can declare any law unconstitutional. This isn't the SC making laws, this is them protecting the constitution. It's called separation of powers, in case some people haven't heard about this.

So the SC taking down laws because they have said they are unconstitutional is perfectly within the judicial power. Congress can simply make another law which is constitutional.

When is the congress and the states going to do so? How is the very plain language of the ACA being changed? How are state laws that say man and woman being changed?

As far as I see they are not being changed by the legislature, they were changed by the SCOTUS. Especially when Roberts changed penalty to tax.

Well, they can only change things within the new ruling, and that is that gay people have to have equality. So......

I can see them shooting down DOMA, that is a law. But just saying that Gay marriage is a right without changing one law is just BS.

Why? The 14A should have made gay marriage legal. It's taken 100 and something years to make it happen.....

A man and a woman are humans but not the same.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why? The 14A should have made gay marriage legal. It's taken 100 and something years to make it happen.....

The 14A bans all affirmative action but we still have AA everywhere.

I'd agree. However AA is needed because of the complete failure of govts to do their jobs properly. But then people keep voting the same people in failure after failure after failure.

 

[Freewill]

Forget it people!! It's over. You'll have to move on to oppressing the immigrants now that it's no longer easy to target blacks and gays.


Bobby Jindal Gives Up Last Stand Against Gay Marriage Licenses In Louisiana

While most of the remaining states with gay marriage bans immediately began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples last Friday, the day of the Supreme Court ruling, state officials in Louisiana looked for ways to postpone the inevitable.

Jindal argued that he wanted to wait until a lower court applied the Supreme Court's decision to Louisiana. On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit formally overturned Louisiana's gay marriage ban, seemingly giving Jindal the go-ahead.

But the governor persisted in his stall, releasing a statement indicating that he would wait for a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. When that court said this means you on Thursday, Jindal had no choice but to give up his resistance.

Forced compliance so 1936

 

[frigidweirdo]

You'd expect people who are commenting on Constitutional law to at least have some idea of what the three branches of government are all about.

Congress can make laws. However the Supreme Court can declare any law unconstitutional. This isn't the SC making laws, this is them protecting the constitution. It's called separation of powers, in case some people haven't heard about this.

So the SC taking down laws because they have said they are unconstitutional is perfectly within the judicial power. Congress can simply make another law which is constitutional.

When is the congress and the states going to do so? How is the very plain language of the ACA being changed? How are state laws that say man and woman being changed?

As far as I see they are not being changed by the legislature, they were changed by the SCOTUS. Especially when Roberts changed penalty to tax.

Well, they can only change things within the new ruling, and that is that gay people have to have equality. So......

I can see them shooting down DOMA, that is a law. But just saying that Gay marriage is a right without changing one law is just BS.

Why? The 14A should have made gay marriage legal. It's taken 100 and something years to make it happen.....

A man and a woman are humans but not the same.

Someone was clearly paying attention in biology class.

We're talking equality under the law.

Adults should be treated in the same manner regardless.

If I am a man, I should be able to choose any consenting adult (who hasn't been through due process and is having rights suppressed) except immediate family members (for biological reasons, this is similar to all other limitations on rights, besides, you're already related to these people directly anyway).

If I am a woman, I should be able to choose any consenting adult (who hasn't been through due process and is having rights suppressed) except immediate family members (for biological reasons, this is similar to all other limitations on rights, besides, you're already related to these people directly anyway).

 

[frigidweirdo]

I concur completely. Shootspeeders hasn't the reasoning ability to understand that state legislatures and Congress make laws but they do NOT have the power to interpret the Constitutionality of those laws. Only the federal courts do; and , ultimately, the SC if it gets that far.

Where does the constitution say courts have authority to decide if a law is constitutional or not.? THINK

The US Constitution. Article 3.

"
Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

"
Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Well, I thought. There's your answer.

 

[JQPublic1]

I concur completely. Shootspeeders hasn't the reasoning ability to understand that state legislatures and Congress make laws but they do NOT have the power to interpret the Constitutionality of those laws. Only the federal courts do; and , ultimately, the SC if it gets that far.

Where does the constitution say courts have authority to decide if a law is constitutional or not.? THINK

By now you have read post #157 by Frigidweirdo. did you notice that little clause he included in his Constitution excerpt that reads:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, "

Take heed and never repeat the silliness that made you think anything otherwise. THINK!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I concur completely. Shootspeeders hasn't the reasoning ability to understand that state legislatures and Congress make laws but they do NOT have the power to interpret the Constitutionality of those laws. Only the federal courts do; and , ultimately, the SC if it gets that far.

Where does the constitution say courts have authority to decide if a law is constitutional or not.? THINK

We have been all through that on this thread. Try to keep up. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Since the enactment of the 14th Amendment, state laws are subject to and must comply with the constitution of the US. Judicial review is an established principle. Deal with it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

Yup...you guys are in trouble. There is no stopping the gay fascist juggernaut.......

Rick Wiles: Obama Using Gay Marriage To Impose Martial Law Submitted by Mikayla Bean on Monday, 7/6/2015 11:33 am

Far-right End Times preacher David Lankford joined Rick Wiles on his “Trunews” program yesterday to discuss the supposed persecution of American Christians and the destruction of the United States due to gay rights. Discussing President Obama’s remarks on the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision, Wiles described how we will see “persecution unlike anything that has happened until now” as Obama continues to “prove himself to be evil beyond words.” This persecution will become a “time of purging” and come down on Christians “like a thunderbolt.” Wiles continued that Christians will be “taken off the face of the earth” and “unproductive people,” such as the elderly, “will be removed from society” as progressives deem them useless. - See more at: Rick Wiles Obama Using Gay Marriage To Impose Martial Law Right Wing Watch

Sound just a little hysterical to me.....