States have obligation to ignore SCOTUS ruling on SSM

[mdk]

How is the whole ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling working out so far? Not going so good, is it?

 

[MathewSmith]

My friends call him STREET WALKER. They say, he will say anything just to get ahead. Do you know that he recognized same sex marriages in June 2014 after the Supreme Court decision because he had an election to win in Novem 2014.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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

The US Constitution. Article 3.

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."

.

How many times must the board explain this?? Judicial power does not include repealing or rewriting laws. That is a legislative power.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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.

Yes - state laws must comply with the federal constitution. But who decides if they do comply or not? On that the constitution is silent which means, by the tenth amendment, the power to decide constitutionality rests with the states.

 

[Faun]

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.

Yes - state laws must comply with the federal constitution. But who decides if they do comply or not? On that the constitution is silent which means, by the tenth amendment, the power to decide constitutionality rests with the states.

The Constitution answers that question...

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

 

[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

I think quite a lot and I think, no, I know, that constitutional law is much more than what the constitution itself says. Constitutional law includes the body of case law that has developed throughout the history of the country:

In Marbury v. Madison (1803) Established the principle of Judicial Review. Marbury v. Madison - Facts Summary - HISTORY.com


The Supreme Court announced for the first time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution. William Marbury had been appointed a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia in the final hours of the Adams administration. When James Madison, Thomas Jefferson’s secretary of state, refused to deliver Marbury’s commission, Marbury, joined by three other similarly situated appointees, petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling delivery of the commissions.

Although the immediate effect of the decision was to deny power to the Court, its long-run effect has been to increase the Court’s power by establishing the rule that ‘it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ Since Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court has been the final arbiter of the constitutionality of the legislation.

Marbury concerned Federal Laws, but with the passage of the 14th Amendment , all rights enumerated in the bill of rights were extended to the states.


The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.

The Fourteenth was intended by the authors to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.

First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

And consider this as well:

On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:

The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.

On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:

Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]

On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution

so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in that instrument[11] (emphasis added).

This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights

.

It’s pretty clear what the intent was. It has been applied in a wide variety of cases that did not involve race

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.

In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.

“Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.

In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.

“We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825

You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established Marriage as a Fundamental Right http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Here are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment. Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”


Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

There are more, but you get the idea.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Yes - state laws must comply with the federal constitution. But who decides if they do comply or not? On that the constitution is silent which means, by the tenth amendment, the power to decide constitutionality rests with the states.

That is nonsense! The states do not get to decide questions of federal constitutionality

Why do conservatives hold the 10th amendment out there like it was something sacred and above the rest of the constitution, including the supremacy clause and the 14th amendment. It is well established by case law that state’s rights under the tenth are not absolute and must be exercised within the context of the entire constitution. That is especially true of the rights and limitations of states to regulate marriage. If it were not true, interracial marriage would still be illegal in Virginia and maybe other states as well

 

[ShootSpeeders]

That is nonsense! The states do not get to decide questions of federal constitutionality

The tenth amendment says they do.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

As the board has told you countless times, rewriting laws and repealing laws is NOT a judicial power. It is a legislative power.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Yeah Virginia felt the same way when they were forced to stop banning mixed race marriages.

 

[Syriusly]

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

As the board has told you countless times, rewriting laws and repealing laws is NOT a judicial power. It is a legislative power.

And actual history has told you that the Supreme Court does have the authority to repeal unconstitutional laws.

'the board' meaning your delusional little voices in your head- are wrong.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That is nonsense! The states do not get to decide questions of federal constitutionality

The tenth amendment says they do.

That is NUTS! Even if you could interpret the tenth as meaning that the states do not have to follow the federal constitution, the 14th amendment has negated that as I clearly demonstrated. Can you point to any case law that supports your theory?

Well you can continue to believe that. You can deny federal supremacy and judicial review. Go ahead and climb on the clown care with the others who don't subscribe to and accept how our system of laws and justice work. You'll be in good company with Santorum, Perry, Cruz and Huckabee. No skin off my nose buddy.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

As the board has told you countless times, rewriting laws and repealing laws is NOT a judicial power. It is a legislative power.

Tell it to these guys....they are the only ones who believe that:

Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck Think Marriage Equality Has Destroyed the Constitution
The right-wing politician and the pundit traded doomsday fantasies now that the freedom to marry has gone nationwide.

It's no surprise that reliable right-wing figureheads like Glenn Beck and Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz are none too thrilled with the Supreme Court bringing marriage equality to all 50 states, but the pair took fear-mongering to a new level in a televised interview last week.

Taking a page from Chief Justice John Roberts's dissent in the landmark marriage equality ruling, Beck suggested that we as a nation "are off the Constitution now. We're making this up as we go along."

In agreeing with Beck, Cruz mentioned his comment in the wake of landmark rulings in favor of affordable health care and marriage equality, where he claimed America had just experienced "some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation's history." Cruz went on to dismiss "the entire liberal media [that] went apoplectic" over the hyperbolic remark.

"It's the end of our Constitution," Beck stated somberly, without an audible trace of irony. WATCH Ted Cruz Glenn Beck Think Marriage Equality Has Destroyed the Constitution Advocate.com

 

[Faun]

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

As the board has told you countless times, rewriting laws and repealing laws is NOT a judicial power. It is a legislative power.

Well that's good then since they're not rewriting laws.

 

[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.

This is the kind of ass hat that is poisoning your mind.....and perpetuating the divisiveness gripping the country, instead of moving forward.

Chief Justice Roy Moore: Same-Sex Marriage Ruling 'Is Going To Destroy The Nation'

He and his ilk are the ones who will destroy the country with this sort of asinine rhetoric:

The Alabama Chief Justice talked with anti-choice activist Randall Terry yesterday, and in an hour-long interview made outrageous claims, including that Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage will be the end on America.

"Do you think that this ruling could unravel the republic – or unravel our liberties," Terry asked.

"I think it's going to destroy the nation," Moore was quick to respond.

Instead of pushing back on such an outrageous claim, Terry, pushing for anti-gay states to secede from the nation, was only too happy to pursue it. "There's people taking about [secession] in Texas," he told Moore.

"Do you think we're a free people?," Terry asked.

"We’re supposed to be a free people," Moore said, almost smirking, "and if this carries out the way I think it’s going to carry out, it’s going to be very doubtful." Chief Justice Roy Moore Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Is Going To Destroy The Nation Video - The New Civil Rights Movement

 

[ShootSpeeders]

And actual history has told you that the Supreme Court does have the authority to repeal unconstitutional laws.

.

HAHAHA. What do you mean by "actual history"? You mean - they did it and got away with it so it must be right!!! Unfortunately for you, the constitution says the courts cannot make laws.

 

[Syriusly]

And actual history has told you that the Supreme Court does have the authority to repeal unconstitutional laws.

.

HAHAHA. What do you mean by "actual history"? You mean - they did it and got away with it so it must be right!!! Unfortunately for you, the constitution says the courts cannot make laws.

And our courts are not making laws- you really need to stop listening to the voices in your head.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

The US Constitution. Article 3.

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."

.

How many times must the board explain this?? Judicial power does not include repealing or rewriting laws. That is a legislative power.

You're explaining what? Explaining your lack of understanding.

A) The Supreme Court has NEVER, EVER rewritten a law.
B) It has NEVER, EVER repealed a law either.

It CAN and DOES declare that laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, which is what it did.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

A) The Supreme Court has NEVER, EVER rewritten a law.
B) It has NEVER, EVER repealed a law either.

It CAN and DOES declare that laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, which is what it did.

So nullifying a law is NOT repealing it??? Get help please.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A) The Supreme Court has NEVER, EVER rewritten a law.
B) It has NEVER, EVER repealed a law either.

It CAN and DOES declare that laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, which is what it did.

So nullifying a law is NOT repealing it??? Get help please.

No, it's not.

Repealing is when you either A) make another law which gets rid of the previous law, similar to what happened with the Amendments about banning alcohol through the constitution and B) you get rid of that law by making legislation.

The Supreme Court did not repeal this law. The Supreme Court said that the law was unconstitutional and force the states to change their laws. This is completely different.

To nullify is to make something lose its legal effect, which is what the Supreme Court has done.

The Supreme Court cannot introduce or get rid of legislation. It has never, ever done this. It tells the states or the feds that their law is unconstitutional and that it needs to be written again, why? Because they will say that such a law will not be considered in the courts of law in the future. Therefore the law is effectively worthless, however until the states actually get rid of it from their books, it's still there. They will probably choose to not try and enforce such a law from the moment of the SC's decision because it's a waste of time.

You think I need help because I UNDERSTAND the US system? Right......