State's rights, tyranny and the Federal Government

[Darkwind]

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage, a lot of discussion has gone on over whether the Federal Government is tyrannically oppressing "state's rights".

Aside from the root issue that almost every mention of "state's rights" is referring to states having the right to discriminate against it's own citizens, I wonder why people with such dislike and distrust of the federal government seem to have no problems with state government overreach.

Why is one government telling you what to do better than the other?

Here ya go. Try reading this one of these days --

Constitution - Bill of Rights Institute

It's telling how you and most others on the right always fail to read or comprehend this part of the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI, US Constitution

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Its amazing how YOU fail to know anything about law, on a consistent basis.

It's not amazing how you fail to understand that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, where it was neither the intent nor understanding of the Framers that the 10th Amendment should 'authorize' the states to violate the rights of American citizens residing in the states, that the states may not 'ignore' Federal law or the rulings of state courts:

“The Tenth Amendment is not a limitation upon the authority of the National Government to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”

United States v. Darby US Law LII Legal Information Institute

And as a fact of Constitutional law it was the original intent of the Framers to make the National government supreme, its acts the supreme law of the land, and the states subject to the rulings of the Federal courts:

“The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it.”

Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 1958 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Now, unless you can cite a Supreme Court ruling overturning US v. Darby and Cooper v. Aaron, your post is factually incorrect, nothing more than irrelevant, subjective opinion completely devoid of legal merit.

And the fact that there are same-sex coupes currently marrying in the states subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, further renders your opinion wrong as a fact of law.

I know, your a case law loser.

That's the problem with the law schools today. They seem to think that case law is all that matters and so, as a consequence, they don't teach Constitutional law.

There is no case law without the foundation.

As a fact, the Constitutional law was Amended so that it could be ratified and those Amendments (in case you didn't know it, they are actually PART of the Constitution) alter and expand upon other parts of the document. That's why they are called Amendments....They Amend (change, alter or expand) the original.

Have a nice day. I have to go prepare for some much needed vacation time...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

State government by definition is more accountable to its citizens. It is also not bound by the Constitutional limitations on government that the Federal government is.

So State government overreach is acceptable?

You would have no problem at all if your local state government decided to impose strict gun control requiring that every single weapon must be registered and licensed and that you would have to undergo mental health screenings every two years?

Because as you just said, it is "not bound by the Constitutional limitations" on the Federal government, right?

Words and phrases have meanings.

Overreach occurs when government steps beyond it limits of authority.

If the State government is not bound by an authority that the Feds are, then the State government is not overreaching....

Comprehend this?

In addition, you and the OP are creating a strawman.

Simply because I support States rights does not mean I support the States being tyrannical in the Feds place.

Critical thought is a wonderful tool.

If you believe that the states have the 'right' to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment, then you are in fact supporting the 'right' of states to be tyrannical.

The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibits the Federal government from denying Federal benefits and recognition to same-sex couples lawfully married in their respective states of residence, as we saw in US v. Windsor.

The 14th Amendment applies the Fifth Amendment to the states with its Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, where the states likewise have no authority to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law predicated solely on who they are, as we saw in Obergefell.

The right to due process and equal protection of the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment reflects its Framers' understanding that because our rights are in fact inalienable, they are immune from unwarranted attack by the states and local jurisdictions.

The states have the right to enact laws and measures as they see fit provided those laws and measures comport with the Federal Constitution, and the states allow the American citizens residing in the states access to state laws those citizens are eligible to participate in, such as same-sex couples' access to marriage law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

THEDOCTORISIN SAID:

“I wonder why people with such dislike and distrust of the federal government seem to have no problems with state government overreach.”

Because state governments often act in a manner that comport with their errant, subjective political agenda, such as denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, or denying women their right to privacy, or denying immigrants their right to due process.

They harbor this ridiculous, unfounded myth that the states possess some sort of 'sovereignty' to ignore the Federal government, Federal Constitution, its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts predicated on the canard of the 'will of the people,' where in fact the people have no authority to deny American citizens residing in the states their civil rights.

American citizens have a fundamental Constitutional right to move freely about the country, to live in any state or jurisdiction they so desire, where their rights as citizens move with them, inalienable, inviolate, and safeguarded from the tyranny of the majority.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obergefell had nothing to do with Federal 'overreach' nor the relationship between the Federal government and state governments.

The case concerned a conflict between the states and their residents, where the states that enacted measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law had those measures challenged in Federal court. And in accordance with 14th Amendment jurisprudence, those measures were invalidated because they violated the right of gay Americans to due process and equal protection of the law.

Indeed, had the states simply obeyed the 14th Amendment and allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law gay Americans are eligible to participate in, there would have been no need to involve the Federal courts, as the states have only themselves to blame for their un-Constitutional measures being invalidated.

States have rights but they are not absolute, they are subject to, and limited by, the Federal Constitution, its case law, and rulings by Federal courts, ultimately the Supreme Court. The states are also subject to Federal law, they may not seek to 'ignore' or 'nullify' Federal measures, and likewise they may not 'ignore' the rulings of Federal courts.

But the OP's premise is essentially correct, Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states subordinate to that, where citizens' inalienable rights are immune from unwarranted attack by government – Federal, state, and local. States do not have the 'right' to deny American citizens their fundamental freedoms and liberties, citizens do not forfeit their civil rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence, and states do not have the authority to decide who will and will not have his civil rights.

This is why there is no such thing as 'judicial tyranny,' 'legislating from the bench,' or courts 'ignoring the will of the people,' as the residents of the states who enacted measures with the intent to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law were never authorized to do so in the first place.

We must be discussing a different Obergefell case then. The very issue was whether states have the power to set terms in marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

We need the Convention of states to put this country back on the right track.........
And put the Fed back on a leash.

Nonsense.

The country is currently on the right track, as originally intended by the Framers, where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – the now invalidated measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are proof of that.

We'll add "rule of law" as another thing you dont understand.
Rule of law is not the same as rule by unelected judges. In fact it is the very opposite.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

States rights always works out to be....We have a right to oppress our citizens

And they have the right to leave.
I would think you'd be in favor of that...you know,having like minded people moving to your state?
Just think of the liberal utopia you could create.....

 

[eagle1462010]

Justice Alito s Dissent in SSM Case National Review Online

Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent. Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.… Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage, a lot of discussion has gone on over whether the Federal Government is tyrannically oppressing "state's rights".

Aside from the root issue that almost every mention of "state's rights" is referring to states having the right to discriminate against it's own citizens, I wonder why people with such dislike and distrust of the federal government seem to have no problems with state government overreach.

Why is one government telling you what to do better than the other?

oh brother. the people in California voted down Homosexual marriage and you all had black robe justices step and OVERTURN their rights to vote on it in their own state. so you might like being RULED over but that isn't how our country used to work. now it's just mob rules

Wrong.

The residents of California – or any state, for that matter – were never authorized to decide whether or not gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law.

Than why was the vote even held?

 

[The Rabbi]

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage, a lot of discussion has gone on over whether the Federal Government is tyrannically oppressing "state's rights".

Aside from the root issue that almost every mention of "state's rights" is referring to states having the right to discriminate against it's own citizens, I wonder why people with such dislike and distrust of the federal government seem to have no problems with state government overreach.

Why is one government telling you what to do better than the other?

oh brother. the people in California voted down Homosexual marriage and you all had black robe justices step and OVERTURN their rights to vote on it in their own state. so you might like being RULED over but that isn't how our country used to work. now it's just mob rules

Wrong.

The residents of California – or any state, for that matter – were never authorized to decide whether or not gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law.

Than why was the vote even held?

Besides, wtf does "due process" have to do with anything? Not even an issue. We'll add "due process" to the burgeoning list of things C Clayton Jones doesnt understand.

 

[eagle1462010]

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage, a lot of discussion has gone on over whether the Federal Government is tyrannically oppressing "state's rights".

Aside from the root issue that almost every mention of "state's rights" is referring to states having the right to discriminate against it's own citizens, I wonder why people with such dislike and distrust of the federal government seem to have no problems with state government overreach.

Why is one government telling you what to do better than the other?

oh brother. the people in California voted down Homosexual marriage and you all had black robe justices step and OVERTURN their rights to vote on it in their own state. so you might like being RULED over but that isn't how our country used to work. now it's just mob rules

Wrong.

The residents of California – or any state, for that matter – were never authorized to decide whether or not gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law.

Than why was the vote even held?

The will of the majority be damned..............They couldn't get there way in Congress, or the states..........so they use Judicial Activism to get their way.........

Anyone who disagrees will be called a Bigot............a Racist..........a Homophobe...........If your business refuses to serve them............they will be destroyed because THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS no longer matter.............YOU WILL OBEY............

That is what this ruling is about.............and your Religion and/or beliefs be DAMNED............

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[SwimExpert]

So these bakery owners are now comparable to Jesus? You whackos are ridiculous. You're poisoning the tree. Trying to force the homophobia out of people like these bakery owners via government force is 100% the wrong approach to dealing with this. But you make yourself out to be even more absurd than the other side of the argument.

 

[eagle1462010]

So these bakery owners are now comparable to Jesus? You whackos are ridiculous. You're poisoning the tree. Trying to force the homophobia out of people like these bakery owners via government force is 100% the wrong approach to dealing with this. But you make yourself out to be even more absurd than the other side of the argument.

Call one of Obama's Turn in your Neighbors programs...........there might be a reward for turning Jesus in.........Have you seen him............You probably should read one of his books...................might lead to clues of who he is..............and what he stood for...........

Keep on the look out............I heard his followers don't believe in Same Sex Marriage............perhaps the left should stone them for such blasphemy...........

Keep alert and SUE them on sight.............

 

[SwimExpert]

So these bakery owners are now comparable to Jesus? You whackos are ridiculous. You're poisoning the tree. Trying to force the homophobia out of people like these bakery owners via government force is 100% the wrong approach to dealing with this. But you make yourself out to be even more absurd than the other side of the argument.

Call one of Obama's Turn in your Neighbors programs...........there might be a reward for turning Jesus in.........Have you seen him............You probably should read one of his books...................might lead to clues of who he is..............and what he stood for...........

Keep on the look out............I heard his followers don't believe in Same Sex Marriage............perhaps the left should stone them for such blasphemy...........

Keep alert and SUE them on sight.............

 

[eagle1462010]

You can turn him in here Comrade...................

 

[mamooth]

The will of the majority be damned..............

The majority support same-sex marriage. But that's not relevant. Rights are not determined by the majority.

According to your morality, it was okay for Germans to kill Jews, since the majority approved, and anyone trying to stop them was oppressing the Nazis. Sieg Heil, you proud Nazi ratfuk.

And I wouldn't normally do that, but it was eagle here who started flinging Nazi accusations, so he gets to have his own Nazi jackboot crammed up his backside. Eagle, we don't want Nazi filth like you in the USA, so kindly find somewhere else to live.

They couldn't get there way in Congress, or the states..........so they use Judicial Activism to get their way.........

Anyone who disagrees will be called a Bigot............a Racist..........a Homophobe...........If your business refuses to serve them............they will be destroyed because THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS no longer matter.............YOU WILL OBEY............

That is what this ruling is about.............and your Religion and/or beliefs be DAMNED............

 

[Valerie]

state government overreach

What does that even mean?

it means that states can't make unconstitutional laws...The 10th amendment has that oft overlooked stipulation.




"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."


...


The United States Constitution has secured an unprecedented degree of human freedom, upholding the rule of law, securing the blessings of liberty, and providing the framework for the people of America to build a great, prosperous, and just nation unlike any other in the world.

George Washington thought that it was “little short of a miracle” that the delegates could agree on the Constitution. Americans had stumbled on this road before. The United States had established an earlier constitution in 1781, the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles, each state governed itself through elected representatives, and the state representatives in turn elected a weak central government, one so feeble that it was unworkable. This league of states, hastily crafted during wartime, had to be replaced with a real government.


The challenge was devising stable institutional arrangements that would reconcile majority rule and minority rights, that is, reflect the consent of the governed but avoid majority tyranny. The new constitution would need to secure the rights promised in the Declaration of Independence and do so through a republican form of government. The founders responded with a written Constitution that created a strong government of limited powers, with the then-novel institutions of the separation of powers and federalism.

The Constitution of the United States

 

[eagle1462010]

The will of the majority be damned..............

The majority support same-sex marriage. But that's not relevant. Rights are not determined the majority.

According to your morality, it was okay for Germans to kill Jews, since the majority approved, and anyone trying to stop them was oppressing the Nazis. Sieg Heil, you proud Nazi ratfuk.

And I wouldn't normally do that, but it was eagle here who started flinging Nazi accusations, so he gets to have his own Nazi jackboot crammed up his backside. Eagle, we don't want Nazi filth like you in the USA, so kindly find somewhere else to live.

They couldn't get there way in Congress, or the states..........so they use Judicial Activism to get their way.........

Anyone who disagrees will be called a Bigot............a Racist..........a Homophobe...........If your business refuses to serve them............they will be destroyed because THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS no longer matter.............YOU WILL OBEY............

That is what this ruling is about.............and your Religion and/or beliefs be DAMNED............

In Oregon they IMPOSED A GAG ORDER on the couple refusing to bake a cake.....
They lost their business.
They are being FINED.
And now they are NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THEIR VIEWS IN PUBLIC.

 

[mamooth]

Eagle, being that you're such a proud jackbooted Nazi thug, nobody cares what you think.

Oh, the Nazis also claimed Christians were being persecuted, so that's yet another way in which you're following the playbook of your idols.

Now, go blubber to someone who cares,

 

[eagle1462010]

Eagle, being that you're such a proud jackbooted Nazi thug, nobody cares what you think.

Oh, the Nazis also claimed Christians were being persecuted, so that's yet another way in which you're following the playbook of your idols.

Now, go blubber to someone who cares,

My last reply applies here as well...........

GAG order.......Couple ordered to not talk in public about their views...................

Who da fuck's the NAZI'S THERE................