Why Justice Kennedy ought to be impeached by Congress!

[johnwk]

Today, Justice Kennedy has established beyond any reasonable doubt that he will not follow some of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction, nor the text of our Constitution or its documented legislative intent which gives context to its language.

In regard to the text of the 14th Amendment which Justice Kennedy asserts is violated when a state refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, the fact is, the language of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note that a state is forbidden to deny any person [singular] within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.”

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

Now that we have established what the text of the 14th amendment declares, let us documented the the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, which was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

It should also be noted that the Court, under our Constitution, is to follow the rules of common law when handing down its decisions. Under the rules of common law, long standing customs are protected. In this case, a long standing custom, which dates back to the founding of our Country, marriage was considered to be a union between one male and one female.

Finally, Justice Kennedy also ignore the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.-- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment to remotely suggest it was intended to forbid the states to refuse to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

Now, why is the Congress of the United States not drawing up Articles of Impeachment for a Justice on our Supreme Court who blatantly has violated the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction in order to impose his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice upon the entire population of these United States?

And particularly, why is the Republican Party Leadership not taking the initiative to start the impeachment process to rid ourselves of a Justice who has engaged in judicial tyranny?

JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[OKTexas]

Why are you picking on Kennedy, 4 others did the same.

 

[bendog]

Why are you picking on Kennedy, 4 others did the same.

This is why I had hoped the scotus would slip and dodge the issue. It's a social wedge issue. Like abortion and Roe. People are being hurt and being denied personal liberties because of others' religious beliefs. But, imo, sometimes its better for the overall good that public opinion fully digest the unfairness, and form a political remedy. That way those who have the discriminatory beliefs don't have the opportunity to declare themselves martyrs.

 

[johnwk]

Why are you picking on Kennedy, 4 others did the same.

Picking? He wrote the majority opinion.


JWK

 

[Syriusly]

Why are you picking on Kennedy, 4 others did the same.

Picking? He wrote the majority opinion.


JWK

And?

Shall we review the Constitution again?

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So which of these causes did Kennedy do? Which crime did Kennedy commit?

 

[Syriusly]

And particularly, why is the Republican Party Leadership not taking the initiative to start the impeachment process to rid ourselves of a Justice who has engaged in judicial tyranny?

JWK

Because they understand both the law and public sentiment better than you do.

 

[OKTexas]

Why are you picking on Kennedy, 4 others did the same.

Picking? He wrote the majority opinion.


JWK

And, if one other had voted the other way, he would have written the minority opinion and we would not be having this conversation. What the 6 did on the ACA is, in my opinion, much more egregious than what the 5 did today. If you're are going to go after anyone for today's decision it should be the 2 that showed a previous bias and didn't recuse themselves.

 

[Skylar]

Now that we have established what the text of the 14th amendment declares, let us documented the the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, which was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

Rep Shellabarger? That's random. Especially when the author of Section 1 and 2 of the 14th amendment made it ludicrously clear that extending rights was exactly exactly what the 14th amendment was for:

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution.

To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

John Bingham

Why would you ignore John Bingham, the man who wrote Section 1 and 2 of the 14th amendment and introduced the Bill of Rights to the House? If your goal was 'legislative intent', Bingham would be a superb source, being one of the primary writers and one of the two great proponents of the 14th. Especially when the other great proponent, Senator Jacob Howard said the exact same thing when introducing the 14th to the Senate:

They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect;while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year.

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

Senator Jacob Howard

Second....why didn't you mention any of these quotes when arguing 'legislative intent'. You obviously knew about them, as demonstrated in this thread:

Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax Page 18 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But you intentionally withheld these amazingly relevant quotes, refusing to post them or even mention the existence of either Bingham or Howard. Despite the pair being the members of congress who introduced the 14th amendment to the House and Senate respectively.

That's profoundly dishonest. With the quotes simply obliterating your 'legislative intent' argument. As its beyond clear that extending rights and compelling the states to respect fundamental constitutional guarantees was EXACTLY what the 14th amendment was about.

 

[SwimExpert]

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

That you would even make such a sensationally stupid statement proves that everything you have to say on this subject is the equivalent of playing chess with a 2 year old and expecting them to understand rules.

 

[Unedited]

Today, Justice Kennedy has established beyond any reasonable doubt that he will not follow some of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction, nor the text of our Constitution or its documented legislative intent which gives context to its language.

In regard to the text of the 14th Amendment which Justice Kennedy asserts is violated when a state refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, the fact is, the language of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note that a state is forbidden to deny any person [singular] within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.”

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

Now that we have established what the text of the 14th amendment declares, let us documented the the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, which was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

It should also be noted that the Court, under our Constitution, is to follow the rules of common law when handing down its decisions. Under the rules of common law, long standing customs are protected. In this case, a long standing custom, which dates back to the founding of our Country, marriage was considered to be a union between one male and one female.

Finally, Justice Kennedy also ignore the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.-- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment to remotely suggest it was intended to forbid the states to refuse to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

Now, why is the Congress of the United States not drawing up Articles of Impeachment for a Justice on our Supreme Court who blatantly has violated the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction in order to impose his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice upon the entire population of these United States?

And particularly, why is the Republican Party Leadership not taking the initiative to start the impeachment process to rid ourselves of a Justice who has engaged in judicial tyranny?

JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Preach it brother!!

 

[johnwk]

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

That you would even make such a sensationally stupid statement proves that everything you have to say on this subject is the equivalent of playing chess with a 2 year old and expecting them to understand rules.

And yet you haven't offered a rebuttal.


JWK

 

[johnwk]

Now that we have established what the text of the 14th amendment declares, let us documented the the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, which was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

Rep Shellabarger? That's random. Especially when the author of Section 1 and 2 of the 14th amendment made it ludicrously clear that extending rights was exactly exactly what the 14th amendment was for:

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution.

To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

John Bingham

Why would you ignore John Bingham, the man who wrote Section 1 and 2 of the 14th amendment and introduced the Bill of Rights to the House? If your goal was 'legislative intent', Bingham would be a superb source, being one of the primary writers and one of the two great proponents of the 14th. Especially when the other great proponent, Senator Jacob Howard said the exact same thing when introducing the 14th to the Senate:

They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect;while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year.

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

Senator Jacob Howard

Second....why didn't you mention any of these quotes when arguing 'legislative intent'. You obviously knew about them, as demonstrated in this thread:

Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax Page 18 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But you intentionally withheld these amazingly relevant quotes, refusing to post them or even mention the existence of either Bingham or Howard. Despite the pair being the members of congress who introduced the 14th amendment to the House and Senate respectively.

That's profoundly dishonest. With the quotes simply obliterating your 'legislative intent' argument. As its beyond clear that extending rights and compelling the states to respect fundamental constitutional guarantees was EXACTLY what the 14th amendment was about.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why are you picking on Kennedy, 4 others did the same.

Because Kennedy is a republican, a conservative, and an appointee of Reagan.

Since Casey he's been accused of being a 'traitor' by the social right and conservative extremists, such as the OP.

Justice Kennedy is a conservative, but not an ideologue, in the true conservative tradition: limit government authority when constitutionally appropriate, enhance and protect individual liberty – including the liberty of women to decide whether to have a child or not, and the liberty of same-sex couples to marry; Kennedy practices a pure and authentic conservatism that others on the right should return to.

 

[johnwk]

Now that we have established what the text of the 14th amendment declares, let us documented the the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, which was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

Rep Shellabarger? That's random. Especially when the author of Section 1 and 2 of the 14th amendment made it ludicrously clear that extending rights was exactly exactly what the 14th amendment was for:

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution.

To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

John Bingham

Why would you ignore John Bingham, the man who wrote Section 1 and 2 of the 14th amendment and introduced the Bill of Rights to the House? If your goal was 'legislative intent', Bingham would be a superb source, being one of the primary writers and one of the two great proponents of the 14th. Especially when the other great proponent, Senator Jacob Howard said the exact same thing when introducing the 14th to the Senate:

They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect;while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year.

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

Senator Jacob Howard

Second....why didn't you mention any of these quotes when arguing 'legislative intent'. You obviously knew about them, as demonstrated in this thread:

Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax Page 18 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But you intentionally withheld these amazingly relevant quotes, refusing to post them or even mention the existence of either Bingham or Howard. Despite the pair being the members of congress who introduced the 14th amendment to the House and Senate respectively.

That's profoundly dishonest. With the quotes simply obliterating your 'legislative intent' argument. As its beyond clear that extending rights and compelling the states to respect fundamental constitutional guarantees was EXACTLY what the 14th amendment was about.

Privileges and immunities are created by each state. For example, the privilege of a driver's license is created by each state, and each state makes it's own rules for that license.

in regard to Bingham you and I have been through this before.


The fact is, even Bingham, who is repeatedly mentioned by those who want federal judges to have the power to enforce the federal Bill of Rights upon the states, emphasized “the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen . . . is in the States and not in the federal government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect.” See Cong. Globe page 1292

Bingham goes on to say:

I have always believed that the protection in time of peace within the States of all the rights of person and citizen was of the powers reserved to the States. And so I still believe.

Now, what does this bill propose? To reform the whole civil and criminal code of every State`s government by declaring that there shall be no discrimination between Citizens on account of race or color in civil rights or in the penalties prescribed by their laws. See Cong. Globe page 1293


Fact is, even Bingham, who authored the 14th Amendment, acknowledged his objective was not to overturn federalism, powers “reserved” by the States. His clear objective was “that there shall be no discrimination between Citizens on account of race or color in civil rights or in the penalties prescribed by their laws.” And this is in harmony with what Rep. Shellabarger said whom I quoted above.


The fact is, whatever the laws are in a particular state, they are to apply equally, without respect to race, color or previous condition of slavery. This is in fact what the overwhelming consensus was when adopting the 14th Amendment.

JWK

 

[Skylar]

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

That you would even make such a sensationally stupid statement proves that everything you have to say on this subject is the equivalent of playing chess with a 2 year old and expecting them to understand rules.

And yet you haven't offered a rebuttal.


JWK

Yeah, I did that. And I've done it before. You know better.


You knew about the Bingham and Howard quotes. You knew that Bingham was one of the primary authors of the 14th amendment. You knew that Bingham was the man who initially proposed the 14th amendment, who was assigned to the sub committee to write it, and who introduced it on the house floor. You knew that Jacob Howard was the man who introduced it on the Senate floor.

And you knew that both Bingham and Howard explicitly contradicted you insisting that the purpose of the 14th was to protect citizens from the states by compelling them to respect constitutional guarantees.

And know this, you ignored both, omitted any mention of Bingham or Howard.....and offered us a 'Shellabarger' quote as demonstrating legislative intent? A man who played no significant role in the crafting of the 14th?

That's profoundly dishonest.

 

[johnwk]

Why are you picking on Kennedy, 4 others did the same.

Because Kennedy is a republican, a conservative, and an appointee of Reagan.

Since Casey he's been accused of being a 'traitor' by the social right and conservative extremists, such as the OP.

Justice Kennedy is a conservative, but not an ideologue, in the true conservative tradition: limit government authority when constitutionally appropriate, enhance and protect individual liberty – including the liberty of women to decide whether to have a child or not, and the liberty of same-sex couples to marry; Kennedy practices a pure and authentic conservatism that others on the right should return to.

Kennedy should follow the fundamental rules of constitutional construction instead of using his office of public trust to impose his personal whims and fancies upon the entire population of the United States!


JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[johnwk]

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

That you would even make such a sensationally stupid statement proves that everything you have to say on this subject is the equivalent of playing chess with a 2 year old and expecting them to understand rules.

And yet you haven't offered a rebuttal.


JWK

Yeah, I did that. And I've done it before. You know better.


You knew about the Bingham and Howard quotes. You knew that Bingham was one of the primary authors of the 14th amendment. You knew that Bingham was the man who initially proposed the 14th amendment, who was assigned to the sub committee to write it, and who introduced it on the house floor. You knew that Jacob Howard was the man who introduced it on the Senate floor.

And you knew that both Bingham and Howard explicitly contradicted you insisting that the purpose of the 14th was to protect citizens from the states by compelling them to respect constitutional guarantees.

And know this, you ignored both, omitted any mention of Bingham or Howard.....and offered us a 'Shellabarger' quote as demonstrating legislative intent? A man who played no significant role in the crafting of the 14th?

That's profoundly dishonest.

I offered Shellabarger's quote because it was in harmony with what Bingham stated himself and which I documented for you.

Stop being obtuse! And, just what is it that Bingham stated that applies to the 14th Amendment allegedly requiring a state to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple? EH?

JWK

 

[Skylar]

Now that we have established what the text of the 14th amendment declares, let us documented the the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, which was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

Rep Shellabarger? That's random. Especially when the author of Section 1 and 2 of the 14th amendment made it ludicrously clear that extending rights was exactly exactly what the 14th amendment was for:

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution.

To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

John Bingham

Why would you ignore John Bingham, the man who wrote Section 1 and 2 of the 14th amendment and introduced the Bill of Rights to the House? If your goal was 'legislative intent', Bingham would be a superb source, being one of the primary writers and one of the two great proponents of the 14th. Especially when the other great proponent, Senator Jacob Howard said the exact same thing when introducing the 14th to the Senate:

They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect;while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year.

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

Senator Jacob Howard

Second....why didn't you mention any of these quotes when arguing 'legislative intent'. You obviously knew about them, as demonstrated in this thread:

Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax Page 18 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But you intentionally withheld these amazingly relevant quotes, refusing to post them or even mention the existence of either Bingham or Howard. Despite the pair being the members of congress who introduced the 14th amendment to the House and Senate respectively.

That's profoundly dishonest. With the quotes simply obliterating your 'legislative intent' argument. As its beyond clear that extending rights and compelling the states to respect fundamental constitutional guarantees was EXACTLY what the 14th amendment was about.

Privileges and immunities are created by each state. For example, the privilege of a driver's license is created by each state, and each state makes it's own rules for that license.



in regard to Bingham you and I have been through this before.

Well at least you'll acknowledge Bingham exists now instead of omitting any mention or quote from the primary writer of the 14th when determining 'legislative intent'. something no rational person would ever do. Now to your quotes:

The fact is, even Bingham, who is repeatedly mentioned by those who want federal judges to have the power to enforce the federal Bill of Rights upon the states, emphasized “the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen . . . is in the States and not in the federal government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect.” See Cong. Globe page 1292

Wow. I forget how profoundly dishonest you are. I wonder what is in the (.... ) you added to that quote? Lets put it back in and see if it changes the meaning of the quote at all: (bolded words are those you omited from your quote):

"that the care of the property, the liberty and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is the States and not in the Federal Government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect.”

See Cong. Globe page 1292

You intentionally omitted the words 'under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution' from the middle of the sentence you quoted. Which again is so incredibly dishonest as you know it destroys your argument. As usual, your argument is based in the ignorance of your audience. You pray to God no one has ever actually read these quotes, as you know they'll see through your lies in a heart beat. And it gets so much worse:

And when you include the very next sentence, your argument becomes a comic exercise is hopeless failed deception:

"that the care of the property, the liberty and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is the States and not in the Federal Government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect. I advocate here is an amendment which would arm Congress with the power to compel obedience to the oath , and punish all violations by State officers of the Bill of rights, but leaving those officers to discharge the duties enjoined up them as citizens of the United States by that oath and bythat Constitution. "

See Cong. Globe page 1292

Kaboom.

But you're arguing that Bingham didn't intend the BIll of Rights to be imposed upon the States by the 14th, nor for the feds to have any power of the States?

Laughing......you make this so easy. Arming Congress to compel obedience of the States to the oath imposed by the Federal constitution and punish all violations of the Bill of Rights by the State is EXACTLY what Bingham intended.

No wonder you didn't want him mentioned.

 

[Skylar]

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

That you would even make such a sensationally stupid statement proves that everything you have to say on this subject is the equivalent of playing chess with a 2 year old and expecting them to understand rules.

And yet you haven't offered a rebuttal.


JWK

Yeah, I did that. And I've done it before. You know better.


You knew about the Bingham and Howard quotes. You knew that Bingham was one of the primary authors of the 14th amendment. You knew that Bingham was the man who initially proposed the 14th amendment, who was assigned to the sub committee to write it, and who introduced it on the house floor. You knew that Jacob Howard was the man who introduced it on the Senate floor.

And you knew that both Bingham and Howard explicitly contradicted you insisting that the purpose of the 14th was to protect citizens from the states by compelling them to respect constitutional guarantees.

And know this, you ignored both, omitted any mention of Bingham or Howard.....and offered us a 'Shellabarger' quote as demonstrating legislative intent? A man who played no significant role in the crafting of the 14th?

That's profoundly dishonest.

I offered Shellabarger's quote because it was in harmony with what Bingham stated himself and which I documented for you.

Stop being obtuse! And, just what is it that Bingham stated that applies to the 14th Amendment allegedly requiring a state to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple? EH?

JWK

Bingham said that the amendment would arm congress to compel obedience from the States to honor their oath under the Federal Constitution. And it would punish any State violations of the Bill of Rights.

That's not what Shellabarger said at all. Which, you know. But really hope we don't.

 

[toxicmedia]

Today, Justice Kennedy has established beyond any reasonable doubt that he will not follow some of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction, nor the text of our Constitution or its documented legislative intent which gives context to its language.

In regard to the text of the 14th Amendment which Justice Kennedy asserts is violated when a state refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, the fact is, the language of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note that a state is forbidden to deny any person [singular] within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.”

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

Now that we have established what the text of the 14th amendment declares, let us documented the the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, which was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

It should also be noted that the Court, under our Constitution, is to follow the rules of common law when handing down its decisions. Under the rules of common law, long standing customs are protected. In this case, a long standing custom, which dates back to the founding of our Country, marriage was considered to be a union between one male and one female.

Finally, Justice Kennedy also ignore the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.-- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment to remotely suggest it was intended to forbid the states to refuse to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

Now, why is the Congress of the United States not drawing up Articles of Impeachment for a Justice on our Supreme Court who blatantly has violated the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction in order to impose his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice upon the entire population of these United States?

And particularly, why is the Republican Party Leadership not taking the initiative to start the impeachment process to rid ourselves of a Justice who has engaged in judicial tyranny?

JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

It took all the complication of the issue for you to feel like you have an argument?

Try this...

States that ban gay marriage are depriving persons of liberty