Why Justice Kennedy ought to be impeached by Congress!

[dcraelin]

In case you didn't hear, your argument didn't hold water, in the last place that it mattered...

Oh right, 5 of 9 decided they knew better, the other 4 made the same arguments I have. Did you bother to read the dissent? The 5 decided they were not bound by history, tradition, precedent or the democratic process, they imposed their views with no legal foundations to do so, something the court is getting really good at.

At some point I will read the decision but frankly I couldn't care less. There's no point in you caring either, it's over and done with.

That's were you're really WRONG, this just amplifies the need for judicial reform.

If judges and Justices can ignore both the text of our Constitution and its legislative intent as occurred in this decision, and they use their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law, we are then no longer living under the rule of law and a constitutionally limited system of government. Judges and Justices engaging in such conduct must be punished ,,, no punishment to be left off the table.

JWK

None of which has occurred.

The Obergefell Court majority based its ruling on settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, in accordance with the Constitution (Articles III and VI), its case law, and the rule of law.

The Obergefell Court majority did nothing 'wrong,' it did nothing in 'violation' of the Constitution, and in no way 'ignored' the intent of the Framing Generation – and Justice Kennedy certainly did nothing to warrant 'impeachment.'

Now, that you don't like that settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence has no bearing whatsoever on the case, you have no authority to determine what the Constitution means, the Constitution affords that sole authority to the judiciary.

What you fail to realize is that your reactionary, errant 'minimalist,' 'literalist,' 'strict constructionist' Constitutional dogma is subjective perception, devoid of merit, and in no way supported by the history or text of the Founding Document.

actually it was criticized for not even mentioning "settled accepted 14th amendment jurisprudence"..........you inevitably will repeat that lie tho

Thomas talked a little about flaws in "substantive due process" but majority opinion didnt even bother to try and use that dogma...it just used empty flowery language to justify their feelings on the issue....with some legalese to salve their consciences and deceive the public

"in no way 'ignored' the intent of the framing generation".... so you think the intent was to legalize gay marriage?...of course not.....you are incapable of using words logically.

 

[dcraelin]

Oh right, 5 of 9 decided they knew better, the other 4 made the same arguments I have. Did you bother to read the dissent? The 5 decided they were not bound by history, tradition, precedent or the democratic process, they imposed their views with no legal foundations to do so, something the court is getting really good at.

At some point I will read the decision but frankly I couldn't care less. There's no point in you caring either, it's over and done with.

That's were you're really WRONG, this just amplifies the need for judicial reform.

Which isn't going to happen just because you lost three in a row...

The need has been there for years, this should be the tipping point, you can't even get through to congressmen, the phones are burning up with really pissed off people.

Which is why we have a Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy – reflecting the wisdom of the Framing Generation to subject the people solely to the rule of law, not men, because men are incapable of ruling justly – the now invalidated measures which sought to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law are proof of that.

And the people today retain that same wisdom as the people during the advent of the Republic, which is why there will be no 'judicial reform.'

Just today your exulted court rejected this "republic not a democracy" idea in their redistricting case out of Arizona.

"When the case was argued back in March, the Arizona Legislature's lawyer, Paul Clement, said, "The whole idea of the Constitution was that we're going to form a republican government, that we can't have direct democracy."

The Constitution, Clement said, gave authority over elections to elected officials, not to the public. But Ginsberg and the rest of the majority disagreed, mentioning not only the efforts to combat gerrymandering but also dozens of voter initiatives that shape how Americans vote, such as mail-in ballots and voter ID laws."

so..... maybe they finally got something right.

 

[OKTexas]

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision?

Existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th Amendment, the court should have recognized that fact and not ever heard the case.

Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? The court didn't find this to be true. You are begging the question, stating your assertion is a fact....without factually establishing it.

And the Begging the Question fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? The above isn't specific. Its ridiculously vague.

Instead they chose to invent a new right with no natural basis for it and no legal precedent, gay is not a separate gender.

A 'natural basis'? That's an interesting term. What do you think it means? And what relevance does your definition have with their ruling?

Marriage being a right is certainly recognized as precedent. Gays being protected by the 14th amendment is certainly recognized as precedent.

And when did the courts claim that 'gay is a separate gender'?

It's the only way to say gays weren't being treated equally under the existing law, when they were, they were give the exact same privileges and protections as any other male or female, keep in mind, rights are individual, not collective.

You didn't answer any of my questions. Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? So far, you do. Citing yourself.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? Specifically?

What do you claim 'natural basis' means. It seems pretty central to your claims regarding 'new rights'.

And when did the court say that 'gay is a separate gender'. I've read the entire Obergefell ruling and I never saw that claim. Is that you citing yourself again?

What was the basis for the decision? Why haven't you addressed my points, oh I know, you can't refute them.

You're the one indicating that their ruling was wrong. Show us your evidence. Yet you can't even show us how your conclusions are *relevant* to the ruling. Let alone demonstrate that it was wrong.

You're offering us a plain old begging the question fallacy.

Read the dissents, they are right on.

 

[Skylar]

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision?

Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? The court didn't find this to be true. You are begging the question, stating your assertion is a fact....without factually establishing it.

And the Begging the Question fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? The above isn't specific. Its ridiculously vague.

A 'natural basis'? That's an interesting term. What do you think it means? And what relevance does your definition have with their ruling?

Marriage being a right is certainly recognized as precedent. Gays being protected by the 14th amendment is certainly recognized as precedent.

And when did the courts claim that 'gay is a separate gender'?

It's the only way to say gays weren't being treated equally under the existing law, when they were, they were give the exact same privileges and protections as any other male or female, keep in mind, rights are individual, not collective.

You didn't answer any of my questions. Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? So far, you do. Citing yourself.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? Specifically?

What do you claim 'natural basis' means. It seems pretty central to your claims regarding 'new rights'.

And when did the court say that 'gay is a separate gender'. I've read the entire Obergefell ruling and I never saw that claim. Is that you citing yourself again?

What was the basis for the decision? Why haven't you addressed my points, oh I know, you can't refute them.

You're the one indicating that their ruling was wrong. Show us your evidence. Yet you can't even show us how your conclusions are *relevant* to the ruling. Let alone demonstrate that it was wrong.

You're offering us a plain old begging the question fallacy.

Read the dissents, they are right on.

Says who? Again, you clearly haven't read the obergefell ruling, nor do you have any idea what bases they made their ruling on. Which is why whenever I ask you to get specific, to cite the portions of Obergefell that were wrong, to demonstrate the relevance of your conclusion with the Obergefell ruling.....

.....we always get excuses why you can't.

As gay marriage now being legal in 50 of 50 States demonstrate....excuses aren't nearly enough.

 

[Syriusly]

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!
8

Yet you ignore the actual words of the Constitution- by demanding Impeachment of a Justice without there being any 'high crime or misdemeanor' and oddly enough- don't demand it from the other justices who voted exactly the same way.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh right, 5 of 9 decided they knew better, the other 4 made the same arguments I have. Did you bother to read the dissent? The 5 decided they were not bound by history, tradition, precedent or the democratic process, they imposed their views with no legal foundations to do so, something the court is getting really good at.

At some point I will read the decision but frankly I couldn't care less. There's no point in you caring either, it's over and done with.

That's were you're really WRONG, this just amplifies the need for judicial reform.

Which isn't going to happen just because you lost three in a row...

The need has been there for years, this should be the tipping point, you can't even get through to congressmen, the phones are burning up with really pissed off people.

Which is why we have a Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy – reflecting the wisdom of the Framing Generation to subject the people solely to the rule of law, not men, because men are incapable of ruling justly – the now invalidated measures which sought to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law are proof of that.

And the people today retain that same wisdom as the people during the advent of the Republic, which is why there will be no 'judicial reform.'

Your're totally full of it, couples have no rights, only the individuals in that couple have rights, and they were afforded the exact same rights as all individuals. There were no denial of equal protection or due process, read the dissents, they proved that. And yes, judicial reform will happen. watch real close.

 

[Syriusly]

At some point I will read the decision but frankly I couldn't care less. There's no point in you caring either, it's over and done with.

That's were you're really WRONG, this just amplifies the need for judicial reform.

Which isn't going to happen just because you lost three in a row...

The need has been there for years, this should be the tipping point, you can't even get through to congressmen, the phones are burning up with really pissed off people.

Which is why we have a Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy – reflecting the wisdom of the Framing Generation to subject the people solely to the rule of law, not men, because men are incapable of ruling justly – the now invalidated measures which sought to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law are proof of that.

And the people today retain that same wisdom as the people during the advent of the Republic, which is why there will be no 'judicial reform.'

Your're totally full of it, couples have no rights, only the individuals in that couple have rights, and they were afforded the exact same rights as all individuals. There were no denial of equal protection or due process, read the dissents, they proved that. And yes, judicial reform will happen. watch real close.

Yawn......what reform?

The dissents were the opinions of the minority- interesting to read- but merely the opinions of those whose opinions did not prevail.

 

[OKTexas]

At some point I will read the decision but frankly I couldn't care less. There's no point in you caring either, it's over and done with.

That's were you're really WRONG, this just amplifies the need for judicial reform.

Which isn't going to happen just because you lost three in a row...

The need has been there for years, this should be the tipping point, you can't even get through to congressmen, the phones are burning up with really pissed off people.

Which is why we have a Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy – reflecting the wisdom of the Framing Generation to subject the people solely to the rule of law, not men, because men are incapable of ruling justly – the now invalidated measures which sought to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law are proof of that.

And the people today retain that same wisdom as the people during the advent of the Republic, which is why there will be no 'judicial reform.'

Just today your exulted court rejected this "republic not a democracy" idea in their redistricting case out of Arizona.

"When the case was argued back in March, the Arizona Legislature's lawyer, Paul Clement, said, "The whole idea of the Constitution was that we're going to form a republican government, that we can't have direct democracy."

The Constitution, Clement said, gave authority over elections to elected officials, not to the public. But Ginsberg and the rest of the majority disagreed, mentioning not only the efforts to combat gerrymandering but also dozens of voter initiatives that shape how Americans vote, such as mail-in ballots and voter ID laws."

so..... maybe they finally got something right.

Yep, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[paddymurphy]

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

Why are they not drawing up articles of impeachment? Because they are not fucking idiots.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Which would result in millions of Americans being denied basic, fundamental rights. Should we have allowed desegregation of schools to wait for the legislatures to ban segregation? Or to invalidate anti-miscegenation laws? That is we have a constitution; because centrism rights are fundamental and do not depend upon public approval.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Scalia and Thomas should not have recused. And bias that requires recusal is for or against a party; not based on their views of a legal issue.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Once again a false paradigm is given then argued against. First of all saying that anyone of religion is automatically disqualified from the discussion is BS. you get your belief system from some where just as those who have faith do. YOU are being the bigot by trying to eliminate the majority of the country from the argument. Also there are economic consideration with gay marriage. I can see the need to protect a woman and to help a woman who is not in the work force so she can raise her children, men too. But that is not the case with gay marriage, most times.

Marriage is a rite not a right.

Says you. Our law recognizes marriage as a right. The supreme court rules on the law. Not on your personal opinion.

Before the SCOTUS usurped its authority where is it spelled out as a right? Where is marriage spelled out in the COTUS? No where that is where you folks just made it a right out of sail cloth. And please don't quote pass SCOTUS decisions, they all dealt with marriage between man and woman.

So it is my opinion against yours, prove yours.

Neither of our opinions matter. The opinion of the majority on SCOTUS matters. Their opinion is now the law of this land and you cannot do dick about it.

 

[johnwk]

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

It was expected of the other 3 members. They believe that Washington D.C. must dominate the ignorant peasants of the hinterland. Good God how could you live outside Boswash corridor and be educated and know whats good for your state, community and its people.

Unfortunately our federal government has also corrupted the various state public school system to such a degree that the founding of our country is no longer taught. What has replaced the founding of our country is "Isn't it great that Bobby has two daddies?'

JWK

 

[johnwk]

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.

Once again a false paradigm is given then argued against. First of all saying that anyone of religion is automatically disqualified from the discussion is BS. you get your belief system from some where just as those who have faith do. YOU are being the bigot by trying to eliminate the majority of the country from the argument. Also there are economic consideration with gay marriage. I can see the need to protect a woman and to help a woman who is not in the work force so she can raise her children, men too. But that is not the case with gay marriage, most times.

Marriage is a rite not a right.

Says you. Our law recognizes marriage as a right. The supreme court rules on the law. Not on your personal opinion.

Before the SCOTUS usurped its authority where is it spelled out as a right? Where is marriage spelled out in the COTUS? No where that is where you folks just made it a right out of sail cloth. And please don't quote pass SCOTUS decisions, they all dealt with marriage between man and woman.

So it is my opinion against yours, prove yours.

Neither of our opinions matter. The opinion of the majority on SCOTUS matters. Their opinion is now the law of this land and you cannot do dick about it.

There is a reason why they call it an "opinion" of the Supreme Court. And when it defies the text and legislative intent of our Constitution, the "opinion" is not legitimate as it defies the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction.


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

 

[Skylar]

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.

Once again a false paradigm is given then argued against. First of all saying that anyone of religion is automatically disqualified from the discussion is BS. you get your belief system from some where just as those who have faith do. YOU are being the bigot by trying to eliminate the majority of the country from the argument. Also there are economic consideration with gay marriage. I can see the need to protect a woman and to help a woman who is not in the work force so she can raise her children, men too. But that is not the case with gay marriage, most times.

Marriage is a rite not a right.

Says you. Our law recognizes marriage as a right. The supreme court rules on the law. Not on your personal opinion.

Before the SCOTUS usurped its authority where is it spelled out as a right? Where is marriage spelled out in the COTUS? No where that is where you folks just made it a right out of sail cloth. And please don't quote pass SCOTUS decisions, they all dealt with marriage between man and woman.

So it is my opinion against yours, prove yours.

Neither of our opinions matter. The opinion of the majority on SCOTUS matters. Their opinion is now the law of this land and you cannot do dick about it.

There is a reason why they call it an "opinion" of the Supreme Court. And when it defies the text and legislative intent of our Constitution, the "opinion" is not legitimate as it defies the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction.

When it defies the text and legislative intent of our constitution....according to who? Remember.....you're a hopeless liar. Here is what you offered as the 'legislative intent' of the 14th amendment:

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

And here's what Bingham actually said:

"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 by that Constitution. "

Cong. Globe page 1292

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 the 14th amendment was intended to do.

Which, of course, you already know. And now so does everyone else.

 

[Freewill]

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.

Once again a false paradigm is given then argued against. First of all saying that anyone of religion is automatically disqualified from the discussion is BS. you get your belief system from some where just as those who have faith do. YOU are being the bigot by trying to eliminate the majority of the country from the argument. Also there are economic consideration with gay marriage. I can see the need to protect a woman and to help a woman who is not in the work force so she can raise her children, men too. But that is not the case with gay marriage, most times.

Marriage is a rite not a right.

Says you. Our law recognizes marriage as a right. The supreme court rules on the law. Not on your personal opinion.

Before the SCOTUS usurped its authority where is it spelled out as a right? Where is marriage spelled out in the COTUS? No where that is where you folks just made it a right out of sail cloth. And please don't quote pass SCOTUS decisions, they all dealt with marriage between man and woman.

So it is my opinion against yours, prove yours.

Neither of our opinions matter. The opinion of the majority on SCOTUS matters. Their opinion is now the law of this land and you cannot do dick about it.

Of course no one can reverse the usurping of power by the SCOTUS. Or more to the point no one will. But your insensitivity to any opinion not your own in a discussion board is duly noted. But not giving a crap about any opinion other then their own myopic view is a hall mark of liberal thinking.

 

[johnwk]

Text of the 14th Amendment and its legislative intent


Let us review what the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment actually states.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”

Privileges and immunities are created by government, e.g., a driver’s license with the restriction the states deems necessary for the public good. So, privileges and immunities have to be created by the state before they can be abridged.

“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

Each state creates its own due process but no state may deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without their receiving the due process created under the state’s law.

“nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Whatever a State’s laws are, no person may be denied the equal protection of those laws


Having reviewed the text of the 14th Amendment, let us now review its legislative intent, or meaning, as understood by a supporter of the 14th Amendment when it was being debated.


“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


And Bingham the architect of the 1st section of the 14th Amendment 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

The fact is, even Bingham, who authored the 14th Amendment, eventually acknowledged his objective was not to overturn federalism___ powers “reserved” by the States under the 10th Amendment. 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 [a State’s] laws.” and this was the narrow objective of the 14th Amendment as is documented from the debates of the 39th Congress.

The irrefutable truth is, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in the same sex marriage case is not supported by the text of the 14th Amendment, nor supported by the amendment's legislative intent which is documented in the debates of the 39th Congress.

And what is the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction?

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.

So, as it turns out, Kennedy, when authoring the majority opinion, defied the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment and decided to use his office of public trust to impose his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice as the rule of law, and in so doing 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

 

[paddymurphy]

Text of the 14th Amendment and its legislative intent


Let us review what the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment actually states.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”

Privileges and immunities are created by government, e.g., a driver’s license with the restriction the states deems necessary for the public good. So, privileges and immunities have to be created by the state before they can be abridged.

“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

Each state creates its own due process but no state may deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without their receiving the due process created under the state’s law.

“nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Whatever a State’s laws are, no person may be denied the equal protection of those laws


Having reviewed the text of the 14th Amendment, let us now review its legislative intent, or meaning, as understood by a supporter of the 14th Amendment when it was being debated.


“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


And Bingham the architect of the 1st section of the 14th Amendment 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

The fact is, even Bingham, who authored the 14th Amendment, eventually acknowledged his objective was not to overturn federalism___ powers “reserved” by the States under the 10th Amendment. 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 [a State’s] laws.” and this was the narrow objective of the 14th Amendment as is documented from the debates of the 39th Congress.

The irrefutable truth is, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in the same sex marriage case is not supported by the text of the 14th Amendment, nor supported by the amendment's legislative intent which is documented in the debates of the 39th Congress.

And what is the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction?

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.

So, as it turns out, Kennedy, when authoring the majority opinion, defied the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment and decided to use his office of public trust to impose his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice as the rule of law, and in so doing 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 permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract." So, we should follow this intent; that women are not entitled to equal protection under the law nor due process of law? I know that for simple minded folks; folks without the intellect to actually consider that the world has changed and that the notion of "liberty" and "equal protection" have to be construed and applied to the current world, this is difficult. That is why these things are left to judges and lawyers, and not whatever the are.

 

[johnwk]

Text of the 14th Amendment and its legislative intent


Let us review what the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment actually states.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”

Privileges and immunities are created by government, e.g., a driver’s license with the restriction the states deems necessary for the public good. So, privileges and immunities have to be created by the state before they can be abridged.

“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

Each state creates its own due process but no state may deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without their receiving the due process created under the state’s law.

“nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Whatever a State’s laws are, no person may be denied the equal protection of those laws


Having reviewed the text of the 14th Amendment, let us now review its legislative intent, or meaning, as understood by a supporter of the 14th Amendment when it was being debated.


“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


And Bingham the architect of the 1st section of the 14th Amendment 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

The fact is, even Bingham, who authored the 14th Amendment, eventually acknowledged his objective was not to overturn federalism___ powers “reserved” by the States under the 10th Amendment. 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 [a State’s] laws.” and this was the narrow objective of the 14th Amendment as is documented from the debates of the 39th Congress.

The irrefutable truth is, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in the same sex marriage case is not supported by the text of the 14th Amendment, nor supported by the amendment's legislative intent which is documented in the debates of the 39th Congress.

And what is the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction?

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.

So, as it turns out, Kennedy, when authoring the majority opinion, defied the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment and decided to use his office of public trust to impose his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice as the rule of law, and in so doing 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 permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract."

So, we should follow this intent; that women are not entitled to equal protection under the law nor due process of law? I know that for simple minded folks; folks without the intellect to actually consider that the world has changed and that the notion of "liberty" and "equal protection" have to be construed and applied to the current world, this is difficult. That is why these things are left to judges and lawyers, and not whatever the are.

We are to abide by the text and legislative intent of our Constitution. Judges and Justices are not authorized to make the constitution mean what they think it should mean. We have an amendment process outlined in Article V to change our Constitution to accommodate changing times. Our system of government is based upon consent of the governed and we are not to be ruled by the arbitrary sense of fairness, justices or reasonableness of judges and Justices.

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