Why Justice Kennedy ought to be impeached by Congress!

[hazlnut]

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

 

[rightwinger]

Equal protection of the law is pretty obvious

Gay marriage should have been allowed decades ago

 

[Freewill]

Where is marriage spelled out in the COTUS?

Yes, where is marriage in the constitution? Where does it say that the states have any right to regulate marriage?

The 10th amendment. All powers not specifically outline in the COTUS belong to the state. Says that right there in the COTUS.

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

Don't like it? Then ignore it or pretend you don't know of it. that would be in keeping with this SCOTUS.

 

[rightwinger]

Where is marriage spelled out in the COTUS?

Yes, where is marriage in the constitution? Where does it say that the states have any right to regulate marriage?

Where does the Constitution say anything about drinking fountains, buses or integrated schools?

 

[Freewill]

Equal protection of the law is pretty obvious

Gay marriage should have been allowed decades ago

It is only obvious if only those two words are what is understood.

Here read and learn what kennedy has done to the country all to get what they wanted, not what was right.

Justice Kennedy s opinion in the gay marriage case may upend fifty-plus years of settled equal protection and due process jurisprudence - The Washington Post

 

[Freewill]

Where is marriage spelled out in the COTUS?

Yes, where is marriage in the constitution? Where does it say that the states have any right to regulate marriage?

Where does the Constitution say anything about drinking fountains, buses or integrated schools?

the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, the Fourteenth provided citizenship, and the Fifteenth guaranteed the right to vote.

You ought to read what the SCOTUS did with civil rights, they DON't always get it right or even close, as Dred Scott.

A Century of Racial Segregation 1849 1950 - Brown v. Board at Fifty With an Even Hand Exhibitions - Library of Congress

As for your specifics it won't be long before they are arresting pastors who refuse to marry two men.

 

[SwimExpert]

The 10th amendment. All powers not specifically outline in the COTUS belong to the state.

Actually, you are wrong. The 10th amendment reserves to the states all their pre-constitution powers which were not reclassified as federal powers by the constitution.

It's much like the 9th amendment, which reserved to the people their preexisting natural rights and powers. Like, ya know, the power to enter into marriage of their own accord.

 

[dcraelin]

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?

which might just pint to the need for a more liberal rule on impeachment

 

[Freewill]

The 10th amendment. All powers not specifically outline in the COTUS belong to the state.

Actually, you are wrong. The 10th amendment reserves to the states all their pre-constitution powers which were not reclassified as federal powers by the constitution.

It's much like the 9th amendment, which reserved to the people their preexisting natural rights and powers. Like, ya know, the power to enter into marriage of their own accord.

Sigh, I will say I am impressed with your ability to change the clear language into something unrecognizable. You ought to be on the SCOTUS. The reserve clause gives states all power not specifically given to the federal government and marriage isn't mentioned. Period.

Amendment X

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

THAT is the whole of the 10th amendment, period.

For anyone else paying attention, here is the whole of the 9th amendment:

Amendment IX

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

 

[SwimExpert]

The reserve clause gives states all power

No, the reserve clause reserves powers. How can the states reserve a power they did not previously possess?

And how in the fuck can you claim that the 10th gives the states any power whatsoever, and then treat the 9th as meaning absolutely nothing?

Talk about changing the language into something unrecognizable.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Bingham was a railroad lawyer and charles BeardI believe implies he wrote that partly as a favor for his clients.
Corporations and Natural Rights VQR Online

 

[Freewill]

The reserve clause gives states all power

No, the reserve clause reserves powers. How can the states reserve a power they did not previously possess?

And how in the fuck can you claim that the 10th gives the states any power whatsoever, and then treat the 9th as meaning absolutely nothing?

Talk about changing the language into something unrecognizable.

You might have a point if I had said the 9th meant nothing, it just doesn't mean what you imply or the clear logical reading of it does not.

For example, using your "logic" there was never any need for civil rights acts. There was no reason for the federal government to spell out to states civil rights. Of course they had to because it was not already in the COTUS. That is why there are constitutional conventions to adopt amendments because it is taking away power of the states.

What should have happened is there should have been an amendment made spelling out what the SCOTUS wrongly decided usurping their power. I am not clear why those on the left have such a problem following the COTUS. Other then striking down laws what exact law did the SCOTUS rule was constitutional? They didn't they made it a right out of sail cloth usurping the the power of the governed.

 

[Freewill]

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

Tenth Amendment - The Meaning
The Tenth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to further define the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The amendment says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution. These powers include the power to declare war, to collect taxes, to regulate interstate business activities and others that are listed in the articles.

Any power not listed, says the Tenth Amendment, is left to the states or the people. Although the Tenth Amendment does not specify what these “powers” may be, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that laws affecting family relations (such as marriage, divorce, and adoption), commerce that occurs within a state’s own borders, and local law enforcement activities, are among those specifically reserved to the states or the people.

Annenberg Classroom - Tenth Amendment

 

[SwimExpert]

You're so deranged it's almost as funny as it is sad. So, the tenth amendment means the states can do anything whatsoever they want. But the ninth amendment is just a fashionable piece of jewelry. Your brain is so rotted you can't even fathom how absurd you are being.

 

[Freewill]

You're so deranged it's almost as funny as it is sad. So, the tenth amendment means the states can do anything whatsoever they want. But the ninth amendment is just a fashionable piece of jewelry. Your brain is so rotted you can't even fathom how absurd you are being.

9th Amendment legal definition of 9th Amendment

Might I point out to you that the 9th amendment was not used in the Loving case.

And I might also point out that the 9th amendment was not used in the latest ruling.

Might I also point out that in every other case before the SCOTUS that even closely involved marriage it was marriage between a man and a woman.

Further, if the tide was indeed turning and states are accepting gay marriage, or were before being forced, then there was little to no need for the court to do anything.

And, since you said it. The 9th amendment has seldom if ever has been used so yes it is somewhat like a nice piece of jewelry.

What the court did was redefine marriage and write law, that shouldn't happen.

 

[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.

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

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, and it is that case law which determines “the terms of the Constitution itself.”

Justice Kennedy followed settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, consistently applying that jurisprudence to the question of the constitutionality of state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Among the most fundamental principles enshrined in the 14th Amendment is that citizens' civil rights are immune form attack by the state, that the states may not decide who will or will not have his civil rights, and that one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence:

'The Nation’s courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act. The idea of the Constitution “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638 (1943). This is why “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” Ibid.'

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

FREEWILL SAID:

“Further, if the tide was indeed turning and states are accepting gay marriage, or were before being forced, then there was little to no need for the court to do anything.”

Incorrect.

This was addressed in Friday's ruling:

“There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right.”

A Constitutional right delayed is a Constitutional right denied – indeed, no government has the authority to compel citizens to 'wait' for a right both inalienable and fundamental.

FREEWILL SAID:

“What the court did was redefine marriage and write law, that shouldn't happen.”

Also incorrect.

The marriage laws in the many states were already written, and same-sex couples already eligible to enter into marriage contracts pursuant to those laws, hence the measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they were eligible to participate in. Consequently nothing was 'redefined,' no laws 'written,' the Court appropriately and in concert with the Constitution invalidated state measures repugnant to the 14th Amendment.

 

[Skylar]

See post #28

The court bastardized the 14th just as they have so much of the rest of the Constitution.

Post 28 doesn't include a single quote from the Obergefell decision, nor disagreement with a single citation.

Read the ruling first. Then tell us what passages you disagree with. But you can hardly lament against legal reasoning you've never even reviewed, regarding a ruling you've never read.

 

[Skylar]

The reserve clause gives states all power

No, the reserve clause reserves powers. How can the states reserve a power they did not previously possess?

And how in the fuck can you claim that the 10th gives the states any power whatsoever, and then treat the 9th as meaning absolutely nothing?

Talk about changing the language into something unrecognizable.

Simple: Conservatives prioritize government power over individual rights.

That's obvious to everyone, right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That is an exceedingly useless consolation which fails to distract freedom loving Americans from your intolerance.

What in the blue fuck makes you think a gay person gets any benefit from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

The freedom to do something you don't want to...hmmm

When did that begin to make sense to anyone.

Oh! never mind, a Texas Conservative, that explains a lot

No offense

You are not establishing how the 14th Amendment forbids a state to make its own rules when issuing a marriage license. I sympathize with your feelings but our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of justice and fairness as the rule of law.

Have you read the Obergefell decision? If so, feel free to tell us how their reasoning was invalid. We have no obligation to prove the Supreme Court was right. Its you that needs to demonstrate they were wrong.

And I don't think you've even looked at the Obergefell decision.

I repeat, you are not establishing how the 14th Amendment forbids a state to make its own rules when issuing a marriage license. I sympathize with your feelings but our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of justice and fairness as the rule of law.

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

And I repeat, you have yet to even read the Obergefell decision or to determine the legal logic they used in overturning state marriage laws. Until you are aware of that reasoning its quite impossible for you to claim it is invalid. The burden of proof is on you. And you refuse to even read the ruling you are railing against.

In the most real sense imaginable, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

See post #28

The court bastardized the 14th just as they have so much of the rest of the Constitution.

According to whom, according to what legal authority – you, 'strict constructionists,' ridiculous rightwing blogs; who exactly has been 'authorized' to decide what the Constitution means other than the Supreme Court, and by what 'authority.'