10 Questions For Rule-of-Law Critics Of Kim Davis

[Skylar]

Did or did not the SCOTUS make law? Is it the COTUS duty of the SCOTUS to make law?

The answer to both is clearly Yes and no and when they do we end up with things like the Dred Scott decision. 5 old men ruling for the nation and making laws is not how it is suppose to work. Especially when two of them, if not clearly gay, clearly made their bias known before even seeing the case.

Its obviously the job of the USSC to protect rights and constitutional guarantees. Same sex marriage bans violated both. And thus were rightly overturned by the USSC.

Exactly as they should have been.

Kim Davis is expected to do her job. Which includes issuing marriage certificates to all eligible couples that seek one from her office. And same sex couples are most definitely eligible.

 

[Freewill]

Did or did not the SCOTUS make law? Is it the COTUS duty of the SCOTUS to make law?

The answer to both is clearly Yes and no and when they do we end up with things like the Dred Scott decision. 5 old men ruling for the nation and making laws is not how it is suppose to work. Especially when two of them, if not clearly gay, clearly made their bias known before even seeing the case.

Its obviously the job of the USSC to protect rights and constitutional guarantees. Same sex marriage bans violated both. And thus were rightly overturned by the USSC.

Exactly as they should have been.

Kim Davis is expected to do her job. Which includes issuing marriage certificates to all eligible couples that seek one from her office. And same sex couples are most definitely eligible.

The role of the SCOUTS is to rule on laws whether consitutional or not. I realize you are arguing emotion. You want gay marriage to be legal, which is fine. My whole argument is how we get there. It just isn't right that the SCOTUS makes laws. They should have ruled that all marriage laws that discriminated were invalid and made the states change their laws or no marriage would have been valid. But they chose to make law. You can deny it but one day laws did not address gay marriage and the next it was legal. The only thing that happened was an edict from the SCOTUS making law.

Now, let's talk about corporations being people.

The Role of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, however, is far from all-powerful. Its power is limited by the other two branches of government. The President nominates justices to the court. The Senate must vote its approval of the nominations. The whole Congress also has great power over the lower courts in the federal system. District and appeals courts are created by acts of Congress. These courts may be abolished if Congress wishes it.

The Supreme Court is like a referee on a football field. The Congress, the President, the state police, and other government officials are the players. Some can pass laws, and others can enforce laws. But all exercise power within certain boundaries. These boundaries are set by the Constitution. As the "referee" in the U.S. system of government, it is the Supreme Court's job to say when government officials step out-of-bounds.

 

[Skylar]

The role of the SCOUTS is to rule on laws whether consitutional or not. I realize you are arguing emotion.

You're obviously projecting. I'm arguing the intent of the founders. You can imagine whatever role for the judciary you'd like, based on whatever 'feels' right to you. I'll stick with the Federalist Paper's explanation of the role of the judiciary:

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Federalist Paper 78

The Federalist Papers made it clear that it is the job of the USSC to interpret the constitution and to determine of a given piece of legislation is in accordance with the constitution. The court interpreted the constitution, specifically the 5th and 14th amendments to determine that laws prohibiting same sex marriage were a violation of constitutional guarantees.

The USSC didn't 'make' law. The overturned laws that violated the constitution. Which includes all state marriage laws that prohibit same sex marriage or prohibit the recognition of same sex marriages performed in other states.

Which is exactly what they're supposed to do.

 

[Freewill]

The role of the SCOUTS is to rule on laws whether consitutional or not. I realize you are arguing emotion.

You're obviously projecting. I'm arguing the intent of the founders. You can imagine whatever role for the judciary you'd like, based on whatever 'feels' right to you. I'll stick with the Federalist Paper's explanation of the role of the judiciary:

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Federalist Paper 78

The Federalist Papers made it clear that it is the job of the USSC to interpret the constitution and to determine of a given piece of legislation is in accordance with the constitution. The court interpreted the constitution, specifically the 5th and 14th amendments to determine that laws prohibiting same sex marriage were a violation of constitutional guarantees.

The USSC didn't 'make' law. The overturned laws that violated the constitution. Which includes all state marriage laws that prohibit same sex marriage or prohibit the recognition of same sex marriages performed in other states.

Which is exactly what they're supposed to do.

As I have said, the law never allowed for SSM. That is why some states changed their laws to allow for SSM. So which law is not constitutional? Before the ruling the plain reading of most of the state laws did not mention gay marriage thus not legel, afterwards it was, so if that isn't making law by edict what is? Corporations are people?

My point is that gay marriage was going to happen, through the legislative process as it should have. Now what we got is a edict from the SCOTUS. The only way that any marriage law is enforceable, in my opinion, is by ignoring that the SCOTUS invalidated their law and made their own. Now I see no way for siblings not to get married or even polygamy for that matter. It is now just a matter of definition which the SCOTUS changed, thus making law.

The founders would have never even considered gay marriage.

Until Marshall the SCOTUS wasn't sure it had the power to void Congressional actions. So no the original duties of the SCOTUS were not as clear as you say.

Now let's discuss corporations being people.

 

[sear]

"The Federalist Papers made it clear that it is the job of the USSC to interpret the constitution and to determine of a given piece of legislation is in accordance with the constitution." Sl

Yes. But FP are not enforceable law; merely an elucidation of the Founder's intent.

BUT !!
That doesn't matter.

Marbury v. Madison
Chief Justice John Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court rules that any act of Congress which conflicts with the Constitution is null and void. His decision in the case of Marbury v. Madison February 14 establishes the Court as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.

The People's Chronology is licensed from Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Copyright © 1995, 1996 by James Trager. All rights reserved.

 

[Skylar]

The role of the SCOUTS is to rule on laws whether consitutional or not. I realize you are arguing emotion.

You're obviously projecting. I'm arguing the intent of the founders. You can imagine whatever role for the judciary you'd like, based on whatever 'feels' right to you. I'll stick with the Federalist Paper's explanation of the role of the judiciary:

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Federalist Paper 78

The Federalist Papers made it clear that it is the job of the USSC to interpret the constitution and to determine of a given piece of legislation is in accordance with the constitution. The court interpreted the constitution, specifically the 5th and 14th amendments to determine that laws prohibiting same sex marriage were a violation of constitutional guarantees.

The USSC didn't 'make' law. The overturned laws that violated the constitution. Which includes all state marriage laws that prohibit same sex marriage or prohibit the recognition of same sex marriages performed in other states.

Which is exactly what they're supposed to do.

As I have said, the law never allowed for SSM.

And as the court found, that prohibition was a violation of the 14th amendment. The 14th is part of the constitution. The interpretation of the constitution is the job of the judiciary. And placing the constitution at a higher priority than legislation that violates is also the job of the judiciary.

Says who? Says the Federalist Papers. You 'feel' differently. And you're more than welcome to you emotions. I'll stick with the founders intent for the role of the judiciary and the process it is supposed to use.

That is why some states changed their laws to allow for SSM. So which law is not constitutional? Before the ruling the plain reading of most of the state laws did not mention gay marriage thus not legel, afterwards it was, so if that isn't making law by edict what is? Corporations are people?

The laws that do not include same sex marriage. As the Loving Decision made ludicrously clear the standards of the law itself must meet constitutional muster. If the laws are construction in such a way as to deny rights to individual citizens in abrogation of the constitution then the laws are invalid.

State marriage laws that did not allow for same sex marriage were construction in such a way as to deny rights to individual citizens in abrogation of the constitution and were thus invalid.

See how that works?

My point is that gay marriage was going to happen, through the legislative process as it should have. Now what we got is a edict from the SCOTUS. The only way that any marriage law is enforceable, in my opinion, is by ignoring that the SCOTUS invalidated their law and made their own. Now I see no way for siblings not to get married or even polygamy for that matter. It is now just a matter of definition which the SCOTUS changed, thus making law.

And my point is that rights are not matter of a vote. If same sex couples have the right to equal protection under the law and access to the right of marriage like anyone else.....why would they have to wait for a vote before they can excercise this right?

Can a majority vote in your state legsilature and the signature of your governor strip you of any right they wish? Of course not. You rightly prioritize the rights that you hold as beyond a legislture's authority to abrogate. Gays and lesbians prioritize their rights in the exact same way.

The founders would have never even considered gay marriage.

The founders would have never considered the bill of rights applying to the States at all. Or for women voting. Or for marriage to be a joining of equals. Or for slaves to be freed. There's been a lot of history between then and now including an amendment that prevents the States from violating the rights of individuals. Something the Founders never considered. Something the courts today have.

The constitution includes virtually no inclusion of specific social issues. Its a document of PROCESS. Not outcome. If we're bound to the will of the founders on specific social issues then our only possible legislative action toward gays is to kill them. As execution was the sole punishment for sodomy in the era of the founders.

With sodomy including blow jobs. So if you like head...we'll have to kill you too.

We're not bound to the social issues of the late 18th century with the constitution. We're bound to the process it lays out. The social issues are to be decided by those filling constitutional roles in the era those roles are filled. You're demanding we ignore the process.....but cling to the social issues. Which is ridiculous, as the constitution is almost exclusively process and includes very little social issue.

 

[Freewill]

The role of the SCOUTS is to rule on laws whether consitutional or not. I realize you are arguing emotion.

You're obviously projecting. I'm arguing the intent of the founders. You can imagine whatever role for the judciary you'd like, based on whatever 'feels' right to you. I'll stick with the Federalist Paper's explanation of the role of the judiciary:

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Federalist Paper 78

The Federalist Papers made it clear that it is the job of the USSC to interpret the constitution and to determine of a given piece of legislation is in accordance with the constitution. The court interpreted the constitution, specifically the 5th and 14th amendments to determine that laws prohibiting same sex marriage were a violation of constitutional guarantees.

The USSC didn't 'make' law. The overturned laws that violated the constitution. Which includes all state marriage laws that prohibit same sex marriage or prohibit the recognition of same sex marriages performed in other states.

Which is exactly what they're supposed to do.

As I have said, the law never allowed for SSM.

And as the court found, that prohibition was a violation of the 14th amendment. The 14th is part of the constitution. The interpretation of the constitution is the job of the judiciary. And placing the constitution at a higher priority than legislation that violates is also the job of the judiciary.

Says who? Says the Federalist Papers. You 'feel' differently. And you're more than welcome to you emotions. I'll stick with the founders intent for the role of the judiciary and the process it is supposed to use.

That is why some states changed their laws to allow for SSM. So which law is not constitutional? Before the ruling the plain reading of most of the state laws did not mention gay marriage thus not legel, afterwards it was, so if that isn't making law by edict what is? Corporations are people?

The laws that do not include same sex marriage. As the Loving Decision made ludicrously clear the standards of the law itself must meet constitutional muster. If the laws are construction in such a way as to deny rights to individual citizens in abrogation of the constitution then the laws are invalid.

State marriage laws that did not allow for same sex marriage were construction in such a way as to deny rights to individual citizens in abrogation of the constitution and were thus invalid.

See how that works?

My point is that gay marriage was going to happen, through the legislative process as it should have. Now what we got is a edict from the SCOTUS. The only way that any marriage law is enforceable, in my opinion, is by ignoring that the SCOTUS invalidated their law and made their own. Now I see no way for siblings not to get married or even polygamy for that matter. It is now just a matter of definition which the SCOTUS changed, thus making law.

And my point is that rights are not matter of a vote. If same sex couples have the right to equal protection under the law and access to the right of marriage like anyone else.....why would they have to wait for a vote before they can excercise this right?

Can a majority vote in your state legsilature and the signature of your governor strip you of any right they wish? Of course not. You rightly prioritize the rights that you hold as beyond a legislture's authority to abrogate. Gays and lesbians prioritize their rights in the exact same way.

The founders would have never even considered gay marriage.

The founders would have never considered the bill of rights applying to the States at all. Or for women voting. Or for marriage to be a joining of equals. Or for slaves to be freed. There's been a lot of history between then and now including an amendment that prevents the States from violating the rights of individuals. Something the Founders never considered. Something the courts today have.

The constitution includes virtually no inclusion of specific social issues. Its a document of PROCESS. Not outcome. If we're bound to the will of the founders on specific social issues then our only possible legislative action toward gays is to kill them. As execution was the sole punishment for sodomy in the era of the founders.

With sodomy including blow jobs. So if you like head...we'll have to kill you too.

We're not bound to the social issues of the late 18th century with the constitution. We're bound to the process it lays out. The social issues are to be decided by those filling constitutional roles in the era those roles are filled. You're demanding we ignore the process.....but cling to the social issues. Which is ridiculous, as the constitution is almost exclusively process and includes very little social issue.

Invalidating the law is what I said they should have done, all marriage laws. THAT is their prerogative. What they did was invalidate laws specifically naming gay marriage and changing all other laws, that is making law. That way the states could have crafted the laws to still limit who can get married. As I see it, anything goes.

The SCOTUS has assumed way too much power and it all started with Marshall.

 

[Skylar]

The role of the SCOUTS is to rule on laws whether consitutional or not. I realize you are arguing emotion.

You're obviously projecting. I'm arguing the intent of the founders. You can imagine whatever role for the judciary you'd like, based on whatever 'feels' right to you. I'll stick with the Federalist Paper's explanation of the role of the judiciary:

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Federalist Paper 78

The Federalist Papers made it clear that it is the job of the USSC to interpret the constitution and to determine of a given piece of legislation is in accordance with the constitution. The court interpreted the constitution, specifically the 5th and 14th amendments to determine that laws prohibiting same sex marriage were a violation of constitutional guarantees.

The USSC didn't 'make' law. The overturned laws that violated the constitution. Which includes all state marriage laws that prohibit same sex marriage or prohibit the recognition of same sex marriages performed in other states.

Which is exactly what they're supposed to do.

As I have said, the law never allowed for SSM.

And as the court found, that prohibition was a violation of the 14th amendment. The 14th is part of the constitution. The interpretation of the constitution is the job of the judiciary. And placing the constitution at a higher priority than legislation that violates is also the job of the judiciary.

Says who? Says the Federalist Papers. You 'feel' differently. And you're more than welcome to you emotions. I'll stick with the founders intent for the role of the judiciary and the process it is supposed to use.

That is why some states changed their laws to allow for SSM. So which law is not constitutional? Before the ruling the plain reading of most of the state laws did not mention gay marriage thus not legel, afterwards it was, so if that isn't making law by edict what is? Corporations are people?

The laws that do not include same sex marriage. As the Loving Decision made ludicrously clear the standards of the law itself must meet constitutional muster. If the laws are construction in such a way as to deny rights to individual citizens in abrogation of the constitution then the laws are invalid.

State marriage laws that did not allow for same sex marriage were construction in such a way as to deny rights to individual citizens in abrogation of the constitution and were thus invalid.

See how that works?

My point is that gay marriage was going to happen, through the legislative process as it should have. Now what we got is a edict from the SCOTUS. The only way that any marriage law is enforceable, in my opinion, is by ignoring that the SCOTUS invalidated their law and made their own. Now I see no way for siblings not to get married or even polygamy for that matter. It is now just a matter of definition which the SCOTUS changed, thus making law.

And my point is that rights are not matter of a vote. If same sex couples have the right to equal protection under the law and access to the right of marriage like anyone else.....why would they have to wait for a vote before they can excercise this right?

Can a majority vote in your state legsilature and the signature of your governor strip you of any right they wish? Of course not. You rightly prioritize the rights that you hold as beyond a legislture's authority to abrogate. Gays and lesbians prioritize their rights in the exact same way.

The founders would have never even considered gay marriage.

The founders would have never considered the bill of rights applying to the States at all. Or for women voting. Or for marriage to be a joining of equals. Or for slaves to be freed. There's been a lot of history between then and now including an amendment that prevents the States from violating the rights of individuals. Something the Founders never considered. Something the courts today have.

The constitution includes virtually no inclusion of specific social issues. Its a document of PROCESS. Not outcome. If we're bound to the will of the founders on specific social issues then our only possible legislative action toward gays is to kill them. As execution was the sole punishment for sodomy in the era of the founders.

With sodomy including blow jobs. So if you like head...we'll have to kill you too.

We're not bound to the social issues of the late 18th century with the constitution. We're bound to the process it lays out. The social issues are to be decided by those filling constitutional roles in the era those roles are filled. You're demanding we ignore the process.....but cling to the social issues. Which is ridiculous, as the constitution is almost exclusively process and includes very little social issue.

Invalidating the law is what I said they should have done, all marriage laws.

Nope. They can overturn the restrictions in the law that are unconstitutional. Exactly as they did with interracial marriage bans in the Loving case. They didn't need to unmake civil marriage. They merely overturned the specific legal construction that violated the constitution. In Loving it was the interracial marriage bans. In Obergefell it was the same sex marriage bans.

THAT is their prerogative.

Says you, citing yourself. Which defines no portion of the court's 'prerogative'.