Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[Ernie S.]

Do you really not know the difference?

Do you really need us to explain the difference?

Yes, I guess I do need for somebody to explain the difference.

Okay

A dictatorship is the absolute rule by one person. No legislature, no courts- except as controlled by the Dictator. Dictators do not need to obey any law and are not subject to any law. A Dictator is not elected to be a dictator.

In our country- the Supreme Court is appointed by the President one by one- and confirmed by the Senate. Justice's do not select themselves. Nor does any Justice have absolute power- the Supreme Court can only act with a majority vote.

Nor does the Supreme Court have any ability to decide what laws it wants to review- the Supreme Court can only hear a case that has been heard by other courts. For instance- no matter how much a majority of Justice's may wish to decide who won the 2014 Superbowl- they have no legal ability to do so.

What the Supreme Court can do is decide on the Constitutionality of legislation that has passed, or criminal decisions reached by other courts. Justices are subject to the law- if they break the law, the Legislature can impeach them, and upon successful impeachment and conviction, they can then be tried for that crime.

The Supreme Court is made up of people who are given lifetime membership on the Court and who cannot be disciplined or removed from the court without a long, bloody, and messy process that Congress does not have the will to go through. There are no consequences for those on the court no matter how wrong they get it. Just five of them are required to change the lives of the American people in major and often permanent ways and nobody is given oversight over their decisions or any power to change their decisions. And they are increasingly appointed not for their judicial restraint and wisdom, but for their partisan and/or ideological views and willingness to bypass the executive branch and Congress with judicial activism. There is no way for the Supreme Court to be required to obey the Constitution.

That is about as close to a dictatorship as it gets. We need to demand more protection for the American people.

The Court issues opinions subject to human failings. One would think that SCOTUS decisions based on only the Constitution would be unanimous.
4-5 decisions are arbitrary and reflect politics instead of logic. When SCOTUS can interpret “through an Exchange established by the state.” to mean citizens in states with no exchange should get subsidies through the federal government, SCOTUS has become a joke. States should have a means of rectifying that.

Yes! The large number of 5/4 decisions strongly suggests partisan motives in SCOTUS decisions rather than intent to uphold and enforce the Constitution. And who can respect that?

Not me....

 

[Syriusly]

Do you really not know the difference?

Do you really need us to explain the difference?

Yes, I guess I do need for somebody to explain the difference.

Okay

A dictatorship is the absolute rule by one person. No legislature, no courts- except as controlled by the Dictator. Dictators do not need to obey any law and are not subject to any law. A Dictator is not elected to be a dictator.

In our country- the Supreme Court is appointed by the President one by one- and confirmed by the Senate. Justice's do not select themselves. Nor does any Justice have absolute power- the Supreme Court can only act with a majority vote.

Nor does the Supreme Court have any ability to decide what laws it wants to review- the Supreme Court can only hear a case that has been heard by other courts. For instance- no matter how much a majority of Justice's may wish to decide who won the 2014 Superbowl- they have no legal ability to do so.

What the Supreme Court can do is decide on the Constitutionality of legislation that has passed, or criminal decisions reached by other courts. Justices are subject to the law- if they break the law, the Legislature can impeach them, and upon successful impeachment and conviction, they can then be tried for that crime.

The Supreme Court is made up of people who are given lifetime membership on the Court and who cannot be disciplined or removed from the court without a long, bloody, and messy process that Congress does not have the will to go through. There are no consequences for those on the court no matter how wrong they get it. Just five of them are required to change the lives of the American people in major and often permanent ways and nobody is given oversight over their decisions or any power to change their decisions. And they are increasingly appointed not for their judicial restraint and wisdom, but for their partisan and/or ideological views and willingness to bypass the executive branch and Congress with judicial activism. There is no way for the Supreme Court to be required to obey the Constitution.

That is about as close to a dictatorship as it gets. We need to demand more protection for the American people.

The Court issues opinions subject to human failings. One would think that SCOTUS decisions based on only the Constitution would be unanimous.
4-5 decisions are arbitrary and reflect politics instead of logic. When SCOTUS can interpret “through an Exchange established by the state.” to mean citizens in states with no exchange should get subsidies through the federal government, SCOTUS has become a joke. States should have a means of rectifying that.

Yes! The large number of 5/4 decisions strongly suggests partisan motives in SCOTUS decisions rather than intent to uphold and enforce the Constitution. And who can respect that?

It strongly suggests divided opinions.

Interpreting such decisions as being motivated by 'partisanship'- to me indicates your own partisanship.

 

[Syriusly]

As I read the arguments, it would prevent the tyranny of a very thin majority--a majority that can be obtained on the whims of self serving appointments--to impose the law on everybody and give the federal government power to declare what will be the law for everybody, even if that law is unconstitutional.

I agree with you that the SCOTUS is out of control, but I am not convinced that the proposed amendment is a viable remedy. In light of statements by Roberts and Kennedy, both men should be immediately impeached. Roberts openly declared his contempt for the law and his unwillingness to follow duly constituted law. .

You do realize by calling for the impeachment of Roberts and Kennedy for their decisions you are declaring your contempt for the Constitution and your unwillingness to follow it.

 

[rightwinger]

One of the dumbest amendments to come down the pike in a long time

Essentially more nullification nonsense

We are THE UNITED STATES, individual states or minority states should not have the power to nullify what they don't like

Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES, if they lose, they don't get to take their ball and go home

 

[Hossfly]

Three things I would like to see in my lifetime.

1. All members of Congress be required to vote the will of their constituants
and not the pressure of lobbyists and special interest groups. Too many
times the majority of the people in a voting district or state will have their
choices ignored and the lawmakers vote according to their own interests.

2. SCOTUS Justices be elected instead of appointed and with term limits.
We elect a President and a Congress. Why not Judges?

3. Abolish the Electoral College and use the popular vote.


Oh, and one more important item: That all politicians sign an affidavit to agree that at the completion of their term in office they be publicly hanged. That would solve a lot of hanky panky you betcha.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Citizen Warren Michelsen, believes all branches--executive, legislative, and judicial--of the U.S. federal government have overstepped their constitutional authority, he proposes that the American people move to restore the power to self govern that the Constitution originally intended.

A recent Harris poll suggests a majority of Americans agree with him: Supreme Court SCOTUS lifetime appointment Harris

He has provided an in depth, lengthy and well thought out argument to support his opinion here: Amending the Constitution

His basic thesis is that five out of nine Supreme Court justices should not have the uncontested power to determine the fate or destiny of all the people, nor should the federal government at any level have the sole power to judge the legality of government action at any level. Further the federal government should be required to provide much more consensus as to the legality of the legislation it passes before that legislation is imposed upon the people.

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed to restore power to the people:

Section 1. When the number of states exceeding twenty-five percent of all the United States shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions.

Section 2. When any state shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that state may, at its option, prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders.

Section 3. Every Bill which shall be considered by the House of Representatives or the Senate, shall, before it come to a vote, be subjected to scrutiny so as to ascertain that said Bill is not in conflict with this Constitution. Whenever one third of either House shall find the Bill to be in conflict, it shall require that three quarters of that House vote Yea before the Bill be considered passed.​

The OP at this time is not ready to declare an opinion on whether Michelsen is right in part or in whole about that, but rather would throws it open for consideration, evaluation, and discussion. Disclosure: This discussion has been offered at a different site in addition to this one as as an experiment.

QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED:

Do you or do you not wholly or in part support Michelsen's proposed Amendment as written to limit the power of government and return that power to the people? Why or why not.?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic please with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any person, group, demographic, state, ideology, or political party allowed. The topic is summarized in the Question to be discussed and can include any of the statements or arguments provided in the OP or the two links provided.

2. To avoid getting bogged down in semantics, as deemed necessary, the OP reserves the right to define words, terms, or phrases for the purposes of this discussion only.

3. Links are not required to participate in this discussion, but if they are used, please provide a brief synopsis of what the member will learn if they click on the link.

1. All Supreme Court Justices may only vote according to the language of the United States Constitution.

2. Any issue not specific to the enumerated powers may not be legislated by the federal government....and must remain withing the province of the state courts.

That would be American jurisprudence.


3. June 29, 1784 Arguments in Rutgers vs. Waddington presented. Alexander Hamilton took the unpopular side of a British merchant, arguing that the treaty that ended the Revolution superseded the NY Trespass Act which allowed patriots who had left properties to sue those who occupied them.

Hamilton's arguments in Rutgers v. Waddington were a milestone in the formulation of the American doctrine of judicial review, or the doctrine that legislative decisions must be reviewed by the courts, to determine if they are coherent with higher forms of law.


4. If any legislation can be shown to be consistent with the language of the Constitution, as used during ratification, it must.....must....be found constitutional.
If not covered by the enumerated powers, Article 1, section 8, it must be only judged by state law.



5. There is no reason why every piece of legislation must apply to every state.
a. Foot voting is the ability of people to "vote with their feet"[1] by leaving situations they do not like or going to situations they believe to be more beneficial.
It has been described as "a tool for enhancing political freedom: the ability of the people to choose the political regime under which they wish to live".[2]
Foot voting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Foxfyre]

As I read the arguments, it would prevent the tyranny of a very thin majority--a majority that can be obtained on the whims of self serving appointments--to impose the law on everybody and give the federal government power to declare what will be the law for everybody, even if that law is unconstitutional.

I agree with you that the SCOTUS is out of control, but I am not convinced that the proposed amendment is a viable remedy. In light of statements by Roberts and Kennedy, both men should be immediately impeached. Roberts openly declared his contempt for the law and his unwillingness to follow duly constituted law. .

You do realize by calling for the impeachment of Roberts and Kennedy for their decisions you are declaring your contempt for the Constitution and your unwillingness to follow it.

How would his calling for impeachment of Roberts and Kennedy that he considers to not respect or follow the intent of the Constitution declare a contempt for that Constitution or an unwillingness to follow it.

And be a bit careful here. I know it was likely not intended as such, but you strayed mildly into the arena of both ad hominem and personal insult with that comment. Focus on the post and rebut it if you need to, but leave the personal intent or motives of the person out of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Citizen Warren Michelsen, believes all branches--executive, legislative, and judicial--of the U.S. federal government have overstepped their constitutional authority, he proposes that the American people move to restore the power to self govern that the Constitution originally intended.

A recent Harris poll suggests a majority of Americans agree with him: Supreme Court SCOTUS lifetime appointment Harris

He has provided an in depth, lengthy and well thought out argument to support his opinion here: Amending the Constitution

His basic thesis is that five out of nine Supreme Court justices should not have the uncontested power to determine the fate or destiny of all the people, nor should the federal government at any level have the sole power to judge the legality of government action at any level. Further the federal government should be required to provide much more consensus as to the legality of the legislation it passes before that legislation is imposed upon the people.

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed to restore power to the people:

Section 1. When the number of states exceeding twenty-five percent of all the United States shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions.

Section 2. When any state shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that state may, at its option, prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders.

Section 3. Every Bill which shall be considered by the House of Representatives or the Senate, shall, before it come to a vote, be subjected to scrutiny so as to ascertain that said Bill is not in conflict with this Constitution. Whenever one third of either House shall find the Bill to be in conflict, it shall require that three quarters of that House vote Yea before the Bill be considered passed.​

The OP at this time is not ready to declare an opinion on whether Michelsen is right in part or in whole about that, but rather would throws it open for consideration, evaluation, and discussion. Disclosure: This discussion has been offered at a different site in addition to this one as as an experiment.

QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED:

Do you or do you not wholly or in part support Michelsen's proposed Amendment as written to limit the power of government and return that power to the people? Why or why not.?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic please with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any person, group, demographic, state, ideology, or political party allowed. The topic is summarized in the Question to be discussed and can include any of the statements or arguments provided in the OP or the two links provided.

2. To avoid getting bogged down in semantics, as deemed necessary, the OP reserves the right to define words, terms, or phrases for the purposes of this discussion only.

3. Links are not required to participate in this discussion, but if they are used, please provide a brief synopsis of what the member will learn if they click on the link.

1. All Supreme Court Justices may only vote according to the language of the United States Constitution.

2. Any issue not specific to the enumerated powers may not be legislated by the federal government....and must remain withing the province of the state courts.

That would be American jurisprudence.


3. June 29, 1784 Arguments in Rutgers vs. Waddington presented. Alexander Hamilton took the unpopular side of a British merchant, arguing that the treaty that ended the Revolution superseded the NY Trespass Act which allowed patriots who had left properties to sue those who occupied them.

Hamilton's arguments in Rutgers v. Waddington were a milestone in the formulation of the American doctrine of judicial review, or the doctrine that legislative decisions must be reviewed by the courts, to determine if they are coherent with higher forms of law.


4. If any legislation can be shown to be consistent with the language of the Constitution, as used during ratification, it must.....must....be found constitutional.
If not covered by the enumerated powers, Article 1, section 8, it must be only judged by state law.



5. There is no reason why every piece of legislation must apply to every state.
a. Foot voting is the ability of people to "vote with their feet"[1] by leaving situations they do not like or going to situations they believe to be more beneficial.
It has been described as "a tool for enhancing political freedom: the ability of the people to choose the political regime under which they wish to live".[2]
Foot voting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

But Michelsen's thesis begs the question: If the Supreme Court gives itself authority to perform judicial review--something the Constitution itself does not authorize--who is given authority to perform judicial review over the decisions of the Supreme Court? What keeps SCOTUS from becoming an uncontestable authority and therefore dictator over us all?

Michelsen's amendment addresses that problem and restores the power to the states and the people.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I agree that Marbury vs Madison should be reversed. I am still thinking Michelsen's proposed amendment through as the devil is always in the details The brilliance of Michelsen's amendment is that it puts the power with the states and the people where the Constitution intended that it be in the first place. Most of those objecting to the amendment so far are doing so on the grounds that the people are less competent to govern themselves than is the government competent to govern them.

Well, a lot of us aren't seeing a great deal of competence or respect for the Constitution in ANY branch of the federal government right now.

It kills me to say this, but syriusly has a point. If states can refuse to enforce provisions of law, then the rights of all are in jeopardy. If 25% of states say that the SCOTUS lacks the authority to declare the second amendment valid, then the rights of all are in danger. If 25% of states can declare that the Hobby Lobby ruling is void, then 1st amendment rights are likewise nullified.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Reject: the States are not Legal experts to declare the Constitutonality of a bill valid or invalid.

The Constitution says all three branches of Government and We the People have a co-equal responsibility to consider Constitutional questions.

 

[rightwinger]

We can title this amendment the "We hate fag marriage amendment"

It allows states who hate fags to ignore laws enacted by the federal government or the courts and continue abusing Civil Rights

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree that Marbury vs Madison should be reversed. I am still thinking Michelsen's proposed amendment through as the devil is always in the details The brilliance of Michelsen's amendment is that it puts the power with the states and the people where the Constitution intended that it be in the first place. Most of those objecting to the amendment so far are doing so on the grounds that the people are less competent to govern themselves than is the government competent to govern them.

Well, a lot of us aren't seeing a great deal of competence or respect for the Constitution in ANY branch of the federal government right now.

It kills me to say this, but syriusly has a point. If states can refuse to enforce provisions of law, then the rights of all are in jeopardy. If 25% of states say that the SCOTUS lacks the authority to declare the second amendment valid, then the rights of all are in danger. If 25% of states can declare that the Hobby Lobby ruling is void, then 1st amendment rights are likewise nullified.

I give Syriusly kudos for making a good counter argument.

You too.

But again arguing for Michelsen's thesis, SCOTUS has no authority to declare the Second Amendment valid or invalid. Only the Constitution itself has the authority to do that. Nobody is suggesting challenge to the Constitution itself, though we can argue the wisdom and effect of various amendments and may choose to amend those again.

The challenge is to unconstiutional rulings of SCOTUS that bypass the letter and/or intent of the original Constitution.

Also the Constitution assigns authority and restrictions on the central government, not the states. The states were free to be as narrow minded, bigoted, and wrong as they chose to be--free to create whatever sorts of societies they wished to have without interference from anybody else. That is what self governance is.

The founders put their trust in the wisdom of humankind that they fully expected to make mistakes and get it wrong, but through trial and error, they would generally arrive at the best way to organize their societies for the mutual benefit of all.

 

[WelfareQueen]

One of the dumbest amendments to come down the pike in a long time

Essentially more nullification nonsense

We are THE UNITED STATES, individual states or minority states should not have the power to nullify what they don't like

Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES, if they lose, they don't get to take their ball and go home

Your point does not address Judicial tyranny and the zero input We the People have in the Judicial process or in Judicial nullification.

The concept of Judicial Review does not exist in the Constitution and is flatly wrong imho.

Federal Judges can certainly point out when they feel a Law is at odds with the Constitution. But they cannot nullify a Law. Period.

You said the following: "Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES."

You are correct. So a simple question for you. What happens when Judicial Nullification destroys the will of the people as expressed through their duly appointed Congressional representatives? Is that legal? Is it proper?

Thank you.

 

[G.T.]

Reject: the States are not Legal experts to declare the Constitutonality of a bill valid or invalid.

The Constitution says all three branches of Government and We the People have a co-equal responsibility to consider Constitutional questions.

Thats nice. They were also slave owners who treated women as second class citizens and they shitted in outhouses and smelled.

 

[WelfareQueen]

We can title this amendment the "We hate fag marriage amendment"

It allows states who hate fags to ignore laws enacted by the federal government or the courts and continue abusing Civil Rights

No. The SCOTUS ruling precisely nullified the will of the people as expressed under existing Federal and State Laws.

I support the right of Gay Marriage. I do not support any Federal Court nullifying the will of the people. The remedy for bad Law is through the Legislature....not the Courts. The Courts are unaccountable to the people.

 

[RKMBrown]

Citizen Warren Michelsen, believes all branches--executive, legislative, and judicial--of the U.S. federal government have overstepped their constitutional authority, he proposes that the American people move to restore the power to self govern that the Constitution originally intended.

A recent Harris poll suggests a majority of Americans agree with him: Supreme Court SCOTUS lifetime appointment Harris

He has provided an in depth, lengthy and well thought out argument to support his opinion here: Amending the Constitution

His basic thesis is that five out of nine Supreme Court justices should not have the uncontested power to determine the fate or destiny of all the people, nor should the federal government at any level have the sole power to judge the legality of government action at any level. Further the federal government should be required to provide much more consensus as to the legality of the legislation it passes before that legislation is imposed upon the people.

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed to restore power to the people:

Section 1. When the number of states exceeding twenty-five percent of all the United States shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions.

Section 2. When any state shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that state may, at its option, prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders.

Section 3. Every Bill which shall be considered by the House of Representatives or the Senate, shall, before it come to a vote, be subjected to scrutiny so as to ascertain that said Bill is not in conflict with this Constitution. Whenever one third of either House shall find the Bill to be in conflict, it shall require that three quarters of that House vote Yea before the Bill be considered passed.​

The OP at this time is not ready to declare an opinion on whether Michelsen is right in part or in whole about that, but rather would throws it open for consideration, evaluation, and discussion. Disclosure: This discussion has been offered at a different site in addition to this one as as an experiment.

QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED:

Do you or do you not wholly or in part support Michelsen's proposed Amendment as written to limit the power of government and return that power to the people? Why or why not.?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic please with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any person, group, demographic, state, ideology, or political party allowed. The topic is summarized in the Question to be discussed and can include any of the statements or arguments provided in the OP or the two links provided.

2. To avoid getting bogged down in semantics, as deemed necessary, the OP reserves the right to define words, terms, or phrases for the purposes of this discussion only.

3. Links are not required to participate in this discussion, but if they are used, please provide a brief synopsis of what the member will learn if they click on the link.

Rejected, for at least two reasons.

1) The terms are not well defined. What does declare mean? By popular vote? By legislative decree? What does "enactment" mean? Bill? Constitutional Amendment? Appointment? What does "considered" mean? 30second skim? 5years of review? What does scrutiny mean? Who does this critique? The states? Senators?

2) The first two are just too broad and remove all balance between federal and state control it essentially removes all Executive, Congressional, and federal judicial power. It would be a 180 degree swing where the feds have no power whatsoever over any states whatsoever.

The third item holds some hope.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Reject: the States are not Legal experts to declare the Constitutonality of a bill valid or invalid.

The Constitution says all three branches of Government and We the People have a co-equal responsibility to consider Constitutional questions.

Thats nice. They were also slave owners who treated women as second class citizens and they shitted in outhouses and smelled.

Not all people are good. What would you propose? Only allowing people you deem good to participate in the political process?

No offensive....but a very poor argument.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Court issues opinions subject to human failings. One would think that SCOTUS decisions based on only the Constitution would be unanimous.
4-5 decisions are arbitrary and reflect politics instead of logic. When SCOTUS can interpret “through an Exchange established by the state.” to mean citizens in states with no exchange should get subsidies through the federal government, SCOTUS has become a joke. States should have a means of rectifying that.

I agree in principle. Perhaps part of the issue is the method of placing Justices in the SCOTUS? A democrat in the WH next term means the end of civil rights in this nation. That is an untenable situation and one I cannot imagine the Founding Fathers intended. Roberts is no proponent of the Constitution, clearly. Still, Ginsburg is dedicated to ending the republic, as is Kagan, with her pet monkey Sotomayor doing exactly as Kagan commands. Kennedy exists to promote homosexuality. While he will offer support to civil rights in some instances, his passion is to promote his sexual choice through the law. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are the only advocates of Constitutional government. Roberts favors the authoritarianism of the left, but is beholden to corporate interests. At times, this forms a bloc that supports the Constitution, oft times it does not.

This equates to scant protection of the civil rights of the nation - loss of just one of the three defenders of the Constitution means the end of civil rights if a democrat appoints their replacement. An open Marxist like Ginsburg is fatal to the Republic. A more equitable court is needed. and a far more rational method of selecting justices than the hyper-partisan appointment process.

 

[rightwinger]

One of the dumbest amendments to come down the pike in a long time

Essentially more nullification nonsense

We are THE UNITED STATES, individual states or minority states should not have the power to nullify what they don't like

Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES, if they lose, they don't get to take their ball and go home

Your point does not address Judicial tyranny and the zero input We the People have in the Judicial process or in Judicial nullification.

The concept of Judicial Review does not exist in the Constitution and is flatly wrong imho.

Federal Judges can certainly point out when they feel a Law is at odds with the Constitution. But they cannot nullify a Law. Period.

You said the following: "Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES."

You are correct. So a simple question for you. What happens when Judicial Nullification destroys the will of the people as expressed through their duly appointed Congressional representatives? Is that legal? Is it proper?

Thank you.

Actually, yes

They have been able to nullify an unconstitutional law for 200 years

"We the people" do not get to vote on what rights other people are allowed
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper"

 

[rightwinger]

We can title this amendment the "We hate fag marriage amendment"

It allows states who hate fags to ignore laws enacted by the federal government or the courts and continue abusing Civil Rights

No. The SCOTUS ruling precisely nullified the will of the people as expressed under existing Federal and State Laws.

I support the right of Gay Marriage. I do not support any Federal Court nullifying the will of the people. The remedy for bad Law is through the Legislature....not the Courts. The Courts are unaccountable to the people.

The SCOTUS decision stood up for the Constitution which supercedes what individual states may think