Attorney General Pam Bondi caves in to Judge Hinkle’s same sex marriage tyranny!

[Skylar]

The basis of inequality is irrelevant. Without a compelling state interest and a very good reason, the State lacks the authority to enact it.

So now you are suggesting a state law can be adopted which discriminates against Blacks if the state has a "very good reason" for the law?

Do you realize how silly your posts are?

JWK

Given that neither the Hinkle ruling, the Windsor Ruling nor Loving V. Virgnia use this as their basis nor apply such a standard, what relevance does this have with our discussion?

You seem really eager to abandon your claims regarding Hinkle's ruling. Why?

 

[JakeStarkey]

johnwk does not understand the philosophy, the law, and reasoning behind such for the ruling.

He has every right to argue. He has every right to be immorally stubborn and stubbornly immoral.

And we have every right to ridicule him as he does it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

JOHNWK SAID:

“There is nothing mentioned in what you cite from the 14th Amendment prohibiting a State to make distinctions based upon sex when issuing a marriage license. That notion is an invention of our Supreme Court and particularly Justice Ginsburg who never established her notion as fact.”

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the 14th Amendment, as determined by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

From Judge Hinkle's ruling:

“The undeniable truth is that the Florida ban on same-sex marriage stems entirely, or almost entirely, from moral disapproval of the practice. Properly analyzed, the ban must stand or fall on the proposition that the state can enforce that moral disapproval without violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

The difficulty for the defendants is that the Supreme Court has made clear that moral disapproval, standing alone, cannot sustain a provision of this kind.”

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/...ott_order_granting_preliminary_injunction.pdf

 

[Luddly Neddite]

johnwk

Please post where, in the Constitution, it says "... except homosexuals".

thanks.

 

[Skylar]

JOHNWK SAID:

“There is nothing mentioned in what you cite from the 14th Amendment prohibiting a State to make distinctions based upon sex when issuing a marriage license. That notion is an invention of our Supreme Court and particularly Justice Ginsburg who never established her notion as fact.”

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the 14th Amendment, as determined by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

From Judge Hinkle's ruling:

“The undeniable truth is that the Florida ban on same-sex marriage stems entirely, or almost entirely, from moral disapproval of the practice. Properly analyzed, the ban must stand or fall on the proposition that the state can enforce that moral disapproval without violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

The difficulty for the defendants is that the Supreme Court has made clear that moral disapproval, standing alone, cannot sustain a provision of this kind.”

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/...ott_order_granting_preliminary_injunction.pdf

Yeah, but he's never actually read the Hinkle ruling. So you're trail blazing for Jonny K here.

 

[JoeB131]

Imagine how silly you're going to look standing before God.

Well... I guess in your case, it'll be more like burning in hell.

Okay, what did I do specifically that merits burning in hell?

I can already let you know, I never killed anyone or raped anyone.

So what else do you have that your Sky Pixie, which you insist to me is just and fair and loving, should burn me in hell for?

Not believing he exists? Seriously, would you want a friend like that? Someone who burns you for not loving them enough? You make your God sound AWFULLY needy.

 

[johnwk]

So, as it turns out, the 14th Amendment was not intended to forbid states from only issuing marriage licenses to couples consisting of one male and one female, nor intended to be a bar to every imaginable type of discrimination.

The 14th amendment isn't limited to issues of race. Its limited to what it says. And what is stays is this:

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.
From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution

If a State does any of that, the federal courts can intervene. And have, repeatedly.

There is nothing mentioned in what you cite from the 14th Amendment prohibiting a State to make distinctions based upon sex when issuing a marriage license. That notion is an invention of our Supreme Court and particularly Justice Ginsburg who never established her notion as fact.

For example, in delivering the Court’s opinion in the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) case, decided June 26, 1996, which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg pointed to a number of “tests” invented by the Court unknown to our founding fathers and asserted a party seeking to uphold government action making a distinction based upon sex must establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" In addition, Ginsburg noted, “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”

But the fact remains, Ginsburg, in delivering the opinion, never established that under the 14th Amendment the people of America decided to prohibit distinctions based upon “sex” in addition to their intentional prohibition against state legislation based upon “race and color”! And, the fact remains, Justice Ginsburg couldn’t establish this constitutional prohibition (sex discrimination) because time and again during the debates which framed the 14th Amendment the intended prohibition against discrimination was identified as being limited to discrimination based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery”, and only intended to apply in a very narrow area and protect the inalienable right of Blacks: “to make and enforce contracts, to sue...to inherit, purchase...property as was then enjoyed by white citizens. “Congress did not assume...to adjust what may be called the social rights of men...but only to declare and vindicate these fundamental rights.”___ see the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3,22 (1883)

The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)"No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.", (c) "[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", as being evidence the 14th Amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based upon sex, or intended to be a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination, such as in Martin vs. PGA Tour and also include discrimination based upon sex, falls flat on its face when reading the words of next Amendment to the Constitution! This Amendment (the 15th) prohibits a new type of discrimination not covered by the 14th Amendment! It prohibits discrimination, or to be more accurate, prohibits the right of voting to be denied or abridged on account of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The intent of the 15th Amendment clearly being to enlarge the intended prohibition on state legislated race based discrimination mentioned in the 14th Amendment, and enlarging it to include the prohibition at the voting booth ---forbidding discrimination at the voting booth to be based upon “race, color, or previous condition of servitude“, while gender, and in particularly females, were not yet included in the protection.

The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state discrimination based upon gender, becomes even weaker when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid gender discrimination [the discrimination mentioned by Ginsburg] but only extend the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”

If the 14th Amendment prohibited every kind of discrimination, including discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg alleged in the VMI Case, then why were these subsequent Amendments added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment?


Finally, why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination but which never received the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg alleges?

Bottom line is, our SC, including Justice Ginsburg, is acting in rebellion to our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted. Indeed, our Supreme Court is in fact "legislating from the bench" so as to impose its own visions and court ordered social reforms using a variety of tests which switch the subject of a law’s constitutionality, to a question of the lawmakers wisdom and what the court arbitrarily decides is “reasonable“, which, as we have seen over the years reflects what progressives on the Court arbitrarily fancy as social justice, and not the rule of law as defined and limited in our Constitution.

In fact, a questioned law to pass Ginsburg’s test, must have an "exceedingly persuasive justification" and “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation”, regardless of whether or not the law is within the four corners of our Constitution which no longer appears to be an important factor to Ginsburg and her progressive friends on the Court.


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

JOHNWK SAID:

“There is nothing mentioned in what you cite from the 14th Amendment prohibiting a State to make distinctions based upon sex when issuing a marriage license. That notion is an invention of our Supreme Court and particularly Justice Ginsburg who never established her notion as fact.”

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the 14th Amendment, as determined by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

From Judge Hinkle's ruling:

“The undeniable truth is that the Florida ban on same-sex marriage stems entirely, or almost entirely, from moral disapproval of the practice. Properly analyzed, the ban must stand or fall on the proposition that the state can enforce that moral disapproval without violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

The difficulty for the defendants is that the Supreme Court has made clear that moral disapproval, standing alone, cannot sustain a provision of this kind.”

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/...ott_order_granting_preliminary_injunction.pdf

Yeah, but he's never actually read the Hinkle ruling. So you're trail blazing for Jonny K here.

So, you have now decided to make crap up. Did you miss that I provided a link to Hinkle's ruling from August and then quoted from it?

JWK

 

[Skylar]

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

That's just a vague declaration of opinion. Its not a legal argument.

Your representation of the Hinkle ruling was fraudulent. The basis of Hinkle's legal decision was Loving V. Virginia. Not the 'definition provided by the plantiff'. You either misrepresented Hinkle's decision intentionally or through ignorance. Either of which renders your analysis dubious at best. And uselessly fallacious at worse.

So, you have now decided to make crap up. Did you miss that I provided a link to Hinkle's ruling from August and then quoted from it?

I've read the Hinckle ruling. His explicit citations of the Loving decision. The legal basis of his argument. It has nothing to do with what you claimed it was.

I don't think you'v actually read the ruling. I think you read *about* the ruling. And then just started your typical predigested 'exposing Ginsberg' screed that you've been block posting for half a decade.

And your understanding of these issues is simply inadequate. You claimed that the 'privileges and immunities' cited in the 14th were defined by the State. But that's clearly nonsense. As the 14th amendment makes clear, these are privileges and immunities of US citizens. Not the States:

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

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment

You were dead wrong. The Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. And one of the stated purposes of the 14th was to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Nixing your absurd 'defined by the States' nonsense.

You're simply not informed suffeciently to discuss this topic. Which might explain all the block posts.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The fags won, so, how before you morons give it a rest?

 

[johnwk]

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

That's just a vague declaration ....

You are boring me. Goodbye!


JWK


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.

 

[Skylar]

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

That's just a vague declaration ....

You are boring me. Goodbye!


JWK


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.

Laughing.....no wonder you're a blogger. You don't do well in conversations with people who know more about the topic discussion than you.

If you ever need another education on the 14th amendment, the nature of rights and privileges, or the court's authority to interpret the constitution, class is always in session.

 

[bodecea]

SEE: Federal ruling clears way for same-sex marriage in Florida, starting on Tuesday

”On the first day of the New Year, a federal judge issued a landmark ruling that finally cleared the way for same-sex marriage in every county in Florida.

And, significantly, Attorney General Pam Bondi — Florida’s chief legal opponent to gay marriage — said the state would not try to block county clerks from issuing licenses, beginning as early as 12:01 a.m. Tuesday.”

While Obama’s Attorney General ignores the rule of law as set out in our Federal Constitution, Florida’s Attorney General, Pam Bondi, puts on a good show and then folds when a despotic judge tells her to fold. Pam Bondi ought to learn from Obama and issue a “memorandum” that state employees who comply with Judge Hinkle’s ruling would be violating their oath to support and defend our Federal Constitution and be submitting to judicial tyranny. And why do I say Judge Hinkle is engaging in judicial tyranny?

Early in 2014 Hinkle wrote in an opinion that it is a fundamental right to marry. What Hinkle ignores is the “fundamental right” to “marry” within a legal sense applies to one male and one female in Florida. Keep in mind that words or terms used in legislation, being dependent upon approval by a legislature adopting the legislation, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of the legislation's adoption…! The legal definition of marriage in Florida has always been defined as a union between one man and one woman. And so, the fundamental right mentioned by Judge Hinkle, unless altered by a legislative act or constitutional amendment applies to one male and one female and not a same sex couple.

Hinkle goes on to make an astounding assertion: “A state may override a fundamental right through measures that are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” This idea, that fundamental rights may be denied if there is a “compelling state interest” involved is traced to a despotic test invented by our Supreme Court and was unknown to our founding fathers. Since its creation it has been used by our courts to impose their whims and fancies under the rubric that a “compelling state interest” is or is not involved and is used by the court to totally ignore specific provisions spelled out in our Constitution and invent rights nowhere to be found in our Constitutions.

The idea that that constitutional guarantees and fundamental rights may not be enforced if a State can show denying the right "furthers some substantial state interest" is an absurdity and such a theory if allowed to stand would allow our judges and Justices to arbitrarily invent rights or negate every guaranteed right by simply saying it "furthers some substantial state interest"!

Judge Hinkle goes on to offer long winded pros and cons about the morality or immorality of marriage, and talks about same sex couples who want to be viewed as being “married”. But these arguments touted by Hinkle are totally irrelevant in a discussion concerning the rule of law and a State refusing to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple. The only issue at hand is whether or not doing so violates the State’s or Federal Constitution!

Hinkle incorrectly asserts: ”The right to marry is as fundamental for the plaintiffs in the cases at bar as for any other person wishing to enter a marriage or have it recognized.” Hinkle’s inaccuracy comes from the assertion that the legal definition of marriage is met when applied to a same sex couple [the plaintiffs]. But the truth is, It can only apply to each of the plaintiffs if they choose to marry a person of the opposite sex which then fulfills the legal definition of marriage, or if a State chooses to amend its Constitution and/or laws to accommodate a new definition of marriage. What the plaintiffs in this case are desirous of is something far different from ‘marriage” as the term has been understood in the State of Florida for hundreds of years and the Court is not free to change the definition of words to its own liking!

In regard to the Hinkle’s notion that the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent is to forbid a State from only issuing marriage licenses to couples consisting of one male and one female, and that such an idea is "discriminatory" and violates the equal protection of a State’s laws, that notion is totally without foundation and is a fabrication of the true intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment! And just what is the true intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment? It 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. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

So, as it turns out, the 14th Amendment was not intended to forbid states from only issuing marriage licenses to couples consisting of one male and one female, nor intended to be a bar to every imaginable type of discrimination. And to allow charlatans and despots such as Judge Hinkle who use their office of public trust to erode our Constitution and supplant their whims and fancies as being within the meaning of our Constitution, is to submit to the very tyranny and despotism which our written Constitution was designed to protect us from. And this submission is what Pam Bondi is engaging in.

If Obama can issue a memorandum to forbid 5 million illegal aliens to face deportation and grant them other benefits which are only meant for legal immigrants, then Pam Bondi and the Governor of Florida should tell Hinkle to go pound sand, that his ruling violates the true intent and meaning of our Constitution, and the State of Florida will not submit to his judicial tyranny!



JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

How many different message boards are you spamming this on?

 

[Skylar]

SEE: Federal ruling clears way for same-sex marriage in Florida, starting on Tuesday

”On the first day of the New Year, a federal judge issued a landmark ruling that finally cleared the way for same-sex marriage in every county in Florida.

And, significantly, Attorney General Pam Bondi — Florida’s chief legal opponent to gay marriage — said the state would not try to block county clerks from issuing licenses, beginning as early as 12:01 a.m. Tuesday.”

While Obama’s Attorney General ignores the rule of law as set out in our Federal Constitution, Florida’s Attorney General, Pam Bondi, puts on a good show and then folds when a despotic judge tells her to fold. Pam Bondi ought to learn from Obama and issue a “memorandum” that state employees who comply with Judge Hinkle’s ruling would be violating their oath to support and defend our Federal Constitution and be submitting to judicial tyranny. And why do I say Judge Hinkle is engaging in judicial tyranny?

Early in 2014 Hinkle wrote in an opinion that it is a fundamental right to marry. What Hinkle ignores is the “fundamental right” to “marry” within a legal sense applies to one male and one female in Florida. Keep in mind that words or terms used in legislation, being dependent upon approval by a legislature adopting the legislation, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of the legislation's adoption…! The legal definition of marriage in Florida has always been defined as a union between one man and one woman. And so, the fundamental right mentioned by Judge Hinkle, unless altered by a legislative act or constitutional amendment applies to one male and one female and not a same sex couple.

Hinkle goes on to make an astounding assertion: “A state may override a fundamental right through measures that are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” This idea, that fundamental rights may be denied if there is a “compelling state interest” involved is traced to a despotic test invented by our Supreme Court and was unknown to our founding fathers. Since its creation it has been used by our courts to impose their whims and fancies under the rubric that a “compelling state interest” is or is not involved and is used by the court to totally ignore specific provisions spelled out in our Constitution and invent rights nowhere to be found in our Constitutions.

The idea that that constitutional guarantees and fundamental rights may not be enforced if a State can show denying the right "furthers some substantial state interest" is an absurdity and such a theory if allowed to stand would allow our judges and Justices to arbitrarily invent rights or negate every guaranteed right by simply saying it "furthers some substantial state interest"!

Judge Hinkle goes on to offer long winded pros and cons about the morality or immorality of marriage, and talks about same sex couples who want to be viewed as being “married”. But these arguments touted by Hinkle are totally irrelevant in a discussion concerning the rule of law and a State refusing to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple. The only issue at hand is whether or not doing so violates the State’s or Federal Constitution!

Hinkle incorrectly asserts: ”The right to marry is as fundamental for the plaintiffs in the cases at bar as for any other person wishing to enter a marriage or have it recognized.” Hinkle’s inaccuracy comes from the assertion that the legal definition of marriage is met when applied to a same sex couple [the plaintiffs]. But the truth is, It can only apply to each of the plaintiffs if they choose to marry a person of the opposite sex which then fulfills the legal definition of marriage, or if a State chooses to amend its Constitution and/or laws to accommodate a new definition of marriage. What the plaintiffs in this case are desirous of is something far different from ‘marriage” as the term has been understood in the State of Florida for hundreds of years and the Court is not free to change the definition of words to its own liking!

In regard to the Hinkle’s notion that the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent is to forbid a State from only issuing marriage licenses to couples consisting of one male and one female, and that such an idea is "discriminatory" and violates the equal protection of a State’s laws, that notion is totally without foundation and is a fabrication of the true intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment! And just what is the true intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment? It 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. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

So, as it turns out, the 14th Amendment was not intended to forbid states from only issuing marriage licenses to couples consisting of one male and one female, nor intended to be a bar to every imaginable type of discrimination. And to allow charlatans and despots such as Judge Hinkle who use their office of public trust to erode our Constitution and supplant their whims and fancies as being within the meaning of our Constitution, is to submit to the very tyranny and despotism which our written Constitution was designed to protect us from. And this submission is what Pam Bondi is engaging in.

If Obama can issue a memorandum to forbid 5 million illegal aliens to face deportation and grant them other benefits which are only meant for legal immigrants, then Pam Bondi and the Governor of Florida should tell Hinkle to go pound sand, that his ruling violates the true intent and meaning of our Constitution, and the State of Florida will not submit to his judicial tyranny!



JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

How many different message boards are you spamming this on?

I counted 7. Exact same block spam from his blog.

 

[bodecea]

SEE: Federal ruling clears way for same-sex marriage in Florida, starting on Tuesday

”On the first day of the New Year, a federal judge issued a landmark ruling that finally cleared the way for same-sex marriage in every county in Florida.

And, significantly, Attorney General Pam Bondi — Florida’s chief legal opponent to gay marriage — said the state would not try to block county clerks from issuing licenses, beginning as early as 12:01 a.m. Tuesday.”

While Obama’s Attorney General ignores the rule of law as set out in our Federal Constitution, Florida’s Attorney General, Pam Bondi, puts on a good show and then folds when a despotic judge tells her to fold. Pam Bondi ought to learn from Obama and issue a “memorandum” that state employees who comply with Judge Hinkle’s ruling would be violating their oath to support and defend our Federal Constitution and be submitting to judicial tyranny. And why do I say Judge Hinkle is engaging in judicial tyranny?

Early in 2014 Hinkle wrote in an opinion that it is a fundamental right to marry. What Hinkle ignores is the “fundamental right” to “marry” within a legal sense applies to one male and one female in Florida. Keep in mind that words or terms used in legislation, being dependent upon approval by a legislature adopting the legislation, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of the legislation's adoption…! The legal definition of marriage in Florida has always been defined as a union between one man and one woman. And so, the fundamental right mentioned by Judge Hinkle, unless altered by a legislative act or constitutional amendment applies to one male and one female and not a same sex couple.

Hinkle goes on to make an astounding assertion: “A state may override a fundamental right through measures that are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” This idea, that fundamental rights may be denied if there is a “compelling state interest” involved is traced to a despotic test invented by our Supreme Court and was unknown to our founding fathers. Since its creation it has been used by our courts to impose their whims and fancies under the rubric that a “compelling state interest” is or is not involved and is used by the court to totally ignore specific provisions spelled out in our Constitution and invent rights nowhere to be found in our Constitutions.

The idea that that constitutional guarantees and fundamental rights may not be enforced if a State can show denying the right "furthers some substantial state interest" is an absurdity and such a theory if allowed to stand would allow our judges and Justices to arbitrarily invent rights or negate every guaranteed right by simply saying it "furthers some substantial state interest"!

Judge Hinkle goes on to offer long winded pros and cons about the morality or immorality of marriage, and talks about same sex couples who want to be viewed as being “married”. But these arguments touted by Hinkle are totally irrelevant in a discussion concerning the rule of law and a State refusing to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple. The only issue at hand is whether or not doing so violates the State’s or Federal Constitution!

Hinkle incorrectly asserts: ”The right to marry is as fundamental for the plaintiffs in the cases at bar as for any other person wishing to enter a marriage or have it recognized.” Hinkle’s inaccuracy comes from the assertion that the legal definition of marriage is met when applied to a same sex couple [the plaintiffs]. But the truth is, It can only apply to each of the plaintiffs if they choose to marry a person of the opposite sex which then fulfills the legal definition of marriage, or if a State chooses to amend its Constitution and/or laws to accommodate a new definition of marriage. What the plaintiffs in this case are desirous of is something far different from ‘marriage” as the term has been understood in the State of Florida for hundreds of years and the Court is not free to change the definition of words to its own liking!

In regard to the Hinkle’s notion that the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent is to forbid a State from only issuing marriage licenses to couples consisting of one male and one female, and that such an idea is "discriminatory" and violates the equal protection of a State’s laws, that notion is totally without foundation and is a fabrication of the true intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment! And just what is the true intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment? It 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. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

So, as it turns out, the 14th Amendment was not intended to forbid states from only issuing marriage licenses to couples consisting of one male and one female, nor intended to be a bar to every imaginable type of discrimination. And to allow charlatans and despots such as Judge Hinkle who use their office of public trust to erode our Constitution and supplant their whims and fancies as being within the meaning of our Constitution, is to submit to the very tyranny and despotism which our written Constitution was designed to protect us from. And this submission is what Pam Bondi is engaging in.

If Obama can issue a memorandum to forbid 5 million illegal aliens to face deportation and grant them other benefits which are only meant for legal immigrants, then Pam Bondi and the Governor of Florida should tell Hinkle to go pound sand, that his ruling violates the true intent and meaning of our Constitution, and the State of Florida will not submit to his judicial tyranny!



JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

How many different message boards are you spamming this on?

I counted 7. Exact same block spam from his blog.

Apparently, this is his life.

 

[Syriusly]

SEE: Federal ruling clears way for same-sex marriage in Florida, starting on Tuesday

”On the first day of the New Year, a federal judge issued a landmark ruling that finally cleared the way for same-sex marriage in every county in Florida.

And, significantly, Attorney General Pam Bondi — Florida’s chief legal opponent to gay marriage — said the state would not try to block county clerks from issuing licenses, beginning as early as 12:01 a.m. Tuesday.”

While Obama’s Attorney General ignores the rule of law as set out in our Federal Constitution, Florida’s Attorney General, Pam Bondi, puts on a good show and then folds when a despotic judge tells her to fold. Pam Bondi ought to learn from Obama and issue a “memorandum” that state employees who comply with Judge Hinkle’s ruling would be violating their oath to support and defend our Federal Constitution and be submitting to judicial tyranny. And why do I say Judge Hinkle is engaging in judicial tyranny?

Early in 2014 Hinkle wrote in an opinion that it is a fundamental right to marry. What Hinkle ignores is the “fundamental right” to “marry” within a legal sense applies to one male and one female in Florida. Keep in mind that words or terms used in legislation, being dependent upon approval by a legislature adopting the legislation, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of the legislation's adoption…! The legal definition of marriage in Florida has always been defined as a union between one man and one woman. And so, the fundamental right mentioned by Judge Hinkle, unless altered by a legislative act or constitutional amendment applies to one male and one female and not a same sex couple.

Hinkle goes on to make an astounding assertion: “A state may override a fundamental right through measures that are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” This idea, that fundamental rights may be denied if there is a “compelling state interest” involved is traced to a despotic test invented by our Supreme Court and was unknown to our founding fathers. Since its creation it has been used by our courts to impose their whims and fancies under the rubric that a “compelling state interest” is or is not involved and is used by the court to totally ignore specific provisions spelled out in our Constitution and invent rights nowhere to be found in our Constitutions.

The idea that that constitutional guarantees and fundamental rights may not be enforced if a State can show denying the right "furthers some substantial state interest" is an absurdity and such a theory if allowed to stand would allow our judges and Justices to arbitrarily invent rights or negate every guaranteed right by simply saying it "furthers some substantial state interest"!

Judge Hinkle goes on to offer long winded pros and cons about the morality or immorality of marriage, and talks about same sex couples who want to be viewed as being “married”. But these arguments touted by Hinkle are totally irrelevant in a discussion concerning the rule of law and a State refusing to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple. The only issue at hand is whether or not doing so violates the State’s or Federal Constitution!

Hinkle incorrectly asserts: ”The right to marry is as fundamental for the plaintiffs in the cases at bar as for any other person wishing to enter a marriage or have it recognized.” Hinkle’s inaccuracy comes from the assertion that the legal definition of marriage is met when applied to a same sex couple [the plaintiffs]. But the truth is, It can only apply to each of the plaintiffs if they choose to marry a person of the opposite sex which then fulfills the legal definition of marriage, or if a State chooses to amend its Constitution and/or laws to accommodate a new definition of marriage. What the plaintiffs in this case are desirous of is something far different from ‘marriage” as the term has been understood in the State of Florida for hundreds of years and the Court is not free to change the definition of words to its own liking!

In regard to the Hinkle’s notion that the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent is to forbid a State from only issuing marriage licenses to couples consisting of one male and one female, and that such an idea is "discriminatory" and violates the equal protection of a State’s laws, that notion is totally without foundation and is a fabrication of the true intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment! And just what is the true intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment? It 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. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

So, as it turns out, the 14th Amendment was not intended to forbid states from only issuing marriage licenses to couples consisting of one male and one female, nor intended to be a bar to every imaginable type of discrimination. And to allow charlatans and despots such as Judge Hinkle who use their office of public trust to erode our Constitution and supplant their whims and fancies as being within the meaning of our Constitution, is to submit to the very tyranny and despotism which our written Constitution was designed to protect us from. And this submission is what Pam Bondi is engaging in.

If Obama can issue a memorandum to forbid 5 million illegal aliens to face deportation and grant them other benefits which are only meant for legal immigrants, then Pam Bondi and the Governor of Florida should tell Hinkle to go pound sand, that his ruling violates the true intent and meaning of our Constitution, and the State of Florida will not submit to his judicial tyranny!



JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

Would you like a little cheese with that whine?

 

[Syriusly]

Back in reality, Hinkle's decision is based on the logic of Loving V. Virginia ....

The case you mention had nothing to do with same sex couples being married. It was about a state law which made a distinction based upon race, which the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent forbid! Does that little fact help you? In other words, the case has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

JWK

The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws at least three times on the grounds that we all have the right to get married
- Loving v. Virginia
- Some Wisconsin case where men were denied marriage if they owed child support
- Some case where prisoners were denied marriage

In each case, the Supreme Court said that Federal courts do have the right to overturn unconstitutional marriage bans.

Doesn't matter whether the reason is race or something else- we have the right to get married.

States have to prove why they have a compelling reason to deny those rights.

 

[Syriusly]

Get used to it. Once a nation starts down the road of depravity it doesn't stop until the end.

I am looking forward to our continued path of depravity that started with freeing of the slaves, continued with giving women the vote, continued with allowing contraception to getting the government out of our private sex lives, and now to marriage equality for same gender couples.

I hope that depravity continues.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Attorney General Pam Bondi caves in to Judge Hinkle’s same sex marriage tyranny!

Gay marriage will shortly be legal in all 50 states. It's fools like you who keep fighting this stupid culture war that nobody else gives a shit about.

 

[Syriusly]

But the fact remains, Ginsburg, in delivering the opinion, never established that under the 14th Amendment the people of America decided to prohibit distinctions based upon gender in addition to their intentional prohibition against state legislation based upon “race and color”!

john w k,
2009

American Constitutional Research Service Judicial tyranny the ACLU and Justice Ginsburg s inventions exposed

Its the exact same blog post from 2009, word for word.....posted over and over and over again. Please stop spamming us.

So, you have a problem with my posting historical facts which expose Ginsburg's judicial tyranny?

Actually your hystrionics are rather amusing.

 

[Syriusly]

"And, significantly, Attorney General Pam Bondi — Florida’s chief legal opponent to gay marriage — said the state would not try to block county clerks from issuing licenses, beginning as early as 12:01 a.m. Tuesday.”

It's refreshing to see a conservative republican at last obey the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

Pam Bondi took an oath to support the Constitution, and not a judges circumvention of it. Keep in mind our Constitution, and only those laws made in pursuance of our Constitution are the supreme law of the land!

JWK

And Pam Bondi is supporting that oath.

You just don't like how she is doing so.