Kim Davis should sue Justices Sotomayor and Kagan under the Seventh Amendment

[johnwk]

Whether the SCOTUS decision is a legally correct and valid bit of jurisprudence is a very different question from the one asking whether the SCOTUS had jurisdiction to hear the case or controversy.

Maybe, maybe not.

The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is narrowly defined by the Constitution to specific types of cases, primarily disputes between two or more states, or cases involving ambassadors or other high-ranking ministers.

The subject matter which the Supreme Court stuck its nose in in Obergefell v. Hodges , and from my reading of the Constitution, is one left to the States under the Tenth Amendment.

 

[johnwk]

Inane equine excrement . . . . . .SCOTUS - have ruled that marriage is a fundamental right and restrictions on it are subject to strict scrutany .

I am fully aware of our Supreme Court inventing "tests" in order to subvert our our constitution.


One of the Supreme Court‘s “inventions” used to impose its will upon the people unknown to those who framed and ratified our Constitution, are various tests the court has created which are now used to circumvent and set aside the documented intentions and beliefs under which the various provisions of our Constitution have been adopted.

These “tests” began to appear and gain a foothold during the Warren Court of the l960’s. One such test was the “rationality” test under which a law being challenged had to withstand the court’s judgment that the law in question was “rationally based” or “reasonable” to survive the court‘s review. Of course, this allows activists members on the court to switch the subject from what is and what is not declared by our constitutional during litigation, to a question having nothing to do with the terms of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent. Whether rational or not, a law which violates the Constitution cannot be justified as being constitutional if it is rationally based! Likewise, if a law is not rationally based it is not the Court’s job to second guess the wisdom of the legislature or our Constitution! To do so is to usurp legislative authority and ignore the separation of powers in our system of government, not to mention how such action negates the very reason for elections, which, in most cases, is to change public policy via appropriate legislation.

For example, imaging for a moment that Black males were denied employment by a state government based upon their race and the court, in spite of the 14th Amendment’s intended protection against state imposed race discrimination, upheld the denial of employment because the local government presented an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for not hiring Black males. This is what these tests are about. They create a platform for members on the Court to ignore identifying and enforcing the intentions and beliefs under which provisions our Constitution were adopted in order to impose their personal whims and fancies upon the people as the rule of law using flowery terms and phrases to justify ignoring the will of the people as expressed in a written Constitution!

By the early 1970’s the Court using a variety of invented “tests” [rationally based, compelling state interest, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, etc.], started to appear which blatantly ignored the documented intentions and beliefs under which various provisions of our Constitution were adopted, and were used to impose a majority of the Court’s own ideas of social justice, fairness and reasonableness as the rule of law. Some of the early cases which demonstrate the Court’s attack upon the text and documented legislative intent of our Constitution’s provisions which gives context to its text, and imposing its will as the rule of law using these newly created tests are Reed vs. Reed 404 U.S. 71 (1971), Frontiero vs Richardson 411 U.S. 677 (1973), Craig v. Boren 429 U.S. 190 (1976), and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, (1973).

It is also important to note that the ACLU and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a volunteer for the American Civil Liberties Union in the 1970’s, were both active in the above mentioned cases and assisted the court in engineering clever words and phrases in conjunction with “tests” which were designed to parse words and circumvent the very intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted.

When Ginsburg became a member of the Supreme Court the ground work had already been laid with her help in establishing these despotic tests as part of the Court’s arsenal used by its activist members to make the Constitution mean whatever they wished it to mean.

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 previous Supreme Court rulings and the invented tests in question, 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 gender in addition to their intentional prohibition against state legislation based upon “race and color”!

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 specifically 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 thinking that the wording in the 14th Amendment does, or was intended to forbid distinctions in law based upon sex, or intended to be a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination, falls flat on its face when reading the words of next Amendment to the Constitution!

This Amendment (the 15th) clearly 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”, while females were not yet granted such protection.

The thinking that the 14th Amendment prohibits distinctions in law based upon sex becomes still weaker and is obviously incorrect when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide by a constitutional amendment, to forbid sex 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 “equal rights amendment” attempted to be added to our federal Constitution in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination, which never received the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited distinctions based upon sex as Ginsburg alleged?

The bottom line is, many of our judges and Justices, including former Justice Ginsburg, are acting in rebellion to our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted. Indeed, many of our judges and Justices are in fact “legislating from the bench” so as to impose their personal sense of justice, fairness and reasonableness using a variety of tests which, during litigation, switch the subject of a law’s constitutionality, to a question of the lawmakers wisdom, reasonableness, fairness and/or justice. And to meet the Court’s standards a law must be “reasonable“ and reflect what activists on the Court arbitrarily fancy as social justice.

In fact, a law in question 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 judges and Justices like former Justice Ginsburg and her tyrannical friends on the Court who wish to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law.

JWK

“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I am fully aware of our Supreme Court inventing "tests" in order to subvert our our constitution.


One of the Supreme Court‘s “inventions” used to impose its will upon the people unknown to those who framed and ratified our Constitution, are various tests the court has created which are now used to circumvent and set aside the documented intentions and beliefs under which the various provisions of our Constitution have been adopted.

These “tests” began to appear and gain a foothold during the Warren Court of the l960’s. One such test was the “rationality” test under which a law being challenged had to withstand the court’s judgment that the law in question was “rationally based” or “reasonable” to survive the court‘s review. Of course, this allows activists members on the court to switch the subject from what is and what is not declared by our constitutional during litigation, to a question having nothing to do with the terms of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent. Whether rational or not, a law which violates the Constitution cannot be justified as being constitutional if it is rationally based! Likewise, if a law is not rationally based it is not the Court’s job to second guess the wisdom of the legislature or our Constitution! To do so is to usurp legislative authority and ignore the separation of powers in our system of government, not to mention how such action negates the very reason for elections, which, in most cases, is to change public policy via appropriate legislation.

For example, imaging for a moment that Black males were denied employment by a state government based upon their race and the court, in spite of the 14th Amendment’s intended protection against state imposed race discrimination, upheld the denial of employment because the local government presented an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for not hiring Black males. This is what these tests are about. They create a platform for members on the Court to ignore identifying and enforcing the intentions and beliefs under which provisions our Constitution were adopted in order to impose their personal whims and fancies upon the people as the rule of law using flowery terms and phrases to justify ignoring the will of the people as expressed in a written Constitution!

By the early 1970’s the Court using a variety of invented “tests” [rationally based, compelling state interest, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, etc.], started to appear which blatantly ignored the documented intentions and beliefs under which various provisions of our Constitution were adopted, and were used to impose a majority of the Court’s own ideas of social justice, fairness and reasonableness as the rule of law. Some of the early cases which demonstrate the Court’s attack upon the text and documented legislative intent of our Constitution’s provisions which gives context to its text, and imposing its will as the rule of law using these newly created tests are Reed vs. Reed 404 U.S. 71 (1971), Frontiero vs Richardson 411 U.S. 677 (1973), Craig v. Boren 429 U.S. 190 (1976), and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, (1973).

It is also important to note that the ACLU and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a volunteer for the American Civil Liberties Union in the 1970’s, were both active in the above mentioned cases and assisted the court in engineering clever words and phrases in conjunction with “tests” which were designed to parse words and circumvent the very intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted.

When Ginsburg became a member of the Supreme Court the ground work had already been laid with her help in establishing these despotic tests as part of the Court’s arsenal used by its activist members to make the Constitution mean whatever they wished it to mean.

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 previous Supreme Court rulings and the invented tests in question, 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 gender in addition to their intentional prohibition against state legislation based upon “race and color”!

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 specifically 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 thinking that the wording in the 14th Amendment does, or was intended to forbid distinctions in law based upon sex, or intended to be a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination, falls flat on its face when reading the words of next Amendment to the Constitution!

This Amendment (the 15th) clearly 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”, while females were not yet granted such protection.

The thinking that the 14th Amendment prohibits distinctions in law based upon sex becomes still weaker and is obviously incorrect when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide by a constitutional amendment, to forbid sex 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 “equal rights amendment” attempted to be added to our federal Constitution in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination, which never received the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited distinctions based upon sex as Ginsburg alleged?

The bottom line is, many of our judges and Justices, including former Justice Ginsburg, are acting in rebellion to our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted. Indeed, many of our judges and Justices are in fact “legislating from the bench” so as to impose their personal sense of justice, fairness and reasonableness using a variety of tests which, during litigation, switch the subject of a law’s constitutionality, to a question of the lawmakers wisdom, reasonableness, fairness and/or justice. And to meet the Court’s standards a law must be “reasonable“ and reflect what activists on the Court arbitrarily fancy as social justice.

In fact, a law in question 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 judges and Justices like former Justice Ginsburg and her tyrannical friends on the Court who wish to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law.

JWK

“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Gish Gallop! How much shit can you throw at the wall until something sticks ?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Maybe, maybe not.

The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is narrowly defined by the Constitution to specific types of cases, primarily disputes between two or more states, or cases involving ambassadors or other high-ranking ministers.

The subject matter which the Supreme Court stuck its nose in in Obergefell v. Hodges , and from my reading of the Constitution, is one left to the States under the Tenth Amendment.

Actually , it did come down to a dispute among states and the SCOTUS stepped in to resove it

A circuit split occurred in the federal court system regarding gay marriage, specifically when the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld state bans on same-sex marriage in late 2014. This decision broke ranks with other circuits that had ruled such bans unconstitutional, creating a split that put the issue on the path to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ultimately resolved the issue in 2015 with the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

• The split: The Sixth Circuit's ruling upheld same-sex marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, reversing lower court decisions.
• Contrasting decisions: Prior to the Sixth Circuit's decision, the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits had all ruled that state bans were unconstitutional.
• The outcome: This split created a clear conflict between federal circuits, which increased pressure on the Supreme Court to hear the issue and provide a definitive answer.
• The resolution: The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

 

[johnwk]

Actually , it did come down to a dispute among states

Using AI as you have is not a good idea.

No. It did not come down to a dispute among States.

A homosexual couple, David Moore and David Ermold, filed suit alleging that Kim Davis violated their constitutional right to marry.

In Obergefell v. Hodges petitioners [homosexual couples] claimed that state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Using AI as you have is not a good idea.

No. It did not come down to a dispute among States.

A homosexual couple, David Moore and David Ermold, filed suit alleging that Kim Davis violated their constitutional right to marry.

In Obergefell v. Hodges petitioners [homosexual couples] claimed that state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry

It most certainly was , The high court took that case only because of the circuit split. The underlying case between of an individual against a state does not change that fact

A circuit split occurred in the federal court system regarding gay marriage, specifically when the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld state bans on same-sex marriage in late 2014. This decision broke ranks with other circuits that had ruled such bans unconstitutional, creating a split that put the issue on the path to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ultimately resolved the issue in 2015 with the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

 

[johnwk]

It most certainly was ,

Provide the wording from our federal constitution by which the States are forbidden to make distinctions based on sex, other than the Nineteenth Amendment.

Kentucky's marriage amendment is 100% within the four walls of our federal constitution, and that includes the Tenth Amendment!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Provide the wording from our federal constitution by which the States are forbidden to make distinctions based on sex, other than the Nineteenth Amendment.

Kentucky's marriage amendment is 100% within the four walls of our federal constitution, and that includes the Tenth Amendment!

Provide the wording from the Obergefell ruling that relies on a distinction between genders. You never read it, did you? It only considers a distinction between couples who are of the opposite genders as opposed to those who are of the same gender . It concludes that there is no fundamental difference between them and therefore same sex couples are entitled to equal protection under the law. That is where Kentucky mainly ran afoul of the constitution.

I will add that if you really want to stick with the argument that there is no prohibition on a distinction between the genders and therefor states may make that distinction by prohibiting a person from marrying another of the same gender, know this : There is a large body of case law upholding the rights of women and affirming their equality . Case law carries the full force of law as much as and article or amendment of the constitution.

Lastly , no state law or constitution is superior to or supersedes the US constitution , nor does the tenth Amendment negate or nullify the 14th. All rights reserved to the states must pass constitutional muster.

Your inchoate understanding of the constitution and of the legal argument for same sex marriage is obvious and sort of amusing, The fact is that you’re not nearly as smart as you think you are. You seem to be struggling with defending a bigoted theory that is indefensible. Get over yourself

 

[johnwk]

Provide the wording from the Obergefell ruling

Justice Kennedy in authoring the opinion, went on and on, page after page, with irrelevant historical notations having nothing to do with the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Kennedy along with Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, with the stroke of a pen and no appropriate evidence, simple reversed the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which upheld, on November 6, 2014, Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage approved by 75% of the voters via their constitutional amendment.

If I am in error, quote from the majority ruling the evidence confirming that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based on sex. and forbids the State of Kentucky to ban same-sex marriage as they did with their constitutional amendment.

As the old saying goes, put up or shut up.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Justice Kennedy in authoring the opinion, went on and on, page after page, with irrelevant historical notations having nothing to do with the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Kennedy along with Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, with the stroke of a pen and no appropriate evidence, simple reversed the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which upheld, on November 6, 2014, Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage approved by 75% of the voters via their constitutional amendment.

If I am in error, quote from the majority ruling the evidence confirming that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based on sex. and forbids the State of Kentucky to ban same-sex marriage as they did with their constitutional amendment.

As the old saying goes, put up or shut up.

Give me a damned break!! The The 14th Amendment does not specifically address any particular right

However , it is understiiod to protects due process of law, and equal protection of the laws from state governments. It applies these protections to all persons, not just formerly enslaved people, and guarantees that no state can deny a person life, liberty, or property without due process or deny any person the equal protection of the laws. It also bars former officials who engaged in insurrection from holding office.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Justice Kennedy in authoring the opinion, went on and on, page after page, with irrelevant historical notations having nothing to do with the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Kennedy along with Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, with the stroke of a pen and no appropriate evidence, simple reversed the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which upheld, on November 6, 2014, Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage approved by 75% of the voters via their constitutional amendment.

If I am in error, quote from the majority ruling the evidence confirming that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based on sex. and forbids the State of Kentucky to ban same-sex marriage as they did with their constitutional amendment.

As the old saying goes, put up or shut up.

Give me a damned break!! The 14th Amendment - while addressing certain rights specifically does not exclude any particular rights.

It is understood to protects due process of law, and equal protection of the laws from state governments. It applies these protections to all persons, not just formerly enslaved people, and guarantees that no state can deny a person life, liberty, or property without due process or deny any person the equal protection of the laws. It also bars former officials who engaged in insurrection from holding office.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Justice Kennedy along with Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, with the stroke of a pen and no appropriate evidence, simple reversed the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which upheld, on November 6, 2014, Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage approved by 75% of the voters via their constitutional amendment.

Oh please just stop!! More circuit courts ruled that the bans on same sex marriage were in fact unconstitutional while the SCOTUS conservatives were quite willing to overturn those cases

Several U.S. Circuit Courts struck down state bans on same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling; the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits all ruled such bans unconstitutional in various states, creating a split with the Sixth Circuit, which upheld bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee before being overturned by the Supreme Court, making marriage equality nationwide.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Justice Kennedy in authoring the opinion, went on and on, page after page, with irrelevant historical notations having nothing to do with the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Kennedy along with Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, with the stroke of a pen and no appropriate evidence, simple reversed the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which upheld, on November 6, 2014, Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage approved by 75% of the voters via their constitutional amendment.

If I am in error, quote from the majority ruling the evidence confirming that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based on sex. and forbids the State of Kentucky to ban same-sex marriage as they did with their constitutional amendment.

As the old saying goes, put up or shut up.

PS : Disregard my post #90 Go with 91. My bad

 

[johnwk]

Give me a damned break!! The 14th Amendment - while addressing certain rights specifically does not exclude any particular rights.

Nor does the Fourteenth Amendment create a new right as was done under the Nineteenth Amendment _ decades after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified _ which narrowly forbids the states to make distinctions based upon "sex" with regard to voting.

With regard to the limited meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment as stated by one of the amendments supporters when being debated, we find the following:

“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: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment , Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

In Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the State of Illinois did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying a woman a license to practice law.

So, do tell us, when was the Constitution altered to forbid the States to make distinctions based upon "sex" other than the Ninetieth Amendment?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Nor does the Fourteenth Amendment create a new right as was done under the Nineteenth Amendment _ decades after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified _ which narrowly forbids the states to make distinctions based upon "sex" with regard to voting.

With regard to the limited meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment as stated by one of the amendments supporters when being debated, we find the following:

“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: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment , Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

In Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the State of Illinois did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying a woman a license to practice law.

So, do tell us, when was the Constitution altered to forbid the States to make distinctions based upon "sex" other than the Ninetieth Amendment?

I notice that after bemoaning the fact the majority opinion in Obergefell overturned the one circuit ruling that upheld the bans on gay marriage, you failed to address my response -that they upheld the rulings of 4 other circuits. This while the conservatives , in their dissenting opinion were quite will to overturn those rulings in favor gay marriage.

I’ve notice this pattern with you, When cornered, you tend to ignore my response and move on to another point.

Now to get into this most recent codswallop. An opinion written at the time of the drafting of the 14th Amendment carries no wight whatsoever in that case law, which I will present below, has evolved since then . While the opinion asserts that discrimination may be permitted -except on the basis race, color or former condition of slavery, that is no longer the case.

For the same reason , the case of In Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872), which you continually cite and prattle on about as proof that sex discrimination may be permitted , would likely have a different outcome today . I will explain forthwith. In case you haven’t noticed , a hell of a lot of women are now lawyers, including in Illinois .

As I have previously stated, the argument for same sex marriage was not based on sex discrimination at all, but rather , discrimination against both men and women who formed a relationship and an attraction to someone of the same gender, or simply put sexual orientation.

Of course the laws prohibiting same sex marriage never mentioned sexual orientation or homosexuality, but we all know who the target of those laws were, and it was not women or men per se. In any case, your argument using the case of In Bradwell v. The State fails to have relevance for gay marriage regardless of whether the constitution prohibits sex discrimination. More on Bradwell below.

Since the time of the adaption of the reconstruction amendments , the courts have developed much more stringent standards with regards to when and how the government may restrict anyone’s rights.

Strict scrutiny originated from the idea of heightened judicial review for certain laws, notably signaled in Footnote 4 of United States v. Carolene Products (1938), which suggested extra protection for minority rights and fundamental freedoms, evolving into the modern "compelling interest" and "narrowly tailored" test in the 1950s and 1960s, first in First Amendment cases (like speech) and later migrating to Equal Protection Clause issues, challenging the idea that such laws are always struck down.

Notice that there is no mention of race, but rather refers to “minorities” which of course would include gay and lesbian people.

When a government action infringes upon a right deemed "fundamental" by the Constitution (often explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights or found as an unenumerated right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment), strict scrutiny is applied regardless of the group or classification of people affected.

Examples of laws burdening fundamental rights that trigger strict scrutiny include those interfering with:

• First Amendment Rights: Freedom of speech, press, assembly, and the free exercise of religion.
• The Right to Vote: Significant restrictions on voting access or the dilution of voting power.
• The Right to Interstate Travel: Laws that create a classification that infringes on the right of individuals to travel between states.

And the one that applies here :

• Certain Privacy and Bodily Autonomy Rights: Rights related to marriage, procreation, and the use of contraception.

So , we have learned that when strict scrutiny is applied to laws that limit rights -requiring the government to articulate a compelling interest for imposing such restrictions. We also know that during the years of protracted litigation at the state and Federal levels , the states, in most cases , failed miserably trying to establish a compelling government interest , or even a rational basis for those restrictions.

Kindly explain to the class what such compelling government interest you would cite to justify restricting marriage to a man and a woman?

Getting back to gender for a minute ……….

In contrast, classifications based on gender/sex or the legitimacy of birth are considered "quasi-suspect" and trigger the intermediate scrutiny standard, which is less rigorous than strict scrutiny.

We see that gender based discrimination is also subject to scrutiny , although a lower level. That my friend is when the Constitution came forbid the States from make distinctions based upon "sex" Make no mistake about it. Case law carries the same weight as any constitutional amendment. To be clear, the Bradwell case fails to support your position on same sex marriage on two levels. Discrimination against gays is not sex discrimination, and sex discrimination is also afforded a level of scrutiny by the courts

Nothing further. The prosecution rests

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I notice that after bemoaning the fact the majority opinion in Obergefell overturned the one circuit ruling that upheld the bans on gay marriage, you failed to address my response -that they upheld the rulings of 4 other circuits. This while the conservatives , in their dissenting opinion were quite will to overturn those rulings in favor gay marriage. I’ve notice this pattern with you, When cornered, you tend to ignore my response and move on to another point. Now to get into this most recent codswallop. An opinion written at the time of the drafting of the 14th Amendment carries no wight whatsoever in that case law, which I will present below, has evolved since then . While the opinion asserts that discrimination may be permitted -except on the basis race, color or former condition of slavery, that is no longer the case. For the same reason , the case of In Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872), which you continually cite and prattle on about as proof that sex discrimination may be permitted , would likely have a different outcome today . I will explain forthwith. In case you haven’t noticed , a hell of a lot of women are now lawyers, including in Illinois . As I have previously stated, the argument for same sex marriage was not based on sex discrimination at all, but rather , discrimination against both men and women who formed a relationship and an attraction to someone of the same gender, or simply put sexual orientation. Of course the laws prohibiting same sex marriage never mentioned sexual orientation or homosexuality, but we all know who the target of those laws were, and it was not women or men per se. In any case, your argument using the case of In Bradwell v. The State fails to have relevance for gay marriage regardless of whether the constitution prohibits sex discrimination. More on Bradwell below. Since the time of the adaption of the reconstruction amendments , the courts have developed much more stringent standards with regards to when and how the government may restrict anyone’s rights. Notice that there is no mention of race, but rather refers to “minorities” which of course would include gay and lesbian people. Examples of laws burdening fundamental rights that trigger strict scrutiny include those interfering with: And the one that applies here : So , we have learned that when strict scrutiny is applied to laws that limit rights -requiring the government to articulate a compelling interest for imposing such restrictions. We also know that during the years of protracted litigation at the state and Federal levels , the states, in most cases , failed miserably trying to establish a compelling government interest , or even a rational basis for those restrictions. Kindly explain to the class what such compelling government interest you would cite to justify restricting marriage to a man and a woman? Getting back to gender for a minute ………. Nothing further. The prosecution rests

I notice that after bemoaning the fact the majority opinion in Obergefell overturned the one circuit ruling that upheld the bans on gay marriage, you failed to address my response -that they upheld the rulings of 4 other circuits. This while the conservatives , in their dissenting opinion were quite will to overturn those rulings in favor gay marriage. I’ve notice this pattern with you, When cornered, you tend to ignore my response and move on to another point. Now to get into this most recent codswallop. An opinion written at the time of the drafting of the 14th Amendment carries no wight whatsoever in that case law, which I will present below, has evolved since then . While the opinion asserts that discrimination may be permitted -except on the basis race, color or former condition of slavery, that is no longer the case. For the same reason , the case of In Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872), which you continually cite and prattle on about as proof that sex discrimination may be permitted , would likely have a different outcome today . I will explain forthwith. In case you haven’t noticed , a hell of a lot of women are now lawyers, including in Illinois . As I have previously stated, the argument for same sex marriage was not based on sex discrimination at all, but rather , discrimination against both men and women who formed a relationship and an attraction to someone of the same gender, or simply put sexual orientation. Of course the laws prohibiting same sex marriage never mentioned sexual orientation or homosexuality, but we all know who the target of those laws were, and it was not women or men per se. In any case, your argument using the case of In Bradwell v. The State fails to have relevance for gay marriage regardless of whether the constitution prohibits sex discrimination. More on Bradwell below. Since the time of the adaption of the reconstruction amendments , the courts have developed much more stringent standards with regards to when and how the government may restrict anyone’s rights. Notice that there is no mention of race, but rather refers to “minorities” which of course would include gay and lesbian people. Examples of laws burdening fundamental rights that trigger strict scrutiny include those interfering with: And the one that applies here : So , we have learned that when strict scrutiny is applied to laws that limit rights -requiring the government to articulate a compelling interest for imposing such restrictions. We also know that during the years of protracted litigation at the state and Federal levels , the states, in most cases , failed miserably trying to establish a compelling government interest , or even a rational basis for those restrictions. Kindly explain to the class what such compelling government interest you would cite to justify restricting marriage to a man and a woman? Getting back to gender for a minute ………. Nothing further. The prosecution rests

I notice that after bemoaning the fact the majority opinion in Obergefell overturned the one circuit ruling that upheld the bans on gay marriage, you failed to address my response -that they upheld the rulings of 4 other circuits. This while the conservatives , in their dissenting opinion were quite will to overturn those rulings in favor gay marriage.

I’ve notice this pattern with you, When cornered, you tend to ignore my response and move on to another point.

Now to get into this most recent codswallop. An opinion written at the time of the drafting of the 14th Amendment carries no wight whatsoever in that case law, which I will present below, has evolved since then . While the opinion asserts that discrimination may be permitted -except on the basis race, color or former condition of slavery, that is no longer the case.

For the same reason , the case of In Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872), which you continually cite and prattle on about as proof that sex discrimination may be permitted , would likely have a different outcome today . I will explain forthwith. In case you haven’t noticed , a hell of a lot of women are now lawyers, including in Illinois .

As I have previously stated, the argument for same sex marriage was not based on sex discrimination at all, but rather , discrimination against both men and women who formed a relationship and an attraction to someone of the same gender, or simply put sexual orientation.

Of course the laws prohibiting same sex marriage never mentioned sexual orientation or homosexuality, but we all know who the target of those laws were, and it was not women or men per se. In any case, your argument using the case of In Bradwell v. The State fails to have relevance for gay marriage regardless of whether the constitution prohibits sex discrimination. More on Bradwell below.

Since the time of the adaption of the reconstruction amendments , the courts have developed much more stringent standards with regards to when and how the government may restrict anyone’s rights.



Notice that there is no mention of race, but rather refers to “minorities” which of course would include gay and lesbian people.



Examples of laws burdening fundamental rights that trigger strict scrutiny include those interfering with:




And the one that applies here :



So , we have learned that when strict scrutiny is applied to laws that limit rights -requiring the government to articulate a compelling interest for imposing such restrictions. We also know that during the years of protracted litigation at the state and Federal levels , the states, in most cases , failed miserably trying to establish a compelling government interest , or even a rational basis for those restrictions.

Kindly explain to the class what such compelling government interest you would cite to justify restricting marriage to a man and a woman?

Getting back to gender for a minute ……….



Nothing further. The prosecution rests

Correstion

So , we have learned that when strict scrutiny is applied to laws that limit rights -the government required to articulate a compelling interest for imposing such restrictions in order for them to stand. We also know that during the years of protracted litigation at the state and Federal levels , the states, in most cases , failed miserably trying to establish a compelling government interest , or even a rational basis for those restrictions.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Kim Davis should sue Justices Sotomayor and Kagan under the Seventh Amendment for the misfeasance and nonfeasance exhibited in the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges which has led to a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”


Our U.S. Supreme Court has never taken up and reversed the decision in Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) in which the State of Illinois refused to grant a license to a woman to practice law in Illinois, on the ground that females were not eligible under the laws of that state. The USSC upheld the law as not violating the Fourteenth Amendment!

Kim Davis should sue Justices Sotomayor and Kagan under the Seventh Amendment for Sotomayor and Kagan’s misfeasance and nonfeasance in Obergefell v. Hodges which has led to a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

The Seventh Amendment states:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Keep in mind Sotomayor and Kagan took an oath to support and defend our written Constitution which does not allow them to substitute their personal feelings and predilections as the rule of law, which is what they did in Obergefell v. Hodges . . . they ignored fundamental rules of constitutional construction.


“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which would give the phrase…a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution.” Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Additionally, our very own Supreme Court Sotomayor and Kagan’s fundamental duty:

"The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it."_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Let a jury decide whether or not Sotomayor and Kagan engaged in misfeasance and nonfeasance.

Sorry. That's not going anywhere. It would be an aimless suit.