Obergefell v. Hodges is a classic case of judicial tyranny, its date will live in infamy

[johnwk]

Or under the 14th amendment which extended equal protection to the states.
And like any contract, the marriage contract has to be recognized by every court, in order to be legally enforceable. To prevent someone signing a contract in one jurisdiction, fleeing to another to escape his obligations under the contract.
Hence why the federal government needing to recognize contracts from all of the several states, as only they have jurisdiction in the case of parties resident in different states.

I have no idea what point, if any, you are trying to make. Please elaborate and clarify.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As an adult and one who supports and defends our written constitution, and the documented legislative intent under which it was adopted which gives context to its text, I give my full support to the four states—Nevada, California, Colorado, and Hawaii—which have exercised their reserved Tenth Amendment powers and amended their state constitutions to specifically allow or protect same-sex marriage.

The only lawful way to make same-sex marriage federally recognized and protected under our federal Constitution is to do so under the terms mentioned in Article V.

Same bullshit different day.

You completely ignore the validity of judicial review established by Marbury V, Madison​

​

You deny or don't understand that the 14th Amendment extends the bill of rights to the states and requires that states honor due process and equal protection under the law,​

​

You don't accept the validity of case law as carrying the force of law​

​

You are ignorant of the concept of un-enumerated rights .​

​

The 10 th Amendment is not superior to the 14th and rights reserved to the sates must be excercized in a constitutional manner protecting due process and equal protection​

​

You reject the concept of Scrutiny established by Supreme Court case United States v. Carolene "exacting judicial scrutiny" for fundamental rights, with its modern application solidifying in the late 1950s and 1960s, particularly in First Amendment and then Equal Protection cases like those involving race.​

I do not believe for a nano second that you really support gay marriage in the states that amended their constitutions. You are motivated by bigotry which you revealed when you moronically and insensitively stated that gays already had equal rights because they can marry someone of the opposite sex.

 

[meaner gene]

You seem to ignore that the Tenth Amendment leaves to the States and people therein, the exclusive power over all the objects which, ". . . in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

So, the fact is, there is no flaw under federalism, our constitution's design.

You left out equal protection, and the privileges and immunity's granted under the constitution.
Which recognizes necessary rights and freedoms across state lines.

 

[johnwk]

You are ignorant of the concept of un-enumerated rights .

I take your comment to involve the Ninth Amendment.


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


So, to address your generalization, let us first establish the very purpose for the introduction of the Ninth Amendment, included with eleven other proposed amendments, for ratification and approval by the various States.

The unequivocal intention for adopting the Ninth Amendment is found in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789 ". . . in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of powers . . . " by the newly created federal government.

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added . . ."

So, as it turns out James Madison who was the primary author and introducer of the Ninth Amendment, drafted it to address Anti-Federalist concerns that listing specific rights might imply other rights weren't protected, ensuring the newly created federal government couldn't infringe on unenumerated rights retained by the people.

You seem to ignore that the Tenth Amendment leaves to the States and people therein, the exclusive power over all the objects which, ". . . in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

What is you beef with the terms and conditions set forth in our federal Constitution?

 

[johnwk]

You left out equal protection, and the privileges and immunity's granted under the constitution.
Which recognizes necessary rights and freedoms across state lines.

I still have no idea what point, if any, you are trying to make with respect to the subject of the thread. Please elaborate and clarify. Your generalizations elude me.

Exactly, what is your contention with respect to "equal protection, and the privileges and immunity's granted under the constitution"?

 

[meaner gene]

I still have no idea what point, if any, you are trying to make with respect to the subject of the thread. Please elaborate and clarify. Your generalizations elude me.

Exactly, what is your contention with respect to "equal protection, and the privileges and immunity's granted under the constitution"?

Simple example. What if California adopted a law, or put into their constitution, that all automobiles traveling in their state, had to pass their very strict emissions standards.
Would they be able to exclude out of state vehicles or require they get a California emissions inspection at the state line?

 

[johnwk]

Simple example. What if California adopted a law, or put into their constitution, that all automobiles traveling in their state, had to pass their very strict emissions standards.
Would they be able to exclude out of state vehicles or require they get a California emissions inspection at the state line?

I believe the answer to your question is found in Congress's power to regulate commerce among the states.

A clue revealing the purpose for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states is quickly pointed out in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of our Constitution.

“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

We now begin to learn the intentions for which the power to “regulate commerce” was granted and can be boil down to insuring free trade among the States. But getting back to the documented intentions for which the power to regulate commerce among the States was granted, Federalist Paper No. 42 states the following:

“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”

The power to regulate commerce among the states was in fact intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders, or interfering with the movement of goods as established by the historical record!

Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a state‘s inspection laws:


“No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

You have become your own worst nightmare. All along you have been insisting that Article 5 is the only lawful way to amend the constitution , Now you are citing the 9th Amendment which explicitly affirms that the Constitution protects unenumerated rights retained by the people. It was included as a rule of construction to ensure that the enumeration of specific rights in the Bill of Rights would not be interpreted as an exhaustive list, thereby "denying or disparaging" other rights that exist.

Those un-enumerated rights are the result of case law which in effect modifiies the Constitution as much as an amendment would. Is it possible that you do not see the contradiction. You continue to make a damned fool of yourself

Still waiting for you to own up to your bigotry and to stop hiding behind your bastardized and convoluted interpretation of the Constitution

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You seem to ignore that the Tenth Amendment leaves to the States and people therein, the exclusive power over all the objects which, ". . . in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

You seem to ignore the fact that there is nothing in the tenth that exempts the states form adhering to due process and equal protection under the law, while exorcizing the rights reserved them them. You are being very stupid about that ,

 

[johnwk]

You seem to ignore the fact that there is nothing in the tenth that exempts the states form adhering to due process and equal protection under the law, while exorcizing the rights reserved them them. You are being very stupid about that ,

Let us examine exactly what the Fourteenth Amendment declares in its context:




The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”


This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person [singular] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” (singular) as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person" [singular, and within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person (singular) within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal application of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal application of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

In summary, the Fourteenth Amendment's objectives were eloquently stated by one of its supporters as follows:

“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

As documented above, nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the States to make a distinction based upon sex when issuing a State marriage license.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Let us examine exactly what the Fourteenth Amendment declares in its context:




The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language

I have a better idea, Lets examine your bogus , and fraudulent interpretation of the 14th Amendment . Your dishonesty and duplicity are crystal clear, especially with respect the the passage :

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

You state that “This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.”

Yes, the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause explicitly forbids states from making or enforcing any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizens.

However, you purposefully left out this part:

“The Supreme Court significantly limited its scope early on, making the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses the primary avenues for applying federal rights against states, though some scholars argue for a broader revival of the P/I clause to protect fundamental rights. “

The 14th Amendment contains several clauses that restrict state action:

• Privileges or Immunities Clause: Protects rights specific to national citizenship.
• Due Process Clause: Prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without legal process.
• Equal Protection Clause: Ensures that all people within a state's jurisdiction receive equal treatment under the law.

Furthermore:

The 14th Amendment protects the right to gay marriage, a principle established by the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which ruled that states must license and recognize same-sex marriages under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the amendment, recognizing marriage as a fundamental right for all couples.

Now getting back to the tenth Amendment which you insist insulates the states from those federal protections . As I have said:

The Tenth Amendment is not absolute; it clarifies that powers not given to the federal government are reserved for states or people, but the Supreme Court has often limited its scope, balancing state powers with federal supremacy and the Supremacy Clause, meaning states can't act contrary to federal law, though the amendment does set boundaries against federal overreach into state domains, particularly regarding state autonomy and policy.

You sir are a liar , a fraud and . oh yes, a bigot who is trying to hide behind a love purported and respect for the constitution in order to justify hate and discrimination ,

Still waiting for you to grow a spine and tell us what you are really opposed to gay marriage,

I see also that you have abandoned your endorsement of the 9th Amendment after I called you out on the fact that it supports un enumerated rights-which you had previously dismissed’

From my post 228:

.All along you have been insisting that Article 5 is the only lawful way to amend the constitution , Now you are citing the 9th Amendment which explicitly affirms that the Constitution protects un-enumerated rights retained by the people. It was included as a rule of construction to ensure that the enumeration of specific rights in the Bill of Rights would not be interpreted as an exhaustive list, thereby "denying or disparaging" other rights that exist.

Those un-enumerated rights are the result of case law which in effect modifies the Constitution as much as an amendment would

Just another issue tat you have run from after being cornered. Clearly, in addition to being a dishonest bigot, you’re not the sharpest tool in the shed either

 

[johnwk]

Still waiting for you to grow a spine and tell us what you are really opposed to gay marriage,

And I'm still waiting for you to understand what is in contention.

The contention raised is with respect to Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) being bad law (not being based on the terms and conditions set forth in our Constitution) and conflicting with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)

As I have pointed out, Four states—Nevada, California, Colorado, and Hawaii—have exercised their reserved Tenth Amendment powers and amended their state constitutions to specifically allow or protect same-sex marriage.

The only lawful way to make same-sex marriage legally recognized and protected under our federal Constitution is to do so under the terms mentioned in Article V.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And I'm still waiting for you to understand what is in contention.

The contention raised is with respect to Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) being bad law (not being based on the terms and conditions set forth in our Constitution) and conflicting with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)

As I have pointed out, Four states—Nevada, California, Colorado, and Hawaii—have exercised their reserved Tenth Amendment powers and amended their state constitutions to specifically allow or protect same-sex marriage.

The only lawful way to make same-sex marriage legally recognized and protected under our federal Constitution is to do so under the terms mentioned in Article V.

Don't you ever get tired of hearing yourself blathering about the some debunked bullshit over and over again. That's called an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy ......."I said it so therefore its true- just trust me" while ignoring the fact that you're among the 5% or less of people who have read the Constitution who adopt your twisted views.. Instead of a scholarly reading of the constitution, you begin with the premise - that there is to right to gay marriage and interpret the constitution to support it. That is also a logical fallacy- a non sequitur

 

[johnwk]

A number of states adopt measures to have Obergefell v. Hodges reversed


I didn’t know that a number of States have actually adopted resolutions condemning Obergefell v. Hodges as being at odds with our Constitution and are looking to have it overturned. See: Obergefell Ruling in Question as Lawmakers Push to Revisit Gay Marriage Rights

"Recent state-level efforts aim to challenge the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, fueled by Justice Thomas's 2022 call to revisit such rulings. Concerns arise over LGBTQ rights if Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned, as federal protections, like the Respect for Marriage Act, have limitations. Advocates emphasize vigilance and community action amidst fears of legal and societal regression."

Also see IDAHO’s HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO.1

 

[HikerGuy83]

the documented legislative intent under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to by the States when ratifying the amendment

None of the southern states ratified it willinglingly.

They were threatened with a great deal if they did not.

New Jersey and Ohio rescinded their approval, but congress would not accept them (which was completely illegal and those ramrodding this through should be dug up, burned and fed to the crows).

 

[HikerGuy83]

predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to,

Again, passed illegally.

The Squalid 14th Amendment - LewRockwell

SEC. 1. 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...

www.lewrockwell.com

 

[HikerGuy83]

Equal protection has long been a cornerstone of the country.

No it hasn't.

Why don't you give us the date that it became important.

 

[HikerGuy83]

In essence, a majority on our Supreme Court set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections

Kinda like Roe

 

[HikerGuy83]

You are ignorant of the concept of un-enumerated rights .

Because they don't reside in the asses of the SCOTUS. Unlike Douglas who was constantly pulling stuff out of his, the current court understands that isn't how it works.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Supremacy Clause, meaning states can't act contrary to federal law, though the amendment does set boundaries against federal overreach into state domains, particularly regarding state autonomy and policy.

What a complete contradiction.

The Supremacy clause has always only applied to those powers that are defined and given to the federal government BY THE STATES.