Schlafly: Treat Gay Marriage Ruling ‘Like Abe Lincoln Treated Infamous Dred Scott Case’--- ignore it

[ShootSpeeders]

By nullifying laws against gay marriage they legalized it. That's writing a law.
You say it's the court's job to repeal laws they say are unconstitutional? Where does the constitution give them that power.

Same thing goes for abortion.

Indeed. Roe v wade was a clear case of writing a law. Same with plyler v doe. The SC writes laws all the time even though the constitution says they can't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Obergefell Court didn't 'write' any laws, it reviewed the constitutionality of state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, and held that such measures violated the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, as the Supreme Court is authorized to do by Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

They legalized queer marriage. Of course they wrote a law, you fool.

BTW - if the equal protection clause of the 14A holds, why do we have affirmative action.?

Learn how "law" is created in the US. Start here: Law of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[ShootSpeeders]

That link has already been posted in this thread. I'm not interested in repeating myself.

Your admission of defeat is noted.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The comparison is a bad one. The Supreme Court told Herr Lincoln Über Alles that he couldn't use the Alien and Sedition Act to prosecute political dissidents. They were right. Today the Courts are acting lawlessly, but back then it was the president who was a lawless tyrant needing to be reigned in. The Furor ignored not only the Supreme Court, but the Constitution as well with his illegal war. If trying to arrest the Chief Justice wasn't proof that he was mad with power, then nothing will convince the Lincoln cultists.

Hell - lincoln even had a congressman, clement valandigham DEPORTED, for disagreeing with him. L was a monster.

Guess you can't vote for the GOP then eh?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That link has already been posted in this thread. I'm not interested in repeating myself.

Your admission of defeat is noted.

#5, dumbass.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Learn how "law" is created in the US. Start here: Law of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I know how it's done and it's unconstitutional. The C says only congress can write laws and yet we allow judges and bureaucrats and presidents to do it too. States need to stand up to this. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Your admission of defeat is noted.

#5, dumbass.

The board notes that all you have is namecalling. Have a perfect day.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Learn how "law" is created in the US. Start here: Law of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I know how it's done and it's unconstitutional. The C says only congress can write laws and yet we allow judges and bureaucrats and presidents to do it too. States need to stand up to this. THINK

Your understanding isn't just flawed, it's dead wrong.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Your admission of defeat is noted.

#5, dumbass.

The board notes that all you have is namecalling. Have a perfect day.

The board notes that you can't be bothered to read the US Constitution because it doesn't say what you want it to.

 

[whitehall]

How about heterosexual sanctuary cities? If the radical left can ignore federal law regarding criminal aliens with sanctuary cities why not establish heterosexual sanctuary cities? At least normal people can avoid going to jail for refusing to bake wedding cakes for hairy freakazoid drag queens.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

How about heterosexual sanctuary cities? If the radical left can ignore federal law regarding criminal aliens with sanctuary cities the heterosexual sanctuary cities can at least avoid going to jail for refusing to bake wedding cakes for hairy freakazoid drag queens.

Go for it. We have lots of prisons around.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

How about heterosexual sanctuary cities? If the radical left can ignore federal law regarding criminal aliens with sanctuary cities the heterosexual sanctuary cities can at least avoid going to jail for refusing to bake wedding cakes for hairy freakazoid drag queens.

Hell - if cities can ignore federal immigration laws , then they can ignore all laws. That's how i see it.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The board notes that you can't be bothered to read the US Constitution because it doesn't say what you want it to.

HAHAHA. You admit it's not there. The constitution doesn't say who has the power to declare a law unconstitutional which means, by the tenth amendment, the states have it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

How about heterosexual sanctuary cities? If the radical left can ignore federal law regarding criminal aliens with sanctuary cities the heterosexual sanctuary cities can at least avoid going to jail for refusing to bake wedding cakes for hairy freakazoid drag queens.

Hell - if cities can ignore federal immigration laws , then they can ignore all laws. That's how i see it.

What the cities do is Don't Ask, so there is nothing To Tell, which is in no way breaking the law.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The board notes that you can't be bothered to read the US Constitution because it doesn't say what you want it to.

HAHAHA. You admit it's not there. The constitution doesn't say who has the power to declare a law unconstitutional which means, by the tenth amendment, the states have it.

No, it's there, you simply don't want to believe it. It says what I believe, and Congress believes, and the President believes, and the Supreme Court and lower courts believe. It does not say what you believe, which is why you ignore the Constitution.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

What the cities do is Don't Ask, so there is nothing To Tell, which is in no way breaking the law.

On no. Section 1324 of title 8 of the US code makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here. When cities announce they will ignore federal immigration laws, they are clearly encouraging illegals to live in the city.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
No, it's there, you simply don't want to believe it. It says what I believe, and Congress believes, and the President believes, and the Supreme Court and lower courts believe. It does not say what you believe, which is why you ignore the Constitution.

You still insist the constitution says courts have authority to declare laws unconstitutional and thus repeal laws.? Again i say - point it out.

 

[Skylar]

[
No, it's there, you simply don't want to believe it. It says what I believe, and Congress believes, and the President believes, and the Supreme Court and lower courts believe. It does not say what you believe, which is why you ignore the Constitution.

You still insist the constitution says courts have authority to declare laws unconstitutional and thus repeal laws.? Again i say - point it out.

The judicial power is the power to adjudicate cases. Which includes the power to rule against a given law if it violates the contitution. As the Supremecy Clause makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land.

Says who?

Says the Federalist Papers:

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

Federalist Paper 78

Claiming that the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to rule against a law is like claiming that the Executive Authority to enforce the law doesn't include the authority to arrest anyone.

There's a reason your argument has been laughed out of the courts for more than 2 centuries.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

[
No, it's there, you simply don't want to believe it. It says what I believe, and Congress believes, and the President believes, and the Supreme Court and lower courts believe. It does not say what you believe, which is why you ignore the Constitution.

You still insist the constitution says courts have authority to declare laws unconstitutional and thus repeal laws.? Again i say - point it out.

Why must we go over this and over this with you?

"The provisions relating to the federal judicial power in Article III state:

“ The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. . . . In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. ”

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI states:

“ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."
Judicial review in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Read up. And if you don't like our system, move. This nation was never built for your kind in the first place.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Claiming that the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to rule against a law is like claiming that the Executive Authority to enforce the law doesn't include the authority to arrest anyone.
.

HAHA. What a ridiculous analogy. Time for you to admit you don't have the evidence. The constitution does NOT give the courts authority to repeal laws by declaring them unconstitutional. It's a power they simply granted themselves. In fact, the tenth amendment gives the power to the states.