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

[bodecea]

PA laws and gay marriage are both constitutional..

HAHAHA, As Schafly says, the constitution says absolutely nothing about queer marriage. So stop with your brazen lie that it does.

Schafly is an embarrassment to the female of the species.

 

[bodecea]

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

What are the names and code #s on the laws that you claim judges and bureaucrats write. All laws have to be filed with at least a law #.

 

[bodecea]

The SC dumped unconstitutional laws, dumbass, they didn't write new ones. That is what they do.

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.

Nope...it is not. A negative is not a positive. If I tear up the paper with the law on it...I have not created a new law. Go back to school.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Excellent idea. That should be a proudly proclaimed plank on the GOP platform.

 

[Political Junky]

Wonder how Schlafly's gay son feels about same sex marriage.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

[
Well let's see. On her side is reality, the courts agree, Congress, everyone who matters, and on your side is a position that was tossed out more than 200 years ago. Yes, I see the defeat clearly...

But where does the constitution say courts have authority to repeal laws? I've shown you where it says they do NOT have such authority.

Tell us SS, when the Supreme Court strikes down a gun control law, is it writing a new law? Did it just repeal that law and therefore shouldn't do so as it has no authority?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.?

You forgot to cite where the Supreme Court overturned Obergefell – absent such a ruling the premise of your thread fails, and you continue only to exhibit your comprehensive ignorance of the law.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Obviously it does. The judicial power includes the authority to rule against a law. My analogy is spot on. As the Federalist Papers make crystal clear:

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

Not only does the judicial power include the power to rule against a law, it was always meant to.

Unless you think you know better than the Federalist Papers. Again, Speed.....there's a reason you lost this issue.

Hey einstein. You still haven't shown where the constitution grants courts the power to repeal laws. The federalist paper quote you cited is just one man's opinion. Thomas Jefferson had a very different opinion. Ever hear of him???

For the third time, the constitution specifically grants the judiciary the judicial power. Which per the Federalist power include the authority to interpret laws and intepret the constitution. If a law is in conflict with the constitution the judiciary is to give deference to the constitution.

You literally have to ignore the founders, the Federalist Papers

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

With James Madison himself saying:

"A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void."

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774 - 1875

As for Thomas Jefferson, who gives a shit? The man wasn't even in the country when the constitution was written. He was part of no constitutional congress, he represented no state, he wasn't a delegate, he wrote no part of the constitution, he debated nothing, he wrote none of the Federalist papers. He is probably the least influential founder on the meaning of the constitution.

While the Federalist Papers are generally regarded as one of the most direct sources on the meaning of the constitution. As the Federalists won. With James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamiliton writing the federalist papers.

Defeating you loony libs is so easy.

So you say. Yet your argument been rejected as pseudo-legal gibberish since before the constitution was written. And has never reflected the way our constitution has been operated. Not in the time of the founders, not now.

Worse, your argument is mindless nonsense. Insisting that the adjudication doesn't include the authority to rule against a law would be as foolish as insisting that the Executive power to enforce laws doesn't include the power to arrest.After all....the constitution doesn't *explicitly* cite 'arrests' as part of the Executive power. Despite the fact that the executive power is meaningless without it. Just as the authority to adjudicate is meaningless if you can only rule in the affirmative.

Of course adjudication includes the authority to rule on a case. Of course eenforcement powers include the ability to arrest. Our nation has never practiced otherwise.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

PA laws and gay marriage are both constitutional..

HAHAHA, As Schafly says, the constitution says absolutely nothing about queer marriage.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about straight marriage either, but the Supreme Court has something to say on both, which means, you and she are both fucked...

So....you just admitted the SC is ruling outside of the authority granted by the Constitution.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

PA laws and gay marriage are both constitutional..

HAHAHA, As Schafly says, the constitution says absolutely nothing about queer marriage.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about straight marriage either, but the Supreme Court has something to say on both, which means, you and she are both fucked...

So....you just admitted the SC is ruling outside of the authority granted by the Constitution.

It's not outside their authority, which is to decide if laws are or are not constitution. That is in the constitution.

If the law was Islam is a banned religion in the US, the Constitution is what says that would go to the Supreme Court. Meaning, you and little SS are fucked.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What work any better now than then. Seven states had seceded by the time Abe became president, and the other four left the Union after his call for troops.

Does not matter what the old lady says.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
What are the names and code #s on the laws that you claim judges and bureaucrats write. All laws have to be filed with at least a law #.

Not anymore. The govt calls the new law an "interpretation" or a "regulation". But they're laws.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Tell us SS, when the Supreme Court strikes down a gun control law, is it writing a new law? Did it just repeal that law and therefore shouldn't do so as it has no authority?

Yes - they obviously repealed the law. They don't call it that for obvious reasons but it's a repeal and thus in violation of the constitution clause "all legislative functions herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."

 

[Skylar]

[
What are the names and code #s on the laws that you claim judges and bureaucrats write. All laws have to be filed with at least a law #.

Not anymore. The govt calls the new law an "interpretation" or a "regulation". But they're laws.

Says who? Overturning a law as unconstitutional is not 'writing' a law. THINK.

 

[Skylar]

Tell us SS, when the Supreme Court strikes down a gun control law, is it writing a new law? Did it just repeal that law and therefore shouldn't do so as it has no authority?

Yes - they obviously repealed the law. They don't call it that for obvious reasons but it's a repeal and thus in violation of the constitution clause "all legislative functions herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."

Check the 14th amendement. The States lack the authority to violate the equal protection clause. Any State law that does is constitutionally invalid. And thus overturned. THINK.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
It's not outside their authority, which is to decide if laws are or are not constitution. That is in the constitution.
.

Once again the board asks you to show us where the constitution says that..

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Check the 14th amendement. The States lack the authority to violate the equal protection clause. Any State law that does is constitutionally invalid. And thus overturned. .

So why do states have affirmative action programs? THINK

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Tell us SS, when the Supreme Court strikes down a gun control law, is it writing a new law? Did it just repeal that law and therefore shouldn't do so as it has no authority?

Yes - they obviously repealed the law. They don't call it that for obvious reasons but it's a repeal and thus in violation of the constitution clause "all legislative functions herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."

Okay, so the Supreme Court should not rule that any law is or isn't constitutional? Gonna stand on that?

 

[Skylar]

[
It's not outside their authority, which is to decide if laws are or are not constitution. That is in the constitution.
.

Once again the board asks you to show us where the constitution says that..

He's already told you: in the Judicial Power. The Judiciary has the authority to adjudicate all cases that arise under the constitution. Its ludicrous to claim that the adjudication means that the court can only AGREE with a law. Obviously adjudication involves both upholding and overturning laws. As the Federalist Papers make absurdly clear:

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

You can ignore the Federalist Papers and the Judicial Power if you wish. But you can't make us ignore them.

Lets see if you believe your own bullshit. Show me anywhere in the constitution that the Executive branch is granted the power to arrest anyone. Is it your contention then that no such power exists as part of executing the law?

 

[Skylar]

Check the 14th amendement. The States lack the authority to violate the equal protection clause. Any State law that does is constitutionally invalid. And thus overturned. .

So why do states have affirmative action programs? THINK

Can I take your non-sequitur as an concession that you recognize the 14th amendment prohibits equal protection violations by the States? And thus, any state marriage law that violates equal protection is constitutionally invalid?

As you have apparently abandoned any mention of the gay marriage ruling.