Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples

[OKTexas]

It's called simple application of the Constitution as written and please point out where I said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law.

Again, if the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to intepret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.....how could they overturn the Chicago gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Its quite the pickle your in, hypocrite. Either the Judicial Power does include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it...in which case McDonald v. Chicago would be legimate, or the Judicial Power doesn't include any such authority. And McDonald v. Chicago was a gross over step of federal authority.

Pick one. We both already know which one you'll pick. We both already know even you don't buy your hapless bullshit regarding the judiciary. We both already know that your recognition of the judicial power is based solely on whether or not you agree with a given ruling.

But I want to hear you say it.

Hey dumb ****, I never said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law, in fact I have consistently said they have an obligation to overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution. The authority they don't have is to tweak or amend a law, if it doesn't fit with the Constitution they have to overturn it and leave it to the legislature that passed it to fix.

That didn't happen in Obergefell v Hodges.

No, they just invented discrimination where none existed, all men and women were bound by the same law regardless of orientation. That's not discrimination or unequal protection.

Why that's the exact same logic that was used with interracial marriage bans. Since it applied to black and whites, it was thus 'equal'. Alas, back in reality the standards of the law themselves must meet constitutional muster. And both same sex marriage bans and interracial marriage bans failed utterly. As they had no valid legislative end, satisfied no legitimate state interest, nor even had a rational reason.

Says who? Says the Supreme Court. You disagree. Um....who gives a shit?

Great, what will you do when a straight very wealthy widower/widow marries a straight son/daughter to avoid estate taxes, after all they love each other and just want the same rights afforded other married couples. According to you there is no legitimate state interest to prohibit this.

 

[OKTexas]

It's called simple application of the Constitution as written and please point out where I said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law.

Again, if the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to intepret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.....how could they overturn the Chicago gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Its quite the pickle your in, hypocrite. Either the Judicial Power does include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it...in which case McDonald v. Chicago would be legimate, or the Judicial Power doesn't include any such authority. And McDonald v. Chicago was a gross over step of federal authority.

Pick one. We both already know which one you'll pick. We both already know even you don't buy your hapless bullshit regarding the judiciary. We both already know that your recognition of the judicial power is based solely on whether or not you agree with a given ruling.

But I want to hear you say it.

Hey dumb ****, I never said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law, in fact I have consistently said they have an obligation to overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution. The authority they don't have is to tweak or amend a law, if it doesn't fit with the Constitution they have to overturn it and leave it to the legislature that passed it to fix.

And your understanding of what the court did with those state laws banning same sex marriage is what, exactly?

See post #573

I did . It is horseshit!

Really, that all you got? Point out where anyone was discriminated against or denied equal protection.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Again, if the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to intepret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.....how could they overturn the Chicago gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Its quite the pickle your in, hypocrite. Either the Judicial Power does include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it...in which case McDonald v. Chicago would be legimate, or the Judicial Power doesn't include any such authority. And McDonald v. Chicago was a gross over step of federal authority.

Pick one. We both already know which one you'll pick. We both already know even you don't buy your hapless bullshit regarding the judiciary. We both already know that your recognition of the judicial power is based solely on whether or not you agree with a given ruling.

But I want to hear you say it.

Hey dumb ****, I never said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law, in fact I have consistently said they have an obligation to overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution. The authority they don't have is to tweak or amend a law, if it doesn't fit with the Constitution they have to overturn it and leave it to the legislature that passed it to fix.

And your understanding of what the court did with those state laws banning same sex marriage is what, exactly?

See post #573

I did . It is horseshit!

Really, that all you got? Point out where anyone was discriminated against or denied equal protection.

I know, the same well worn, inane and hatful crap that gays already had equal rights because a gay person-like a straight person can marry someone of the opposite sex

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays.In any case they are in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage


On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).


Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

There is much more to this lengthy opinion which seems to address and decimate just about argument against same sex marriage, but you get the idea

 

[OKTexas]

Hey dumb ****, I never said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law, in fact I have consistently said they have an obligation to overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution. The authority they don't have is to tweak or amend a law, if it doesn't fit with the Constitution they have to overturn it and leave it to the legislature that passed it to fix.

And your understanding of what the court did with those state laws banning same sex marriage is what, exactly?

See post #573

I did . It is horseshit!

Really, that all you got? Point out where anyone was discriminated against or denied equal protection.

I know, the same well worn, inane and hatful crap that gays already had equal rights because a gay person-like a straight person can marry someone of the opposite sex

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays.In any case they are in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage


On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).


Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

There is much more to this lengthy opinion which seems to address and decimate just about argument against same sex marriage, but you get the idea

From your quote:

A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision”

Tell me this is not a pandoras box, strictly reading the above, there can be no limitations of any manner, age, blood relationship, numbers, nothing can stand in the way of a citizens decision. Is that the result you want?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If the judiciary doesn't have the authority to overturn laws or interpret the constitution, how then could they have dealt with any such 'direct conflict'?

Laughing........why look! Like magic, the judicial power suddenly DOES include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.

How did I know that was coming, hypocrite?

It's called simple application of the Constitution as written and please point out where I said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law.

Again, if the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to intepret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.....how could they overturn the Chicago gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Its quite the pickle your in, hypocrite. Either the Judicial Power does include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it...in which case McDonald v. Chicago would be legimate, or the Judicial Power doesn't include any such authority. And McDonald v. Chicago was a gross over step of federal authority.

Pick one. We both already know which one you'll pick. We both already know even you don't buy your hapless bullshit regarding the judiciary. We both already know that your recognition of the judicial power is based solely on whether or not you agree with a given ruling.

But I want to hear you say it.

Hey dumb ****, I never said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law, in fact I have consistently said they have an obligation to overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution.

Oh, I believe you. But this guy says you're completely full of shit:

Also the only thing that gave the court interpretative power over the Constitution or laws is the court. It is not now and never has been a power granted them by the Constitution itself. Judges are there to apply the Constitution and laws as written, not sit in judgment of what they may or may not mean. Constitutionally that is left to legislatures.

Post 520
OKTexas
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...rriage-licenses-to-gay-couples.427323/page-52

So you never said the court's don't have the authority to interpret the law or the constitution. You only said that the courts don't have the authority to interpret the law or the constitution.

And of course you're contradicted by the Federalist Paper themselves:

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

Yeah, but what would the federalist papers know compared to you. You've clearly got it all figured out. And have concluded that the judiciary doesn't have the authority to interpret the constitution or overturn unconstitutional laws...

.....unless you like the ruling.

If not for double standards, you'd have none at all.

You want to use the federalist papers, Madison said in federalist 41 that the general welfare clause was specifically limited to the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 and not a general power unto itself. Are you on board with that? Or are you a hypocrite?

In Federalist 41, Madison does not say that the powers of the federal government are to be strictly limited to powers that are enumerated. Nor does he specifically reference Article 1 sec. 8 or any other section. Here is what he said:

To address the issue of whether the aggregate power of the general Government is greater than it should be one must first review the classes of powers conferred. Before reading Madison’s list you might want to ask yourself what your list of powers granted to the Federal Government would contain. His list is “1. security against foreign danger- 2. regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations-3. maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States- 4. certain miscellaneous objects of general utility- 5. restraint of the States from certain injurious acts- 6. provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.” The whole of the proposed Constitution apparently is written to provide the National Government with this short list of functions that are limited to security, regulation of foreign and domestic commerce, and certain enumerated restraints against State actions. - See more at: http://www.teaparty911.com/info/federalist-papers-summaries/no_41.htm#sthash.4cgXRqHu.dpuf

Second of all, it is well established constitutional law that rights that we enjoy go well beyond those enumerated in the constitution and the amendments:

Penumbras of the Constitution:

charting the origins of the abolition of moral legislation http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/wilson/030702

Lastly, Obergefell was decided on the 14th Amendment which obviously passed well after the Federalist papers were written and the Constitution ratified. The 14th extended the bill of rights to the states who must ensure that all are afforded equal protection under the law and due process. The argument is over.

 

[birddog]

I agree with Cruz and the SC is wrong. Queers deserve only "legal unions!"

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I agree with Cruz and the SC is wrong. Queers deserve only "legal unions!"

They deserve to be equals, which ***** you in a serious way since you don't believe that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And your understanding of what the court did with those state laws banning same sex marriage is what, exactly?

See post #573

I did . It is horseshit!

Really, that all you got? Point out where anyone was discriminated against or denied equal protection.

I know, the same well worn, inane and hatful crap that gays already had equal rights because a gay person-like a straight person can marry someone of the opposite sex

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays.In any case they are in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage


On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).


Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

There is much more to this lengthy opinion which seems to address and decimate just about argument against same sex marriage, but you get the idea

From your quote:

A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision”

Tell me this is not a pandoras box, strictly reading the above, there can be no limitations of any manner, age, blood relationship, numbers, nothing can stand in the way of a citizens decision. Is that the result you want?

Obviously it is not. First of all, it does not disturb any existing state laws against things like incest or plural marriage. If someone wants to take it beyond the concept of two beyond unrelated people they would have to follow the legislative or legal process like gay folks did to get that changed. The states would have to present a compelling government interest to deny them what they may claim is a right. No state was able to do so in the case of same sex marriage. Who knows how it would play out down the road but it is not happening now.

Secondly, in Obergefell, the majority opinion specifically stated that same sex couple now have the same rights as heterosexual couples subject to the laws of the state (paraphrase)

Tell us, since the first states implemented same sex marriage over a decade ago, have you been aware of many people clamoring for, or filing lawsuits to further redefine marriage? You seem to really be reaching with that one. Keep trying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OKTexas is getting batted around like a croquet ball.

His defense is absolutely porous.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I agree with Cruz and the SC is wrong. Queers deserve only "legal unions!"

Brilliant! What you think is not worth a hill of beans. Don't I know you from somewhere else?

 

[OKTexas]

It's called simple application of the Constitution as written and please point out where I said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law.

Again, if the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to intepret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.....how could they overturn the Chicago gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Its quite the pickle your in, hypocrite. Either the Judicial Power does include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it...in which case McDonald v. Chicago would be legimate, or the Judicial Power doesn't include any such authority. And McDonald v. Chicago was a gross over step of federal authority.

Pick one. We both already know which one you'll pick. We both already know even you don't buy your hapless bullshit regarding the judiciary. We both already know that your recognition of the judicial power is based solely on whether or not you agree with a given ruling.

But I want to hear you say it.

Hey dumb ****, I never said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law, in fact I have consistently said they have an obligation to overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution.

Oh, I believe you. But this guy says you're completely full of shit:

Also the only thing that gave the court interpretative power over the Constitution or laws is the court. It is not now and never has been a power granted them by the Constitution itself. Judges are there to apply the Constitution and laws as written, not sit in judgment of what they may or may not mean. Constitutionally that is left to legislatures.

Post 520
OKTexas
Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples | Page 52 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So you never said the court's don't have the authority to interpret the law or the constitution. You only said that the courts don't have the authority to interpret the law or the constitution.

And of course you're contradicted by the Federalist Paper themselves:

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

Yeah, but what would the federalist papers know compared to you. You've clearly got it all figured out. And have concluded that the judiciary doesn't have the authority to interpret the constitution or overturn unconstitutional laws...

.....unless you like the ruling.

If not for double standards, you'd have none at all.

You want to use the federalist papers, Madison said in federalist 41 that the general welfare clause was specifically limited to the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 and not a general power unto itself. Are you on board with that? Or are you a hypocrite?

In Federalist 41, Madison does not say that the powers of the federal government are to be strictly limited to powers that are enumerated. Nor does he specifically reference Article 1 sec. 8 or any other section. Here is what he said:

To address the issue of whether the aggregate power of the general Government is greater than it should be one must first review the classes of powers conferred. Before reading Madison’s list you might want to ask yourself what your list of powers granted to the Federal Government would contain. His list is “1. security against foreign danger- 2. regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations-3. maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States- 4. certain miscellaneous objects of general utility- 5. restraint of the States from certain injurious acts- 6. provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.” The whole of the proposed Constitution apparently is written to provide the National Government with this short list of functions that are limited to security, regulation of foreign and domestic commerce, and certain enumerated restraints against State actions. - See more at: Federalist Papers Summary No. 41

Second of all, it is well established constitutional law that rights that we enjoy go well beyond those enumerated in the constitution and the amendments:

Penumbras of the Constitution:

charting the origins of the abolition of moral legislation http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/wilson/030702

Lastly, Obergefell was decided on the 14th Amendment which obviously passed well after the Federalist papers were written and the Constitution ratified. The 14th extended the bill of rights to the states who must ensure that all are afforded equal protection under the law and due process. The argument is over.

Wrong again, that's what someone said he said. This form the actual Federalist 41.

It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare. "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

Federalist Papers No. 41

This was a direct reference to Article 1, Section 8 which expresses two specific independent categories for which federal monies could be raised and spent, common defense and general welfare, and goes on to limit those expenditures to specific purposes within those categories. Article 1, Section 8 is a single sentence, you can't break it apart without destroying the whole. That's what Madison said.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Federalist Papers are not law. End of subject.

 

[Seawytch]

The clerk is in the wrong and is going to lose.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Again, if the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to intepret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.....how could they overturn the Chicago gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Its quite the pickle your in, hypocrite. Either the Judicial Power does include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it...in which case McDonald v. Chicago would be legimate, or the Judicial Power doesn't include any such authority. And McDonald v. Chicago was a gross over step of federal authority.

Pick one. We both already know which one you'll pick. We both already know even you don't buy your hapless bullshit regarding the judiciary. We both already know that your recognition of the judicial power is based solely on whether or not you agree with a given ruling.

But I want to hear you say it.

Hey dumb ****, I never said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law, in fact I have consistently said they have an obligation to overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution.

Oh, I believe you. But this guy says you're completely full of shit:

Also the only thing that gave the court interpretative power over the Constitution or laws is the court. It is not now and never has been a power granted them by the Constitution itself. Judges are there to apply the Constitution and laws as written, not sit in judgment of what they may or may not mean. Constitutionally that is left to legislatures.

Post 520
OKTexas
Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples | Page 52 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So you never said the court's don't have the authority to interpret the law or the constitution. You only said that the courts don't have the authority to interpret the law or the constitution.

And of course you're contradicted by the Federalist Paper themselves:

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

Yeah, but what would the federalist papers know compared to you. You've clearly got it all figured out. And have concluded that the judiciary doesn't have the authority to interpret the constitution or overturn unconstitutional laws...

.....unless you like the ruling.

If not for double standards, you'd have none at all.

You want to use the federalist papers, Madison said in federalist 41 that the general welfare clause was specifically limited to the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 and not a general power unto itself. Are you on board with that? Or are you a hypocrite?

In Federalist 41, Madison does not say that the powers of the federal government are to be strictly limited to powers that are enumerated. Nor does he specifically reference Article 1 sec. 8 or any other section. Here is what he said:

To address the issue of whether the aggregate power of the general Government is greater than it should be one must first review the classes of powers conferred. Before reading Madison’s list you might want to ask yourself what your list of powers granted to the Federal Government would contain. His list is “1. security against foreign danger- 2. regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations-3. maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States- 4. certain miscellaneous objects of general utility- 5. restraint of the States from certain injurious acts- 6. provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.” The whole of the proposed Constitution apparently is written to provide the National Government with this short list of functions that are limited to security, regulation of foreign and domestic commerce, and certain enumerated restraints against State actions. - See more at: Federalist Papers Summary No. 41

Second of all, it is well established constitutional law that rights that we enjoy go well beyond those enumerated in the constitution and the amendments:

Penumbras of the Constitution:

charting the origins of the abolition of moral legislation http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/wilson/030702

Lastly, Obergefell was decided on the 14th Amendment which obviously passed well after the Federalist papers were written and the Constitution ratified. The 14th extended the bill of rights to the states who must ensure that all are afforded equal protection under the law and due process. The argument is over.

Wrong again, that's what someone said he said. This form the actual Federalist 41.

It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare. "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

Federalist Papers No. 41

This was a direct reference to Article 1, Section 8 which expresses two specific independent categories for which federal monies could be raised and spent, common defense and general welfare, and goes on to limit those expenditures to specific purposes within those categories. Article 1, Section 8 is a single sentence, you can't break it apart without destroying the whole. That's what Madison said.

Whatever his intent was, none of it negates anything that I presented, while you insist on ignoring the vast body of case law that has developed since the inception of the constitution as well as the 14th amendment. The Federal government is supreme and the courts acted withing the law in the Obergefell case:


Why it is proper for the Federal Government and the federal courts to have the last word


The Founders read that republican government was one in which:

• The power of government is held by the people.
  
  
• The people give power to leaders they elect to represent them and serve their interests.
  
  
• The representatives are responsible for helping all the people in the country, not just a few people.
  
  http://www.civiced.org/resources/curriculum/lesson-plans/450-lesson3-what-is-a-republican-government
  
  
  Nothing here trumps or negates the constitution and the bill of rights, which the people ratified through their elected representatives as they later did with the 14th amendment.
  
  The constitution is clear on the principle of federal supremacy

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers.

Nullification is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Judicial review is an established principle: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/judicial+review


While judicial review of state laws is clearly outlined in the supremacy clause, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution did not resolve the question of whether the federal courts should have this power over congressional and executive acts. During the early years of the Republic, the Supreme Court upheld congressional acts, which implied the power of judicial review. But the key question was whether the Court had the power to strike down an act of Congress.

In 1803, the issue was settled in marbury v. madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, when the Supreme Court, for the first time, ruled an act of Congress unconstitutional. In Marbury, Chief Justice John Marshall reasoned that since it is the duty of a court in a lawsuit to declare the law, and since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, where a rule of statutory law conflicts with a rule of the Constitution, then the law of the Constitution must prevail. Marshall asserted that it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department, to say what the law is."

Notice how, in all of their desperation, not of the states fighting marriage equality are invoking nullification of federal supremacy because they know that it’s a losing proposition

The 5th and 14th amendments guarantee the right to due process. The 14th also establishes equal protection under the law and reaffirms federal supremacy.


The constitution matters.


When the members of the United States Constitutional Convention met in 1787, terminology was still unsettled. Not only were democracy and republic used more or less interchangeably in the colonies, but no established term existed for a representative government “by the people http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157129/democracy/233839/Democracy-or-republic

However it is true that they may have favored the term “Republic” as did Ben Franklin. Regardless of the words used, the definitions of both describe our system of government . Let’s consider the definitions of both

A Constitutional Republic, by definition, has three principle elements:

1. It is created by, and limited by, the constitution under which it is formed;
2. It is controlled by Law; and,
3. It is representative in its nature.

http://teamlaw.net/ConstitutionalRepublic.htm

 

[NYcarbineer]

Seriously if states can ignore federal laws regarding marriage, shouldn't they be able to ignore federal laws regarding immigration?

 

[Jroc]

You need to try to get focused and present ideas in a coherent way. You are all over the map with a lot of flowery and lofty language that leaves me wondering how it translates into pragmatic and workable solutions. Just one example of something that you said:

Will you please translate that into English? Can you explain how it would actually be implemented.? People will pay taxes according to their beliefs? Everyone will cover their own health care without government assistance from taxes. ?? Really?

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
The system of either paying for or crediting for health care through taxes,
can be handled by party-based administration.

Similar to how Vets go through their own VA to handle their health care benefits.
Why not have the Democrats and Republicans set up their own Health Administrations
and members can sign up, fund, participate, and democratically decide what terms they want to be under?

We could separate policies on gay marriage, abortion and prolife, etc. this way.

It is similar to when married couples AGREE what expenses go through their JOINT account,
and when they have personal expenses or projects they want to fund through SEPARATE private accounts
that the other partner does not have any part in.

Why not have SEPARATE tracks or accounts for programs that only ONE party supports but not the other;
and keep PUBLIC and GOVT funding and taxes for programs and policies that all parties agree on as central.

Not everything has to be done this way.
I would reserve it for just the most contentious unresolved issues of conflicting BELIEFS
that otherwise cause such backlash and bullying that the legal actions threaten the rights and beliefs of others.

For example, issues like:
* abortion funding and stem cell/embryonic research that not all people belief in
(alternatives can be offered in funding medical research and development in spiritual healing, for example)
* gay marriage and terms of benefits
* funding the death penalty vs. paying for life imprisonment
* funding war vs. funding benefits and care for Veterans, reconstruction and restitution for collateral damage as part of the military budget
* funding corporate or social welfare vs. funding microloans for business development and education
* mandates requiring paying private insurance companies or federal govt to run exchanges
vs. tax breaks for investing in building teaching hospitals and expanding medical education and internships
to provide public health services

Why don't we just go back to having slave states and free states.? All of these other things will most likely fall into place along those same lines.

Let's try an exercise. Since this thread is about same sex marriage in the great state of Texas, where it is still a hot issue, what would your system look like there, in concrete, operational and practical day to day reality? Please be very specific as to how conflict can be avoided and how everybody can be accommodated/

How would that look? You put a clean air bubble around Austin and let the rest of the state poison itself.

Homosexuals are so compassionate...Actually outside of their own circle so many are very hateful. You'd be one of those people I see

Did you have something relevant to contribute?

Adding perspective on the militant, homosexual, activist i responded to.

 

[Seawytch]

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
The system of either paying for or crediting for health care through taxes,
can be handled by party-based administration.

Similar to how Vets go through their own VA to handle their health care benefits.
Why not have the Democrats and Republicans set up their own Health Administrations
and members can sign up, fund, participate, and democratically decide what terms they want to be under?

We could separate policies on gay marriage, abortion and prolife, etc. this way.

It is similar to when married couples AGREE what expenses go through their JOINT account,
and when they have personal expenses or projects they want to fund through SEPARATE private accounts
that the other partner does not have any part in.

Why not have SEPARATE tracks or accounts for programs that only ONE party supports but not the other;
and keep PUBLIC and GOVT funding and taxes for programs and policies that all parties agree on as central.

Not everything has to be done this way.
I would reserve it for just the most contentious unresolved issues of conflicting BELIEFS
that otherwise cause such backlash and bullying that the legal actions threaten the rights and beliefs of others.

For example, issues like:
* abortion funding and stem cell/embryonic research that not all people belief in
(alternatives can be offered in funding medical research and development in spiritual healing, for example)
* gay marriage and terms of benefits
* funding the death penalty vs. paying for life imprisonment
* funding war vs. funding benefits and care for Veterans, reconstruction and restitution for collateral damage as part of the military budget
* funding corporate or social welfare vs. funding microloans for business development and education
* mandates requiring paying private insurance companies or federal govt to run exchanges
vs. tax breaks for investing in building teaching hospitals and expanding medical education and internships
to provide public health services

Why don't we just go back to having slave states and free states.? All of these other things will most likely fall into place along those same lines.

Let's try an exercise. Since this thread is about same sex marriage in the great state of Texas, where it is still a hot issue, what would your system look like there, in concrete, operational and practical day to day reality? Please be very specific as to how conflict can be avoided and how everybody can be accommodated/

How would that look? You put a clean air bubble around Austin and let the rest of the state poison itself.

Homosexuals are so compassionate...Actually outside of their own circle so many are very hateful. You'd be one of those people I see

Did you have something relevant to contribute?

Adding perspective on the militant, homosexual, activist i responded to.

More like misconception. I didn't say I wanted them to poison themselves, just that they would.

 

[Jroc]

Why don't we just go back to having slave states and free states.? All of these other things will most likely fall into place along those same lines.

Let's try an exercise. Since this thread is about same sex marriage in the great state of Texas, where it is still a hot issue, what would your system look like there, in concrete, operational and practical day to day reality? Please be very specific as to how conflict can be avoided and how everybody can be accommodated/

How would that look? You put a clean air bubble around Austin and let the rest of the state poison itself.

Homosexuals are so compassionate...Actually outside of their own circle so many are very hateful. You'd be one of those people I see

Did you have something relevant to contribute?

Adding perspective on the militant, homosexual, activist i responded to.

More like misconception. I didn't say I wanted them to poison themselves, just that they would.

I'm sure you wouldn't might much..Those people are bigots and should be punished

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

How would that look? You put a clean air bubble around Austin and let the rest of the state poison itself.

Homosexuals are so compassionate...Actually outside of their own circle so many are very hateful. You'd be one of those people I see

Did you have something relevant to contribute?

Adding perspective on the militant, homosexual, activist i responded to.

More like misconception. I didn't say I wanted them to poison themselves, just that they would.

I'm sure you wouldn't might much..Those people are bigots and should be punished

 

[Jroc]

How would that look? You put a clean air bubble around Austin and let the rest of the state poison itself.

Homosexuals are so compassionate...Actually outside of their own circle so many are very hateful. You'd be one of those people I see

Did you have something relevant to contribute?

Adding perspective on the militant, homosexual, activist i responded to.

More like misconception. I didn't say I wanted them to poison themselves, just that they would.

I'm sure you wouldn't might much..Those people are bigots and should be punished

Ooops typo she wouldn't mind much..This is what came out of her warped mind..The bigots "killing themselves" that says a lot to me about this person