Tennessee Reminds SCOTUS: Separation of Powers: Passes Resolution Calling Out Gay Marriage Decision

[PaintMyHouse]

Nope. Read the constitutional question that they were answering. It wasn't limited to a single state.

Seriously, Bill.....there's no super secret loophole that you suddenly discovered.

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

Show me where in the constitution a right has to be enumerated to exist. Oh, and check the 9th amendment before you answer.

You should check the 11th Amendment

I did. Obergefell was a resident in of the State he sued.

Seriously, Bill......you haven't discovered a 'loophole' that every state, attorney or justice to hear or argue these cases was unaware of.

obergefell didn't, not could he sue all 50 States.

He could have sued a ham sandwich, but he didn't.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. Read the constitutional question that they were answering. It wasn't limited to a single state.

Seriously, Bill.....there's no super secret loophole that you suddenly discovered.

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

Show me where in the constitution a right has to be enumerated to exist. Oh, and check the 9th amendment before you answer.

You should check the 11th Amendment

I did. Obergefell was a resident in of the State he sued.

Seriously, Bill......you haven't discovered a 'loophole' that every state, attorney or justice to hear or argue these cases was unaware of.

obergefell didn't, not could he sue all 50 States.

He didn't sue all 50 States. He sued his own State. And then petitioned the Supreme Court to answer a specific legal question related to his case.

Per your absurd interpretation of court rulings, the 'right to self defense with a firearm' exists only in the city of Chicago.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

So......where does the constitution say a right has to be enumerated in the constitution to exist?

Bill?

If The Constitution doesn't give the Federal government a power, that means, they don't have that power.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

Show me where in the constitution a right has to be enumerated to exist. Oh, and check the 9th amendment before you answer.

You should check the 11th Amendment

I did. Obergefell was a resident in of the State he sued.

Seriously, Bill......you haven't discovered a 'loophole' that every state, attorney or justice to hear or argue these cases was unaware of.

obergefell didn't, not could he sue all 50 States.

He didn't sue all 50 States. He sued his own State. And then petitioned the Supreme Court to answer a specific legal question related to his case.

Per your absurd interpretation of court rulings, the 'right to self defense with a firearm' exists only in the city of Chicago.

Hence the reason the ruling, per the 118th Amendment, can't apply to all 50 States.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So......where does the constitution say a right has to be enumerated in the constitution to exist?

Bill?

If The Constitution doesn't give the Federal government a power, that means, they don't have that power.

Explain the FAA then? Or, the Air Force?

 

[Skylar]

So......where does the constitution say a right has to be enumerated in the constitution to exist?

Bill?

If The Constitution doesn't give the Federal government a power, that means, they don't have that power.

And the Judicial power delegated to the courts by the judiciary...including jurisdiction over all cases that arise under the constitution.

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;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

I know you want to believe that after 240 years you discovered a super secret loophole that no one has ever noticed before.

But the reality is far less dramatic: you just don't know what you're talking about.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Show me where in the constitution a right has to be enumerated to exist. Oh, and check the 9th amendment before you answer.

You should check the 11th Amendment

I did. Obergefell was a resident in of the State he sued.

Seriously, Bill......you haven't discovered a 'loophole' that every state, attorney or justice to hear or argue these cases was unaware of.

obergefell didn't, not could he sue all 50 States.

He didn't sue all 50 States. He sued his own State. And then petitioned the Supreme Court to answer a specific legal question related to his case.

Per your absurd interpretation of court rulings, the 'right to self defense with a firearm' exists only in the city of Chicago.

Hence the reason the ruling, per the 118th Amendment, can't apply to all 50 States.

State by state, the gay marriage ban was found unconstitutional until the last cases reached the last stop. Once the Supreme Court ruled these laws unconstitutional, there was no one else to appeal to but God. Over and done with.

 

[Skylar]

Show me where in the constitution a right has to be enumerated to exist. Oh, and check the 9th amendment before you answer.

You should check the 11th Amendment

I did. Obergefell was a resident in of the State he sued.

Seriously, Bill......you haven't discovered a 'loophole' that every state, attorney or justice to hear or argue these cases was unaware of.

obergefell didn't, not could he sue all 50 States.

He didn't sue all 50 States. He sued his own State. And then petitioned the Supreme Court to answer a specific legal question related to his case.

Per your absurd interpretation of court rulings, the 'right to self defense with a firearm' exists only in the city of Chicago.

Hence the reason the ruling, per the 118th Amendment, can't apply to all 50 States.

The 11th amendment says no such thing.

And are you arguing that the right to self defense with a firearm......applies only to the citizens of Chicago?

If not, why not?

 

[bucs90]

You should check the 11th Amendment

I did. Obergefell was a resident in of the State he sued.

Seriously, Bill......you haven't discovered a 'loophole' that every state, attorney or justice to hear or argue these cases was unaware of.

obergefell didn't, not could he sue all 50 States.

He didn't sue all 50 States. He sued his own State. And then petitioned the Supreme Court to answer a specific legal question related to his case.

Per your absurd interpretation of court rulings, the 'right to self defense with a firearm' exists only in the city of Chicago.

Hence the reason the ruling, per the 118th Amendment, can't apply to all 50 States.

The 11th amendment says no such thing.

And are you arguing that the right to self defense with a firearm......applies only to the citizens of Chicago?

If not, why not?

That is a valid point. SCOTUS rulings apply across the nation. Graham vs Connor was a local police use of force ruling that now governs all police in America.

There's no question...SCOTUS rulings apply across the board.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I did. Obergefell was a resident in of the State he sued.

Seriously, Bill......you haven't discovered a 'loophole' that every state, attorney or justice to hear or argue these cases was unaware of.

obergefell didn't, not could he sue all 50 States.

He didn't sue all 50 States. He sued his own State. And then petitioned the Supreme Court to answer a specific legal question related to his case.

Per your absurd interpretation of court rulings, the 'right to self defense with a firearm' exists only in the city of Chicago.

Hence the reason the ruling, per the 118th Amendment, can't apply to all 50 States.

The 11th amendment says no such thing.

And are you arguing that the right to self defense with a firearm......applies only to the citizens of Chicago?

If not, why not?

That is a valid point. SCOTUS rulings apply across the nation. Graham vs Connor was a local police use of force ruling that now governs all police in America.

There's no question...SCOTUS rulings apply across the board.

Only because a law is ruled unconstitutional in one state you'd be wasting the court's time to bring them same thing again. That and Full Faith and Credit...

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

You should check the 11th Amendment

I did. Obergefell was a resident in of the State he sued.

Seriously, Bill......you haven't discovered a 'loophole' that every state, attorney or justice to hear or argue these cases was unaware of.

obergefell didn't, not could he sue all 50 States.

He didn't sue all 50 States. He sued his own State. And then petitioned the Supreme Court to answer a specific legal question related to his case.

Per your absurd interpretation of court rulings, the 'right to self defense with a firearm' exists only in the city of Chicago.

Hence the reason the ruling, per the 118th Amendment, can't apply to all 50 States.

The 11th amendment says no such thing.

And are you arguing that the right to self defense with a firearm......applies only to the citizens of Chicago?

If not, why not?

The 11th Amendment:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

You should check the 11th Amendment

I did. Obergefell was a resident in of the State he sued.

Seriously, Bill......you haven't discovered a 'loophole' that every state, attorney or justice to hear or argue these cases was unaware of.

obergefell didn't, not could he sue all 50 States.

He didn't sue all 50 States. He sued his own State. And then petitioned the Supreme Court to answer a specific legal question related to his case.

Per your absurd interpretation of court rulings, the 'right to self defense with a firearm' exists only in the city of Chicago.

Hence the reason the ruling, per the 118th Amendment, can't apply to all 50 States.

State by state, the gay marriage ban was found unconstitutional until the last cases reached the last stop. Once the Supreme Court ruled these laws unconstitutional, there was no one else to appeal to but God. Over and done with.

Show us all 50 rulings, please.

 

[Skylar]

I did. Obergefell was a resident in of the State he sued.

Seriously, Bill......you haven't discovered a 'loophole' that every state, attorney or justice to hear or argue these cases was unaware of.

obergefell didn't, not could he sue all 50 States.

He didn't sue all 50 States. He sued his own State. And then petitioned the Supreme Court to answer a specific legal question related to his case.

Per your absurd interpretation of court rulings, the 'right to self defense with a firearm' exists only in the city of Chicago.

Hence the reason the ruling, per the 118th Amendment, can't apply to all 50 States.

The 11th amendment says no such thing.

And are you arguing that the right to self defense with a firearm......applies only to the citizens of Chicago?

If not, why not?

The 11th Amendment:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

And Obergefell was a resident of the State he sued.

And again, the question that's had you running for about an hour: If Supreme Court rulings are limited to the specific state or local law being addressed in the ruling......then are you arguing that ONLY the residents of the city of Chicago have the 'right to self defense with a fire arm'?

If not, why not? This is your logic applied consistently. And yet you run from it.

Why?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

So......where does the constitution say a right has to be enumerated in the constitution to exist?

Bill?

If The Constitution doesn't give the Federal government a power, that means, they don't have that power.

Explain the FAA then? Or, the Air Force?

The Air Force originally was a part of the Army.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

obergefell didn't, not could he sue all 50 States.

He didn't sue all 50 States. He sued his own State. And then petitioned the Supreme Court to answer a specific legal question related to his case.

Per your absurd interpretation of court rulings, the 'right to self defense with a firearm' exists only in the city of Chicago.

Hence the reason the ruling, per the 118th Amendment, can't apply to all 50 States.

The 11th amendment says no such thing.

And are you arguing that the right to self defense with a firearm......applies only to the citizens of Chicago?

If not, why not?

The 11th Amendment:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

And Obergefell was a resident of the State he sued.

And again, the question that's had you running for about an hour: If Supreme Court rulings are limited to the specific state or local law being addressed in the ruling......then are you arguing that ONLY the residents of the city of Chicago have the 'right to self defense with a fire arm'?

If not, why not? This is your logic applied consistently. And yet you run from it.

Why?

Did he sue Arkansas?

 

[Skylar]

I did. Obergefell was a resident in of the State he sued.

Seriously, Bill......you haven't discovered a 'loophole' that every state, attorney or justice to hear or argue these cases was unaware of.

obergefell didn't, not could he sue all 50 States.

He didn't sue all 50 States. He sued his own State. And then petitioned the Supreme Court to answer a specific legal question related to his case.

Per your absurd interpretation of court rulings, the 'right to self defense with a firearm' exists only in the city of Chicago.

Hence the reason the ruling, per the 118th Amendment, can't apply to all 50 States.

State by state, the gay marriage ban was found unconstitutional until the last cases reached the last stop. Once the Supreme Court ruled these laws unconstitutional, there was no one else to appeal to but God. Over and done with.

Show us all 50 rulings, please.

Show us the need. The 11th amendment says no such thing.

 

[Skylar]

He didn't sue all 50 States. He sued his own State. And then petitioned the Supreme Court to answer a specific legal question related to his case.

Per your absurd interpretation of court rulings, the 'right to self defense with a firearm' exists only in the city of Chicago.

Hence the reason the ruling, per the 118th Amendment, can't apply to all 50 States.

The 11th amendment says no such thing.

And are you arguing that the right to self defense with a firearm......applies only to the citizens of Chicago?

If not, why not?

The 11th Amendment:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

And Obergefell was a resident of the State he sued.

And again, the question that's had you running for about an hour: If Supreme Court rulings are limited to the specific state or local law being addressed in the ruling......then are you arguing that ONLY the residents of the city of Chicago have the 'right to self defense with a fire arm'?

If not, why not? This is your logic applied consistently. And yet you run from it.

Why?

Did he sue Arkansas?

Nope. He asked the court a constitutional question about whether a state had to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

The court's answer was yes.

Arkansas is a state. Ask your own attorney general if Obergefell applies to Arkansas.

Nearly seven weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its historic decision in favor of marriage equality nationwide, the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday affirmed state bans on gay nuptials in its jurisdiction are unconstitutional.

In three separate opinions, a three-judge panel delivered instructions upholding lower court rulings against marriage bans in South Dakota, Arkansas and Nebraska.

Eighth Circuit deals finishing blows to state marriage bans

Remembering of course that your State Attorney General is probably familiar with this ruling.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Tennessee Reminds SCOTUS: Separation of Powers: Passes Resolution Calling Out Gay Marriage Decision"

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'separation of powers.'

The issue concerns settled 14th Amendment jurisprudence accepted for well over 100 years prohibiting the states from denying persons residing in the states their right to due process of the law:

'[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment[...]declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the case before us is "liberty." Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, at least since Mugler v.Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 660-661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them." Daniels v. Williams,474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). As Justice Brandeis (joined by Justice Holmes) observed, "[d]espite arguments to the contrary which had seemed to me persuasive, it is settled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States." Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Gay Americans have the fundamental right to access marriage contract law they're eligible to participate in, where the states may not seek to deny them that right for no other reason than who they are, predicated solely on an unwarranted animus toward gay Americans, their liberty protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

 

[WorldWatcher]

But....SCOTUS said the state cannot define marriage. So...how can it vary state by state if the states cannot define it??

The SCOTUS didn't say that States don't get to "define marriage".

In Obergefel the SCOTUS said that same-sex couples could not be denied marriage because of the gender make-up of the couple. That is not saying can't define marriage, it's saying the limits that a State places on Civil Marriage must be Constitutional in nature.

BTW - The SCOTUS has already ruled that limiting Civil Marriage to two people was Constitutional.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

The Tennessee House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, passing a resolution expressing disagreement with the high court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage....With a 73-18 vote, the chamber passed the measure to not only disagree with the constitutional analysis used in Obergefell v. Hodges but to say the “judicial imposition of a natural marriage license law” is contrary to previous actions taken by the Tennessee legislature....On Wednesday, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Old Hickory, the sponsor of the measure, told The Tennessean that her effort is focused on reminding the Supreme Court about the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government. Tennessee House passes resolution criticizing same-sex marriage decision

More:

the resolution coincided with a lawsuit filed in Williamson County that seeks to halt the issuing of marriage licenses until a court settles the matter, Lynn told Stewart, "What we're doing here is very important."..

The lawsuits...

Second anti same-sex marriage lawsuit filed in Tennessee February 5, 2016 A second lawsuit has been filed in Tennessee challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage....The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Bradley County. It says the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn a law and then decide what the law should be. That should be up to the state legislatures, the lawsuit says.... a similar case in Williamson County on Jan. 21.“These lawsuits have had the additional positive effect of helping an increasing number of Tennesseans begin to appreciate the important constitutional boundaries that the United States...Supreme Court crossed in its Obergefell decision," Fowler said

Essentially, TN is forcing the US Supreme Court to cite in the US Constitution where it derived "gay marriage has to be legal" as a written law imposed upon the states. From what I can glean.. Loving v Virginia mentioned nothing about gay marriage...so case law doesn't exist. There is no mention I can tell in the Constitution where gay sex behaviors (just but not others) are specifically protected behaviors... So the SCOTUS is going to have its work cut out for it "explaining" the legal justification for Obergefell besides just their current mantra "gay marriage's time has come"...

Maybe they can slip in another Scopes Monkey Trial while they are at it.