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

[WildBillKelsoe]

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

Bill?

Bill is one of those people who seem to think we don't have a right unless the Constitution mentions it.

Another example of how when Liberals lose an argument, they make it personal.

 

[Skylar]

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

Bill?

Bill is one of those people who seem to think we don't have a right unless the Constitution mentions it.

Yup. And he insists that Supreme Court rulings apply onto to the people mentioned in the suit or to the city or State they sued.

So apparently McDonald v. Chicago only applies to Chicago. Or perhaps, only to McDonald.

Its gonna be a bummer for all those Americans that thought they had a right to self defense with a firearm. But don't live in Chicago.

 

[bodecea]

'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.

She also said it was a reminder that the court violated the doctrine of severability.

“They can’t decree that we now have to marry same-sex couples,” she said. “Our law does not say that, it’s never said that, and it was never the intent of the General Assembly to do that.”'

Wrong.

As is the case in all the states, marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a contract and relationship recognized by the state – a contract and relationship same-sex couples are clearly eligible to enter into.

By seeking to deny same-sex couples access to state law for no other reason than who they are, predicated solely on unwarranted animus toward same-sex couples, the state violates their right to due process and equal protection of the law.

Moreover, the states do not have the 'right' to violate the protected liberties of American citizens residing in the states, one does not 'forfeit' his rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, and one's fundamental rights are not subject to 'majority rule.'

The GOP's race to the bottom.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

It doesn't, equality does.

Ah, so SCOTUS can't rule on marriage laws. Gotcha sport.

Sure it can. That's it's job, the last stop to figure out whether a law is Constitutional or not? Just because the FAA and toaster ovens aren't in the Constitution doesn't mean the SC can't rule on them.

Too bad for you, The Constitution says you're wrong:


"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."

How odd that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

The Supreme Court also ruled that the Federal government can imprison American citizens based on their race and national origin. Do you agree with that ruling?

 

[bodecea]

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

Bill?

Bill is one of those people who seem to think we don't have a right unless the Constitution mentions it.

Another example of how when Liberals lose an argument, they make it personal.

Do you agree with what I said? Or not? Because from your posts, it sure seems like that is what you believe. Enlighten me.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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

Bill?

Bill is one of those people who seem to think we don't have a right unless the Constitution mentions it.

Yup. And he insists that Supreme Court rulings apply onto to the people mentioned in the suit or to the city or State they sued.

So apparently McDonald v. Chicago only applies to Chicago. Or perhaps, only to McDonald.

Its gonna be a bummer for all those Americans that thought they had a right to self defense with a firearm. But don't live in Chicago.

That's the 11th amendment that says that.

 

[Skylar]

Ah, so SCOTUS can't rule on marriage laws. Gotcha sport.

Sure it can. That's it's job, the last stop to figure out whether a law is Constitutional or not? Just because the FAA and toaster ovens aren't in the Constitution doesn't mean the SC can't rule on them.

Too bad for you, The Constitution says you're wrong:


"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."

How odd that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

And apparently according to Bill, the 'right to self defense with a firearm' applies only to folks that live in Chicago.

Oh, now the, "let me put words in your mouth", strategy.

That falls clearly in the 'applying your logic consistently' strategy. As you've insisted that Supreme Court rulings don't apply outside the city or State that is part of the suit.

Which means that per your logic, the only folks with the right to self defense with a fire arm......are the residents of Chicago.

Worse, you've said that any legal action that makes something legal is making law. And that the Supreme Court cant' make law.

So apparently even the citizens of Chicago don't have a right to self defense with a firearm. And handguns are still banned in Chicago.

Laughing......even you don't take your pseudo-legal gibberish seriously, Bill. Why would we?

 

[bodecea]

It doesn't, equality does.

Ah, so SCOTUS can't rule on marriage laws. Gotcha sport.

Sure it can. That's it's job, the last stop to figure out whether a law is Constitutional or not? Just because the FAA and toaster ovens aren't in the Constitution doesn't mean the SC can't rule on them.

Too bad for you, The Constitution says you're wrong:


"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."

How odd that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

The Supreme Court also ruled that the Federal government can imprison American citizens based on their race and national origin. Do you agree with that ruling?

At one time, it did...how was that corrected?

 

[Skylar]

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

Bill?

Bill is one of those people who seem to think we don't have a right unless the Constitution mentions it.

Yup. And he insists that Supreme Court rulings apply onto to the people mentioned in the suit or to the city or State they sued.

So apparently McDonald v. Chicago only applies to Chicago. Or perhaps, only to McDonald.

Its gonna be a bummer for all those Americans that thought they had a right to self defense with a firearm. But don't live in Chicago.

That's the 11th amendment that says that.

No, it doesn't.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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"...

Personally I don't give a crap about homo marriage one way or another. Doesn't affect me. If Mitchell and Cam from Modern Family wanna be married go for it.

But as a legal issue I do find it interesting. SCOTUS basically legalized one form of marriage but didn't specify where the line stops. By saying the state cannot define marriage they indeed legalized the type in question (same sex) but didn't that open the door to ANY marriage so long as the parties involved call it marriage?

For example...is polygamy now legal?

no. stupid question.

If so....what's stopping a government employee from offering 10 different girls at a strip club a "marriage" so they can get on his government health insurance plan

are you ******* kidding me?

....and then reap the fun from it as they then have good benefits and he can legally pay them for anything he wants since they're his "wives".

Sounds absurd. But under the ruling...isn't it legal now????

absolutely not. again, stupid question.

And if it is

it isn't

...honestly...I'm fine with it. I for one think we need to stop trying health insurance to employment.

okay...

polygamy is illegal for all people. the sex of the parties involved does not matter, hence nobody is discriminated against.

Ok but what if polygamy is their religion? Then it's discriminating. Right?

Correct.

But polygamy isn't marriage, it's just living together, having nothing to do with same-sex couples seeking to marry, as the states can't criminalize people 'living in sin.'

Bigamy is another matter altogether – three or more people seeking to marry.

Laws prohibiting bigamy are Constitutional because bigamy is committing fraud upon the state, something the states are at liberty to regulate, and as such religion cannot be used to 'justify' violating valid laws or challenging their constitutionality in court.

 

[Skylar]

So.....any of our conservatives want to step up and back Bill's legal logic that McDonald V. Chicago was beyond the Supreme Court's authority and thus doesn't apply?

You'll only be wiping your ass with the 'right to self defense with a firearm'.

Any takers?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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

Bill?

Bill is one of those people who seem to think we don't have a right unless the Constitution mentions it.

Yup. And he insists that Supreme Court rulings apply onto to the people mentioned in the suit or to the city or State they sued.

So apparently McDonald v. Chicago only applies to Chicago. Or perhaps, only to McDonald.

Its gonna be a bummer for all those Americans that thought they had a right to self defense with a firearm. But don't live in Chicago.

That's the 11th amendment that says that.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does, watch:

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.

 

[Skylar]

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

Bill?

Bill is one of those people who seem to think we don't have a right unless the Constitution mentions it.

Yup. And he insists that Supreme Court rulings apply onto to the people mentioned in the suit or to the city or State they sued.

So apparently McDonald v. Chicago only applies to Chicago. Or perhaps, only to McDonald.

Its gonna be a bummer for all those Americans that thought they had a right to self defense with a firearm. But don't live in Chicago.

That's the 11th amendment that says that.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does, watch:

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 didn't sue any other State. He sued the State he was a resident in.

Next fallacy.

 

[Skylar]

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

Gee, Bill. How do you explain this gross contradiction of your assumptions about Obergefell?

Is the entire federal judiciary wrong? Or is it just you? And why didn't Tennessee include your pseudo-legal gibberish in their resolution against Obergefell?

What does Tennessee (and every one else) know that you don't?

 

[bucs90]

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"...

Personally I don't give a crap about homo marriage one way or another. Doesn't affect me. If Mitchell and Cam from Modern Family wanna be married go for it.

But as a legal issue I do find it interesting. SCOTUS basically legalized one form of marriage but didn't specify where the line stops. By saying the state cannot define marriage they indeed legalized the type in question (same sex) but didn't that open the door to ANY marriage so long as the parties involved call it marriage?

For example...is polygamy now legal?

no. stupid question.

If so....what's stopping a government employee from offering 10 different girls at a strip club a "marriage" so they can get on his government health insurance plan

are you ******* kidding me?

....and then reap the fun from it as they then have good benefits and he can legally pay them for anything he wants since they're his "wives".

Sounds absurd. But under the ruling...isn't it legal now????

absolutely not. again, stupid question.

And if it is

it isn't

...honestly...I'm fine with it. I for one think we need to stop trying health insurance to employment.

okay...

polygamy is illegal for all people. the sex of the parties involved does not matter, hence nobody is discriminated against.

Ok but what if polygamy is their religion? Then it's discriminating. Right?

Correct.

But polygamy isn't marriage, it's just living together, having nothing to do with same-sex couples seeking to marry, as the states can't criminalize people 'living in sin.'

Bigamy is another matter altogether – three or more people seeking to marry.

Laws prohibiting bigamy are Constitutional because bigamy is committing fraud upon the state, something the states are at liberty to regulate, and as such religion cannot be used to 'justify' violating valid laws or challenging their constitutionality in court.

Polygamy/Bigamy...same concept...and yeah I am referring to the marriage part.

How would it be fraud against the state? If a man loves two women and they all 3 want to be married...and it's part of their religion...can a state legally deny that?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Windsor ruling makes clear that states still have the power to define marriage but they must do so without violating certain constitutional guarantees.

Such as?

Read the Obergefell ruling. They're remarkably specific as to which constitutional guarantees must be honored by the States.

Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. ___ (2015)

And just so we're clear, you understand that the Supreme Court never said that the State's can't define marriage, right? You've made that claim over and over. And its simply not true.

I'll admit not being fully read up on this one....since I really don't care much about gay marriage. The noise on TV was saying "states cannot define marriage".

The Supreme Court doesn't. And you've claimed that its a 'hard fact' and 'settled law' that the states cannot define marriage.

That's factually and legally incorrect. The States can define marriage.....subject to certain constitutional guarantees. In hard fact and settled law, the USSC found that subject to certain constitutional guarantees, ONLY the States can define marriage.

Would you like the quote from the Windsor ruling?

Nah. I take your word for it and stand semi corrected. It's not an issue I'm that passionate about at all....none at all really...so I know I could be wrong about a lot of it.

I think the religion thing will come up eventually....probably out of spite by some clowns looking to stir the pot.

Understandable.

But consider the fact that Obergefell has important consequences beyond same-sex couples marrying.

It reaffirms a fundamental Constitutional principle protecting the right of citizens to make personal decisions concerning their private lives absent capricious, unwarranted interference from the state – such as the actions of citizens being in violation of subjective religious doctrine and dogma, or bigotry directed at a given minority for no other reason than who they are.

Obergefell further reinforces the Constitutional case law limiting the power and authority of the state, and safeguarding the individual liberty of all persons in the United States.

 

[bucs90]

As for the SCOTUS jurisdiction argument that's going on....

If SCOTUS rules...it's the law of the land. I follow mostly law enforcement related cases like Maryland vs Wilson and Tennessee vs Garner. Local cases. But once SCOTUS ruled...became law of every state in the nation.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Polygamy/Bigamy...same concept...and yeah I am referring to the marriage part.

How would it be fraud against the state? If a man loves two women and they all 3 want to be married...and it's part of their religion...can a state legally deny that?

Yes, a State can legally limit Civil Marriage to two people, even if a person religion says that they can multiple religious spouses.

The SCOTUS already ruled on that.


>>>>

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Bill is one of those people who seem to think we don't have a right unless the Constitution mentions it.

Yup. And he insists that Supreme Court rulings apply onto to the people mentioned in the suit or to the city or State they sued.

So apparently McDonald v. Chicago only applies to Chicago. Or perhaps, only to McDonald.

Its gonna be a bummer for all those Americans that thought they had a right to self defense with a firearm. But don't live in Chicago.

That's the 11th amendment that says that.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does, watch:

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 didn't sue any other State. He sued the State he was a resident in.

Next fallacy.

Which means the ruling cannot, "extend", to any of, "The United States".

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Ah, so SCOTUS can't rule on marriage laws. Gotcha sport.

Sure it can. That's it's job, the last stop to figure out whether a law is Constitutional or not? Just because the FAA and toaster ovens aren't in the Constitution doesn't mean the SC can't rule on them.

Too bad for you, The Constitution says you're wrong:


"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."

How odd that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

The Supreme Court also ruled that the Federal government can imprison American citizens based on their race and national origin. Do you agree with that ruling?

At one time, it did...how was that corrected?

Do you agree with the ruling?