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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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."

No, the Constitution says you're wrong:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

The Constitution can't be changed via legislation...LMAO

Article VI is not 'legislation' – it's the Constitution.

 

[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."

No, the Constitution says you're wrong:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

The Constitution can't be changed via legislation...LMAO

Article VI is not 'legislation' – it's the Constitution.

You just claimed that rights can be amended to the Constitution via legislation.

 

[80zephyr]

And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.

Its one of the reasons why more states are signing up for a "convention of states". To give the power back to where it belongs.

And if that happens, I wouldn't bet the farm on your prognosis.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

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?

I wasn't alive when such rulings were made and they were well gone before I was born. Silly question. Do YOU agree with those rulings?

 

[bodecea]

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."

No, the Constitution says you're wrong:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

The Constitution can't be changed via legislation...LMAO

Article VI is not 'legislation' – it's the Constitution.

You just claimed that rights can be amended to the Constitution via legislation.

They can...thru another amendment.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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?

I wasn't alive when such rulings were made and they were well gone before I was born. Silly question. Do YOU agree with those rulings?

Nice dodge...lol

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Here we see the hypocrisy and ignorance common to most conservatives.

If states have the 'right' to deny gay Americans access to marriage law, then they likewise have the 'right' to deny citizens access to firearms.

Conservatives can't have it both ways – if they advocate state laws prohibiting access to semi-automatic rifles be invalidated because they violate the Second Amendment, then they should also advocate that state laws prohibiting gay Americans access to marriage be invalidated.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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."

No, the Constitution says you're wrong:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

The Constitution can't be changed via legislation...LMAO

Article VI is not 'legislation' – it's the Constitution.

You just claimed that rights can be amended to the Constitution via legislation.

They can...thru another amendment.

No, only through a constitutional convention.

Amendments can't be added, or omitted legislatively.

 

[Skylar]

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".

Says you. Back in reality, the 11th amendment prevents the the Supreme Court from taking a case where one citizen sues a state he doesn't live in.

Obergefell sued the State he did live in. Ending your entire argument.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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".

Says you. Back in reality, the 11th amendment prevents the the Supreme Court from taking a case where one citizen sues a state he doesn't live in.

Obergefell sued the State he did live in. Ending your entire argument.

And Obegell's suit doesn't extend to the other States.

 

[Skylar]

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".

Says you. Back in reality, the 11th amendment prevents the the Supreme Court from taking a case where one citizen sues a state he doesn't live in.

Obergefell sued the State he did live in. Ending your entire argument.

And Obegell's suit doesn't extend to the other States.

Says you. The federal courts that heard cases from Arkansas said differently:

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

You can ignore these rulings and pretend they never happened.

It really doesn't matter. As your willful ignorance changes nothing about the Obergefell ruling, the meaning of the 9th amendment, the 11th amendment, or any of the federal court rulings overturning Arkansas same sex marriage bans.

Enjoy same sex marriage!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.


>>>>

How is that not religious discrimination?

Because laws prohibiting fraud through bigamy concern an issue the states are at liberty to regulate, where one cannot use his religion to 'justify' violating or ignoring a just and proper law.

The law seeks to prohibit fraud, not to disadvantage a given religion, as no Free Exercise Clause violation occurs:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nope. They ruled that state laws against it violated the Constitution.

No, they ruled that ones state's law was unconstitutional.

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.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Id. at 388 U. S. 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).

Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Which amendment is that? I've never seen, "marriage", anywhere in the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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."

No, the Constitution says you're wrong:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

The Constitution can't be changed via legislation...LMAO

Article VI is not 'legislation' – it's the Constitution.

You just claimed that rights can be amended to the Constitution via legislation.

You're obviously confused.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

No, they ruled that ones state's law was unconstitutional.

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.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Id. at 388 U. S. 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).

Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Which amendment is that? I've never seen, "marriage", anywhere in the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

No, it isn't. If wasnt a valid argument, it would give the government license to make up whatever shit they want. Why does it seem so hard for you people to understand that?

So, of course, "it isn't in The Constitution", is a valid argument.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, the Constitution says you're wrong:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

The Constitution can't be changed via legislation...LMAO

Article VI is not 'legislation' – it's the Constitution.

You just claimed that rights can be amended to the Constitution via legislation.

They can...thru another amendment.

No, only through a constitutional convention.

Amendments can't be added, or omitted legislatively.

No one ever said they could.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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."

No, the Constitution says you're wrong:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

The Constitution can't be changed via legislation...LMAO

Article VI is not 'legislation' – it's the Constitution.

You just claimed that rights can be amended to the Constitution via legislation.

You're obviously confused.

I'm not the one that claimed The Constitution can be changed legislatively.

 

[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.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Id. at 388 U. S. 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).

Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Which amendment is that? I've never seen, "marriage", anywhere in the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

No, it isn't. If wasnt a valid argument, it would give the government license to make up whatever shit they want. Why does it seem so hard for you people to understand that?

The constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. Enumeration in the Constitution doesn't define what rights exist or don't exist. As the 9th amendment makes ludicriously clear:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

You can ignore the 9th amendment and pretend it doesn't exist. We're not obligated to pretend with you.

So, of course, "it isn't in The Constitution", is a valid argument.

Its a nonsense argument. As the Constitution is not, nor has ever been, an exhaustive list of rights.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Id. at 388 U. S. 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).

Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Which amendment is that? I've never seen, "marriage", anywhere in the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

No, it isn't. If wasnt a valid argument, it would give the government license to make up whatever shit they want. Why does it seem so hard for you people to understand that?

The constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. Enumeration in the Constitution doesn't define what rights exist or don't exist. As the 9th amendment makes ludicriously clear:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

You can ignore the 9th amendment and pretend it doesn't exist. We're not obligated to pretend with you.


So, of course, "it isn't in The Constitution", is a valid argument.

[/QUOTE]


I'm not ignoring anything. You're ignoring the fact that marriage isn't a right guaranteed by The Constitution, therefore The Supreme Court can't rule that any law governing marriage is contrary to The Constitution.

 

[80zephyr]

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?

Here we see the hypocrisy and ignorance common to most conservatives.

If states have the 'right' to deny gay Americans access to marriage law, then they likewise have the 'right' to deny citizens access to firearms.

Conservatives can't have it both ways – if they advocate state laws prohibiting access to semi-automatic rifles be invalidated because they violate the Second Amendment, then they should also advocate that state laws prohibiting gay Americans access to marriage be invalidated.

Wrong. Bearing arms is in the Constitution. Gay marriage is not.

Mark