Posted on 02/09/2015 3:36:45 PM PST by ChiefJayStrongbow
Since Obama is ignoring laws that he doesn't want to enforce (such as immigration law), do states that oppose gay marriage really have to embrace the supreme court rulings?
I think they should just ignore the court rulings on gay marriage and ignore any other federal law / regulation (mining, coal plants, etc.) that aren't in a state's best interest.
no!
No. The supremacy clause is open for interpretation and I think it’s implied that states decide what’s “pursuant to the constitution” or not. Anything not pursuant to the constitution is NOT the law of the land.
There’s also a Natural Law argument that when a government commands that which is evil and forbids that which is good then it is no longer a legitimate government and its decrees may be ignored and resisted. I personally think we’re at that point.
No. Just as some states refuse to accept marriages between 1st cousins. Though, people don’t bring up that example often.
Short answer. Yes.
The decisions of inferior Federal courts are not LAWS, and thus do not implicate the Supremacy Clause. Decisions of the Supreme Court are not LAWS, but they may implicate the Supremacy Clause IF the decision is made with regard to the Constitution as amended (for example, a state cannot have whites-only voting laws because they are forbidden by Amendment XV). There are gray areas (does public school prayer establish a religion?), but almost all powers not granted to Congress to legislate about and not forbidden to states by the Constitution are reserved to the states and the people.
Allowing two men or two women to adopt the posture of a married couple under the auspices of a state's legislative code (especially if the state constitution forbids it) does not fall under the above cases. As such, decisions by inferior (Article III) courts are meaningless. With regard to the Supreme Court, it is very difficult to see how they could arrive at a textual basis for a decision binding on the states (either way).
Uhhh . . . they could use their prosecutorial discretion?
The Supreme Court has no right to legislate on such issues. By doing so they are overstepping their bounds. And any time the Federal government goes beyond its constitutionally delegated rights its actions should be considered null and void. This is an issue for the states to decide and legally the Federal government can’t do anything about it, although they like to prevent the Constitution and bully people into doing what they want.
I disagree.
I don’t see the states as legally obligated to follow any federal court dictates that they honestly see as unconstitutional, or anything else from the federal level that is obviously suspect in that regard.
In a practical sense, the feds have pretty much made a mockery of the rule of law in this country, so there is no reason the states should give a damn what the feds tell them to do.
Just ONE governor...
But, no, no such principled governor exists. They're all pusillanimous little jokes.
This is important because the Supreme Court has historically clarified in broad terms that powers that the states haven’t delegated to the feds expressly via the Constitution, the power to regulate immigration and gay marriage in this case, are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Could get nasty...
And, what will the Feds do if the issuing state agencies refuse to comply?
It’s insane for conservatives to always abide by tyranical dictates of liberal federal judges, while libs just ignore each and every law in the books that they don’t like. The latter has proven that the rule of law in America is dead. Dead as a doornail. Just like the Constitution.
Nullification is the only answer.
Oh, they will.
No, read the Bill of Rights.
Y'know ... we should be careful ... there just might BE a sincere effort to PROduce anarchy ... and if enough America goes anarchist ... all hell .. literally .. will break loose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.