Posted on 09/03/2015 8:50:56 PM PDT by hapnHal
For your statement to hold true, there must be a law, not just a ruling invalidating law.
The Supreme Court decision did not change Kentucky law, it voided it. The LAW in Kentucky regarding marriage is that in order to get a marriage license the applicant must be two adults of the opposite sex who are not immediately blood related. The Kentucky statute that authorizes the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to anyone does not authorize her to issue a license to same sex couples. If the Supreme Court determined that the Kentucky statute was unconstitutional, then the county clerk cannot issue any marriage license at all. She isn’t. She is currently obeying the law by not issuing licenses because she currently has no authority to do so.
Your position is one that gives the Supreme Court LEGISLATIVE POWER which it does not have. Forcing this clerk to issue marriage licenses is an unconstitutional act. The court has no power to require a county clerk to violate an existing Kentucky Statute and if the statute is void, then it has no power to make up some statute that requires the state to issue marriage licenses in accordance with a void statute.
I get pretty sick and tired of people on this forum saying that this clerk needs to follow the law or quit her job. SHE’S DOING HER JOB!!!! Her job is to follow the statutory law and right now there isn’t one.
Unless and until KENTUCKY passes a law re-authorizing the issuance of marriage licenses, no clerk in Kentucky should be issuing marriage licenses to anyone.
If you disagree, then show me the currently existing statute that authorizes county clerks in Kentucky to issue marriage licenses to anyone.
The problem is not that the clerk is not following the law, THE COURTS ARE MAKING UP THE LAW. THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO!!! If anyone should be quitting their jobs, it is the judges!!!!
Why do you not understand the basic Federalism of our constitution?
The Fed Gov has no power over issues reserved to the states and the people by the constitution.
And our founding document declares our creator’s natural laws to be the basis of our legal system, not the British common law, which was essentially what the revolution was throwing off. Common law exists at the pleasure of the sovereign.
And there is no provision in our constitution for the SCOTUS to adjudicate the “constitutionality” of any law.
State issues are completely outside of the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. Marriage is a pure State issue.
.
The SCOTUS failed to identify any provision of the 14th amendment, or any other part of the constitution, that permits it to redefine marriage from its ancient definition.
Thus their ruling is a nonsequitur.
A nonsequitur is, by nature, unenforceable, and uninterpretable.
.
SCOTUS gave gay marriage “fundamental right” protection. The majority was explicit about that.
Bottom line is that this case wrongly decided — just like Roe v. Wade. It goes against our Federalist system of governance.
But the actions of a clerk aren’t going to alter that decision.
Congress either needs to grab a pair and invalidate the decision by taking away jurisdiction or something similar or the People of the United States need to amend the Constitution. At present, those are the only two viable ways out of the box Kennedy and the four leftists put us in.
“Gay marriage” is an imaginary construct.
“Gays” are free to marry (real marriage) thus the court found nothing. No one was deprived of the right to marry in the first place.
They looked away from the obvious fact that what was sought was simply not marriage. Since what they sought does not exist, the court’s decision did not cover it.
The clerk’s actions are not in conflict with the court’s decision, since she has not been provided with any process whereby she can issue a license for what has no definition under the law.
The court cannot order the state to make law.
The court needs to resolve their conflict in the nonsequitur of their decision.
.
Yeah, saying mirage was my intent. I read it here one time, and I’ve used it since. The only appropriate word for what those homosexuals are attempting.
Martyrdom? Martyrs go to jail? Do we have to apologize to all the prisoners now?
Incredible quote! I think Scalia should have that one on his wall.
We’re not talking about the entire federal government here. We are talking about state laws that have US constitutional implications. SCOTUS will generally not hear appeals from state supreme courts if it decided the case on “adequate and independent” state law grounds. If any federal precedent, either Constitution, case, statute, or treaty, is applied in deciding the case, SCOTUS has discretion to hear it. Hence, why SCOTUS heard Loving v. Virginia, a marriage case, since the 14th Amendment was directly implicated.
You comment that we threw off the common law is ludicrous. The 7th Amendment still allows English cases to be used in US federal court if no US precedent exists on that discreet matter. If memory serves, that hasn’t come up since before the Civil War in any serious fashion.
While the Constitution doesn’t expressly state SCOTUS has judicial review powers, it is implied and the only practical solution. Article III states: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution....” If parties before the court dispute the constitutionality of a particular law or behavior, and SCOTUS cannot adjudicate constitutionality, what are they to do? Keep them in the courtroom screaming at each other and watch? Hand the litigants pistols and swords to slaughter each other, with the survivor’s position prevailing?
.
The 14th Amendment was not implicated, directly or indirectly!
Nobody was being denied anything, thus the case was based on a canard.
Every plaintiff in every case had the ability to marry if they chose. Instead they chose to redefine marriage, and the SCOTUS decided to join them in that folly; something that they lacked the legitimate power to do.
Nice try at LGBT propaganda, but no cigar!
.
.
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.