Posted on 07/01/2013 7:35:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
For those confident that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Wednesday’s same-sex marriage cases, Perry v. Hollingsworth and United States v. Windsor, will make marriage an issue of states’ rights, think again. David Boies, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in Perry, told Candy Crowley on Sunday’s State of the Union that the Supreme Court’s decision appropriately “invalidated” states’ rights:
"California decided. California passed Proposition 8. What the Court was doing was invalidating California’s choice, and that is exactly what the courts are supposed to do under the 14th Amendment."
The principles from the Supreme Court’s rulings on Wednesday are “now going to be applied nationally,” says Boies, and wherever same-sex marriage is not enshrined legislatively, it will be enforced “judicially, if necessary.”
So much for federalism.
(CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO )
If (God forbid) the Supreme Court were to make a pronouncement saying that NOT RECOGNIZING GAY MARRIAGE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, what do you think will happen in your state?
Will your residents meekly accept the SCOTUS decision?
And if your Governor and legislature tells the SCOTUS and Obama to take a hike, what will the consequences be? No federal aid?
How will you take it?
Ironically overturning DOMA was the gays states overturning Federal law. And overturning the CA referendum was the opposite at the same time by the same court.
Dont expect any consistent legal principles in the courts decisions, its mainly justice Kennedy ruling the country now.
If you mean what will we do about it in action, what will there be to do, other than making phone calls, which will fall on deaf ears. Most conservatives have to work, so I don't see that most of us have the luxury to mob the nation's capital like the Libs always seem to have time to do.
Of course, I won't be happy. What I must rely on is the efforts of lobbying and legal groups which fight full-time for the constitutional, conservative position in society, and send them my hard-earned dollars to trust them to use it effectively.
He’s right that under the 14th Amendment, state laws and state constitutional amendments that violate due process, equal protection, etc., are invalid (and that judicial review is typically the way such laws are invalidated). Where he is wrong, of course, is his assumption that Prop 8 and similar laws/amendments elsewhere violate due process, equal protection, or anything else protected by the 14th Amendment.
Technically, Prop 8 still lives, it is just being stayed by Walker's court. None of the merits of the case were decided by the Supreme Court, only the technicality of who had standing to defend it.
I honestly don't know.
Will your residents meekly accept the SCOTUS decision?
I don't know: I'd like to think we've got some fight in us, but… when everyone tells you you're useless and cannot make a difference, sometimes you buy into it.
And if your Governor and legislature tells the SCOTUS and Obama to take a hike, what will the consequences be? No federal aid?
Well, there's nothing saying we have to wait for them to make the first move: see here.
How will you take it?
I'd be pissed; I'd see it as more proof of a Federal Tyranny.
“If (God forbid) the Supreme Court were to make a pronouncement saying that NOT RECOGNIZING GAY MARRIAGE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, what do you think will happen in your state?”
We have had legal murder of the unborn inflicted upon all 50 states for 40+ years. So I think you look at what the states that didn’t like it do after that, that seems likeliest to me.
Freegards
suppression of truth
http://blog.adw.org/2013/06/romans-117ff-a-prophetic-interpretation-of-reality-for-our-times/comment-page-1/#comment-171666
John Eastman (Tax records leaked from IRS)
Anti Gay Marriage Lawyer Rails Against Gay Marriage Rulings On CNN: ‘Judicial Tyranny’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEMYHmVsD4M
Published on Jun 30, 2013
6/30/13 - Appearing on CNN’s State of the Union this morning, National Organization for Marriage’s attorney railed against the Supreme Court rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8, calling the decisions “judicial tyranny” for their reversing of anti-gay marriage laws. “We are manufacturing the right to redefine marriage,” NOM lawyer John Eastman told CNN host Candy Crowley. “That’s judicial tyranny, not the kind of system we have.”
While he believes the high court has effectively rebuked the states’ ability to determine their won anti-same-sex marriage laws, Eastman told Crowley that gay marriage proponents will have a tough time getting their way across all 50 states.
“I’s not going to happen overnight, it’s going to take root over time,” he said. “As we saw in North Carolina last year, that’s a much more difficult task than they thought,” he added, referring to that state’s overwhelming vote in favor of banning same-sex marriage.
I think the Court presumes, without having ever actually so ruled, that XIV repeals both IX and X.
The larger problem, which will be very difficult to resolve peacefully, is that the Court and the Left both believe that the body of USSC decisions are PART of the Constitution (Talmud:Torah, as it were), and we do not.
I’m telling ya ... Full Faith & Credit is coming. It’s 5-7 years away, but it’s coming.
Boies was algore’s lawyer in Bush v. Gore. Sorry to say, his opposing counsel, Ted Olson, in that matter joined with him here.
The SCOTUS invalidated states’ rights?
That’s about as glib a manner in which I’ve ever heard an intelligent man dismiss the 10th amendment.
And the antique notion of ‘federalism.’
Welcome to oligarchical socialism, comrades.
Lincoln invalidated States` rights.
They`re looonnng gone.
In Dred Scott the SC (democrat CJ Taney) invalidated states rights by denying that the free states could allow a slave within their boundaries and state laws to remain free.
Lincoln invalidated individual slaveowners right to own another human through the Emancipation and that was Constitutionalized in subsequent amendments to the Constitution.
The states didn’t have the right to secede from a union they had signed onto and that was validated by the defeat of the democrat south, thus bringing them back into the union.
The job of the SC is NOT to invalidate any right granted through the Constitution. Bois is no better than Taney.
The 14th amendment was passed on 9 July 1868 to primarily insure the individual rights of emancipated slaves. So the real question in this gay matter is ...
What comes first, states rights or individual rights?
If my state secedes, I go with it.
Well, talking about secession, let’s say a state holds a referendum to secede and it passes overwhelmingly...
What happens next?
Will (God forbid) there be another civil war where the other 49 states invade that state to prevent it from seceding?
Will (God forbid) there be another civil war where the other 49 states invade that state to prevent it from seceding?...
...hardly...the most painful lesson this country ever learned will not be forgotten for many a moon...that single seceding state will instead become a pariah, and good luck doing business with the other 49...think of it this way, a superpower college football university decides to withdraw from the NCAA (not quite analogous, but similar) and does so...well then, that school will have a lot of fun trying to draw up a schedule...but we all know that neither of those scenarios will ever happen...
...however, if a state or a number of states do pull out, hopefully the secessionists show better judgment than the Confederacy did, and not initiate hostilities by seizing Federal property...
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.