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.
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
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.
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.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
And not just this decision, but many others. Someone alerted me to this comment from Travis McGee which is very relevant to the discussion:
The reset, when it comes, (and it might not be 50 states “after” the reset), will sweep away the original “poisoned tree” which is Marbury vs Madison, all the way back to 1803.
The Constitution does NOT say that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of all laws in the USA. In fact, it puts Congress over the SCOTUS.
For perspective: Article One, dealing with congress, is 2,269 words long. Article Two, the executive, is 1,025 words. Article Three, the judiciary is only 377 words. Only 295 words if you take out Article Three Section 3, which deals with definitions of treason, not the judiciary.
And here is the applicable part of Article Three:
“In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Right there, it says that congress can regulate the SCOTUS, and decide which cases should or should not be under their purview.
The fact that the congress has abrogated this power since Marbury vs Madison doesn’t mean that this power no longer exists in the Constitution. After our coming crash and reset etc, I have some small hope that the “Tyranny of Five” will be thrown out. Nowhere in the Constiution or the Federalist Papers etc does it say that the SCOTUS shall have the power to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions and so on.
It was never the intention of our Founding Fathers that our Republic should become a tyranny of five judges.
Anyone wanting on/off any of my pinglists, freepmail me.