Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NKP_Vet
Actually, this judge is on solid legal ground to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Federal government (including the U.S. Supreme Court) has no jurisdiction in state marriage laws. In 1896 it no jurisdiction, either. The Supreme Court ruling from 1896 was based on the legal argument that the U.S. law requiring Utah to outlaw polygamy as a condition of statehood was valid on constitutional grounds because Utah was a Federal territory (not a state) at the time the law was passed.

The Utah legislature could have passed a state marriage law allowing polygamy and told the U.S. Supreme Court to "#*%& off!" immediately after statehood had been granted, but they didn't. It took 117 years, but it looks like someone finally did.

8 posted on 12/14/2013 12:11:42 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Alberta's Child
The Utah legislature could have passed a state marriage law allowing polygamy and told the U.S. Supreme Court to "#*%& off!" immediately after statehood had been granted, but they didn't.

Except the Constitution of the State of Utah outlaws polygamy and says that the polygamy prohibition cannot be changed without the consent of the federal government.

32 posted on 12/14/2013 1:27:35 PM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson