Posted on 02/12/2014 9:45:58 AM PST by GIdget2004
Ummm, you’re thinking too small: Constitutional carry. I mean, it’s ‘legal’ in 5 States already, right? /s
Disgusting. We are unmoored from the constitution.
John Wayne Gacy ‘had’ a lot of children.
Just dissolve the State legislatures and let the Federal Judges rule the states.
We have too many law schools.
At this point ANY quack can become a lawyer and then a judge. Qualifications are meaningless.
How about just letting ANYBODY sit for the bar exams?
How about federalizing licensing of lawyers for all fifty states?
It is junk judges which are enforcing the marxism.
What has Canada to do with this story? I don’t see it mentioned.
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/consequences.html
ARRIVING IN GOMORRAH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd3tonnjMSI&list=UUFDlhK80EdO28R-iGTXiGaw&feature=c4-overview
Seriously, why do we even have borders as states at this point much less governors or legislatures. Why do we have state criminal and civil laws? Seriously why? Why do we need any sort of state structure if it can be arbitrarily tossed aside by the feds. The federal government or some federal judge simply ignore state laws at their whims and demand we submit to the all might federalis’.
Why vote? What’s the point, it means nothing. We are in the early beginnings of a deep dark tyranny and the Republican fools in Washington stand around playing chicken little with not a spine among the insufferable bastards.
What is the name and email address of this scumbag Federal Judge?
WOMAN’S LIB AND ISLAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0cS4p9cFlo&feature=c4-overview&list=UUFDlhK80EdO28R-iGTXiGaw
I understand your point. Mine was that they don’t even recognize specifically issued CCW permits for an enumerated right as applicable across state lines.
Maybe that’s why NYC prosecutors seem quick to settle CCW permittees arrested for carrying in NYC: if challenged the NYC law might get struck down.
I imagine from the same place that opposite sex couples who can't get pregnant together get children: previous relationships, artificial insemination, surrogate birth-mother, adoption of non-related children, foster or adoption of relatives (nephews, nieces, etc.).
You know, this isn't exactly rocket science.
Pooped ‘em out ?
Under Congress's constitutional Article IV, Section 1 authority which allows Congress to legislatively determine the extent to which one state has to respect the records of another state, the significant DOMA provision which still stands is Section 2 below.
DOMA:
This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Note that Section 3 above is what the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. And I agree with the Supreme Court because the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate marriage. Only the states can regulate marriage. And only the states can amend the Constitution to define marriage. The problem is that the states, including low-information state lawmakers, have been asleep at the wheel concerning such issues.
Also, probably the main reason that patriots tremble in their boots when activist judges rule in favor of the pro-gay movement is the following imo. Low information-patriots evidently do not understand that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage which this judge seems to be ignoring. So the states can actually make laws which distriminate against things like gay marriage, imo, as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Not saying I like the idea, but is because of Article IV section 1, the “Full Faith and Credit” clause. States must recognize the official public acts of other states. This is why the fight against gay “marriage” started to be lost once any state recognized it. It was also why the Defense of Marriage Act was doomed to fail and why the only real way to stop gay marriage was to pass a Constitutional amendment against it—and I’m afraid the likelihood of that has long-since passed.
Back in the 40s divorce in some states was nearly impossible—but in one state, Nevada, a person could get a divorce just by applying for it and living in the state for six weeks. Your Nevada divorce had to be recognized by your home state. Popular culture of the time would allude to this by saying “his wife has gone to Reno”.
Maybe that’s why NYC prosecutors seem quick to settle CCW permittees arrested for carrying in NYC: if challenged the NYC law might get struck down.
Unlike our present President, I don't claim to be a constitutional scholar. However, the first sentence here is pretty straightforward. Based strictly on it, any state must recognize the marriages that are legal in every other state.
"Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which (they) shall be proved" is also pretty clear. It means Congress prescribes the methods by which judicial acts in one state, such as marriages, are to be documented for acceptance by another state.
"Congress may by general laws prescribe ... the effect thereof." is where the interpretation comes in. Given the Founders' notorious suspicion of federal power, I seriously doubt they intended to give Congress the power to exclude certain "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" from the requirements of the first sentence whenever it so chose. This would give Congress, in essence, the power to decide which "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of the states need be accepted by other states. If that was their intent, why didn't they just say so?
I suspect the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional for perfectly conservative and states' rights reasons.
Does Congress have, or should it have, the power to decide which state laws must be respected by other states? Or did the Constitution intend to give Congress the power to regulate how such laws would be communicated between states?
Let me guess before I read the article to check: Did they use the Commerce Clause?
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.