Posted on 10/07/2014 1:35:58 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
lower courts will over turn the constitution on un constitutional grounds
we live in bizzaro world
A constitutional is our only option.
Brilliant. I had not thought of the needed amendment to be procedural rather than substantive.
Cruz as usual is spot on with adapting this as “let the states decide”.
This is brilliant. Proof of that fact is that this is what I have been saying we should do for at least 10 years!!
My view is that the Congress already has the power, under Section 4 Clause 1 of the Constitution (”The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”) to pass a law striking down State court judicial usurpations such as the Massachusetts “Supreme” Court’s decision mandating same-sex marriage.
They’ve done it repeatedly.
They rule against a vote of the people based on state constitutional grounds,
so the people amend their constitution.
The courts then rule against the amendment.
And that's a recipe for failure. We'll have judges asking to recognize and dissolve same sex marriages made in other states. Large companies that deal with multiple states will have to insitute policies that comply with their most liberal state.
> “Large companies that deal with multiple states will have to insitute policies that comply with their most liberal state.”
Nope. Companies will have to deal with it state by state just as they do with taxes.
And Judges of other states would not have to dissolve anything; they merely refuse to hear if the state does not recognize the ‘marriage’.
Ping.
AllahPundit’s cred has been going down in my view and this piece confirms the cred decline continues as it cites a ‘YouGov’ poll which is an online opinion survey poll run by leftist idiots from the UK. In other words, it’s b*llsh*t.
Kudos to Cruz for standing on principle.
But we all know this will be D.O.A.
It’s the federal courts that have been the troublemakers not the state courts.
Cruz’ amendment proposal aims to keep the federal troublemakers out of state jurisdiction over marriage.
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are de facto constitutional.
Yes, it’s DOA for now but it signals the grassroots that here is representation and leadership residing in Washington DC.
As has been said here countless times, whether or not a proposal’s prospects for success are positive or negative, it is important to stand up and voice the concern and the remedy. Because it points to a direction that can be paved by future action.
And there will be future action.
Understood - by definition, constitutional amendments are constitutional,
but I don’t put it past liberal judges to say differently.
Social issues is another way for Cruz to reach out to black voters.
Cruz should organize meetings with black pastors, visit black churches and speak on moral issues.
The GOPe will hate Cruz more but if he runs for president this will increase his voter base.
“It’s the federal courts that have been the troublemakers not the state courts.”
It’s both. Federal courts have been worse (most notably the US Supreme Court) but there have been plenty of unconstitutional usurpations by state courts as well.
For example, the Massachusetts Constitution has the following provisions:
- Article V. All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.
Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.
Nevertheless the State “Supreme” Court struck down an act of the legislature defining marriage, as violating the Massachusetts Constitution.
The “local option” position is fine with me on gay marriage.
I oppose same sex marriage because the movement associated with it clearly has sinister intentions based on their previous behavior (”demonization” as Scalia put it in his DOMA dissent).
Once gay marriage is legal, those who don’t believe in same sex marriage or homosexuality will be relentlessly harassed and persecuted like they already have been. The LGBT activists define them as “bigots” and the modern day equivalent of Bull Connor and the KKK.
The Constitution as in the First Amendment is under attack here and I for one will not be silent. No Pastor Niemoller in this situation.
Religious folks, though, should get their act together and consider their past conduct in this debate. In my life I have seen LGBT people hurt by others including some who claim to be followers of God.
In a general sense our gay and lesbian friends, neighbors etc. have real grievances and this militant vengeful activism now emerging isn’t the right response to the real hurts and pain they have suffered.
Better than nothing but still half-assed. Go big or go home. The amendment needs to be one-man/one-woman.
You think that Article IV, Section 4, Caluse 1 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to overturn state court judicial decisions that were (rightly or wrongly) decided under state constitutions? While that may lead to a beneficial result on issues like this, it would set a terrible, terrible precedent.
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.