Posted on 10/23/2014 10:43:24 PM PDT by JSDude1
All I have to say is: God Bless MY Lt. Gov. (the man who I want as our ~next~ NC Governor).
Looks like we finally have someone with guts who understands the true role of Federalism!!
Just goes to show (along with the ruling yesterday out of Puerto Rico-along with their public rally for real marriage). That it's not too late on this issue!
you’ve been paying attention to the media, you’ve been told numerous times from opponents of North Carolina’s Marriage Amendment that the fight is over, and that they have won. That is not the case. The following is a realistic scenario that could lead to a constitutional showdown between the state and federal systems as to which court, outside the Supreme Court of the United States, has the legal authority to rule on North Carolina’s marriage amendment.
Last week, the Administrative Office of the Courts directed magistrates that they could not refuse to perform a same-sex marriage, no matter what the reason, including their personal moral and religious objections. This directive informed them that failure to comply could result in removal from office and criminal penalties. In response, our state needs but one magistrate to legally challenge the edict sent down from the Administrative Office of the Courts on two grounds.
This is an excerpt above from the actual article, sorry it’s late I got post and excerpt sections mixed up..I need to go to bed ;)!
Speak now, or forever hold your peace.
And watch America die.
America has been dead for 2 decades. What you’re seeing now are the throes.
You could be right.
However, what we are obligated to do is pretty much the same either way.
The phony call for federalism by the left has proved to be just a ploy until the federal courts could give them what they wanted. Who couldn’t see that coming.
The thing is, homosexual marriage should never have been left to the states. It really is impossible because of the full faith and credit clause to the Constitution. You can’t be married in one state and not in another. As it is now, there may be differences in small ways to marriage laws state by state, but once married you are married in all states.
It should have been treated like polygamy was in Utah. It should have been banned nationwide. We should have gone for the federal marriage amendment or at least a DOMA that was stronger and banned it at the state level too.
dang. this is getting deep.
How can you be a lawyer in one state and not in the next? Yet that is the case. Your license isn’t good in the neighboring state. It’s bull.
That is not the same thing.
I am not saying I like it. I am just saying it should have been federal from the start just like polygamy.
Open Letter from Lt. Governor Dan Forest regarding NC Marriage Amendment
by Editor
dan forestRALEIGH, N.C. — Lt. Governor Dan Forest distributed the following letter to his email list on Wednesday:
If you’ve been paying attention to the media, you’ve been told numerous times from opponents of North Carolina’s Marriage Amendment that the fight is over, and that they have won. That is not the case. The following is a realistic scenario that could lead to a constitutional showdown between the state and federal systems as to which court, outside the Supreme Court of the United States, has the legal authority to rule on North Carolina’s marriage amendment.
Last week, the Administrative Office of the Courts directed magistrates that they could not refuse to perform a same-sex marriage, no matter what the reason, including their personal moral and religious objections. This directive informed them that failure to comply could result in removal from office and criminal penalties. In response, our state needs but one magistrate to legally challenge the edict sent down from the Administrative Office of the Courts on two grounds.
The first ground is that the memorandum directs him to violate his religious conscience, thereby violating his right to religious freedom preserved by the North Carolina and United States Constitutions. In particular, the North Carolina Constitution provides that “all persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.”
The second ground is to assert that the memo directs him to contravene the North Carolina Constitution by performing a ceremony that is not recognized by law, and is in fact, prohibited by the marriage amendment. You may wonder how that is possible after Judge Cogburn’s ruling purporting to strike down our amendment. That is one of the beauties of federalism. As succinctly stated by North Carolina’s Supreme Court in the case of State v. McDowell: “A state court should exercise and apply its own independent judgment, treating, of course, decisions of the United States Supreme Court as binding and according to decisions of lower federal courts such persuasiveness as these decisions might reasonably command.” North Carolina case law is clear. Decisions of the Fourth Circuit and federal district courts, while persuasive, are not binding on state courts.
Should this case reach the Supreme Court of North Carolina, a vote by our honorable justices exercising their own independent judgment to uphold the amendment overwhelmingly approved by the people would set up the very real possibility that the United States Supreme Court would hear arguments, having a split on the issue between a state court and the Fourth Circuit.
The constitutional showdown is a very real possibility. Supporters of marriage should not lose heart. The voice of the people will be heard.
Read Artcle IV Section I as it provides:
“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
The case law on this has changed since our nation’s inception, but presently the focus of this clause is to give effect to judgements from other states.
It also of course ALLOWS (but doesn’t mandate) Congress to enact laws to put this clause into force.
They could require states to respect CCW permits from other states, but they don’t have to.
Now the Privileges and Immunities Clause (in my opinion) should prohibit states from denying the right to bear arms to people coming in from out of state.
But that’s another topic.
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.