Posted on 01/05/2015 8:15:06 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
....which reflects the citations used in post 38.
Nothing guarantees the mortal coil will keep on as it has been.
they spent millions and got out their votes. They lost and now they get judges to overturn what they lost in a constitutional amendment.
Pathetic sore losers who won’t stop their baby tantrums until they get their own way like a spoilt baby.
And all the former governor of Florida can say is: “there goes the courts again, what can you do?”. What a statesman.
I'm sorry, post 38 tells me nothing practical or ongoing. As far as I can tell, this issue is decided, or is there something outstanding that has yet to be resolved? Once these floodgates are opened, I don't see any way of stepping back.
Well, either you get it or you don’t.
If you understand the history behind these statements and of the truths in post 4, you’ll understand why I know the issue IS decided, but not in the way the judges, celebratory media, and faux “happiness” being expressed by the litigants today believe.
bye.
In four states (ME, MD, WA and MN), gay marriage passed by voter referenda. In an additional 8 states, it was passed by the legislature (CT, DE, HI, IL, NH, NY, RI, VT, plus DC). In two more states, it was passed by the legislature after courts struck down earlier bans (CA, MA). Finally, in NJ, gay marriage was passed by the legislature, then vetoed by Governor Christie, then Christie decided not to defend the court challenge. In all the other states, it was by decision of state judges (IA, NJ, NM, CO) or federal court judges (all the rest).
The US Constitution trumps state constitutions, so it is legal for federal judges to strike down state laws and constitutions which violate the federal constitution. (I do not agree that a ban on gay marriage violates the federal constitution, but that is the legal principle behind these cases.)
This past November, voters in Washington State passed by referendum sweeping new gun control laws. If a federal court were to strike them down under the 2nd Amendment, would you be crying about the will of the voters being thwarted by an unelected judge?
EXACTLY
A: 9th/10th.
If the Left had any brains at all, they note they are opening a can of worms here: I’m still trying to find where in the Constitution a license is required for ANYTHING, let alone our Rights.
Where is the reciprocity of States to our Constitutional carry? Why does one need to get approval to WORK, let alone open a business? Why is not one States’ ‘licensed professionals’ allowed to work in another (lawyers, etc.)??
Course, the (R) haven’t brought up the point, nor has the NRA, nor the bar, nor...
yes i would.
the states are not meant to be 100% uniform. they are meant to govern themselves allowing the citizens to choose which state is the best to live in.
this goes for taxes as well. the Constitution states taxation was to be levied on the STATES not on the individual. additionally, taxes were to be uniformly applied depending on the population of the state compared to the country. it wasn’t until the ‘elites’ decided to ram through the 16th (unratified) amendment that allowed the fedgov to tax the individual.
All 50 are fair game in a few years. If their judge says no, then well, they will change their mind or get replaced.
That is the point many people miss, the judges can rule gun control constitutional if they wish, it’s all a question of when they feel that there will be no outcry.
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.