Posted on 06/27/2015 9:34:27 PM PDT by Steelfish
Mike Huckabee: Conservatives Can Ignore Gay Marriage Ruling Like Lincoln Ignored Dred Scott
By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times June 27, 2015 DENVER — Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee suggested Saturday that conservatives treat the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision like Abraham Lincoln treated the high court’s pro-slavery ruling in Dred Scott: Ignore it.
“They can do same thing that Abraham Lincoln did about the Dred Scott decision of 1857,” Mr. Huckabee said at the Western Conservative Summit. “The Dred Scott decision said that African-Americans were not fully human, that they need not be treated as fully human.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Actually, religious folks are going to be making their point regarding this ruling and hopefully prevail. If not, and enough folks continue the protest, changes will occur regardless of the Courts. Sometimes the Courts get it wrong for the wrong reasons.
Have been ignoring the Supreme Court ever since they ruled that CO2 was a pollutant. That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my entire life.
Huckabee is in effect talking about civil disobedience. If the 1st amendment is disrespected, and a clergyman is imprisoned by a leftist totalitarian so-called judge, for not performing a wedding that he doesnt view as a wedding,things will snowball. I don’t know if the left realizes the blowback which would happen.
Or like Obama ignores every law he doesn’t like.
I think the Supreme court shot themselves in the foot.
I think they blew their whole leg off.
Huckabee- ignore them, Cruz- recall them every other national election, Jindal- pull the fire alarm, and lock the doors!
Congress has the authority under Article III to put any law it passes out of the authority of any court to rule as unconstitutional. They could also attach criminal penalties against any judge who tried to do so. Of course it would require both houses, and the presidency, and some balls to enact it into law.
Oops... the MISSING ingredient.
BTTT
The fag marriage ruling isn’t law. It is an illegal diktat. There is no moral reason to obey such commands.
If we had an opposition party in America (Read: Conservative) that approach might work. However, the Republicans like the Democrats are interested in one thing and one thing only. VOTES and re election. Both parties are nothing but deceitful lying manipulators. Get over it. You are on your own. Representative government does not exist anymore.
I don’t know if the left realizes the blowback which would happen.I suspect they will see the blowback on the first Tuesday of November 2016.
It is now actually dangerous to criticize the homosexual agenda, and most people will keep quiet about their true opinions. But in the voting booth, they will be able to express their honest opinions.
I think the pollsters will be shocked at how skewed their predictions are when the votes are actually counted. (Of course, that assumes the voting process is no more corrupt than it current is, which might be a dangerous assumption.)
Your post: “Congress has the authority under Article III to put any law it passes out of the authority of any court to rule as unconstitutional. They could also attach criminal penalties against any judge who tried to do so. Of course it would require both houses, and the presidency, and some balls to enact it into law.”
If true, wouldn’t this put Congress and the Executive beyond the “check and balance” principle? Seems that there would be a second side to that sword.
Hypothetical question: What if Congress passed a bill and the Executive signed it into law which said in essence that the right to bear arms applied only to state federal police forces, not individuals?
Or, what if a law was passed which said that the 1st amendment applied only to entities that produced information through the “press” (newspapers and magazines only)? Or, a law which said that individuals could indeed “freely practice their religion” as long such practice did not violate any subsequently passed “hate crime” legislation. ETC
Just wondering. I’m probably missing something.
Thanks Steelfish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney
> The Taney Court ruled that persons of African descent could not be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Constitution, and thus the plaintiff (Scott) was without legal standing to file a suit. The framers of the Constitution, Taney famously wrote, believed that blacks “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it.” The court also declared the Missouri Compromise (1820) unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all of the country’s territories. Taney died during the final months of the American Civil War on the same day that his home state of Maryland abolished slavery.
That's what the founders intended. After all, they can impeach anyone in the other two branches. They have separate powers, but nowhere does the Constitution say they are equal. The legislative branch ultimately has supreme power. In fact nowhere does it say the court has the right to rule any law passed by Congress unconstitutional. That power was usurped in Marbury v. Madison.
You are right about the abuse of power by the other branches. I guess the founders trusted elected representatives to follow the Constitution. In any case you cannot count on scotus following the Constitution either. as we have seen. But the language is very clear...
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Thank you for your explanatory reply! Based on this information, then, it is in the hands of Congress to pass legislation which stipulates those exceptions and to issue regulations pertaining thereto.
Very interesting. Should a future Congress elect to reasert this power, (as we all know this Congress will not), in theory no one could claim to be a legitimate party in case of a lawsuit, nor could any judicial entity be a legitimate jurisdiction to hear such a lawsuit. I suspect, however, an attempt by such a bold Congress to reclaim their original power would be challenged in the courts and we could find ourselves in a true constitutional crisis should the SCOTUS reject their constitutional argument. I suppose that is when the Congress would simply make it clear that the SCOTUS opinion is of null effect and ignore the black robes altogether.
That makes me wonder how the “people” would handle such a crisis?
Interesting take. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone make that point before.
I first read about it in a George Will column about 20 years ago where he called it the “nuclear option” for dealing with activist judges.
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.