Posted on 08/08/2014 10:41:54 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Rather than argue Florida's gay-marriage debate at the state Supreme Court, Attorney General Pam Bondi says she'd rather wait until the U.S. Supreme Court settles the issue nationally, once and for all.
“Neither this Court nor the Florida Supreme Court can decide this federal issue with finality,” Bondi wrote in a filing late Thursday to the state’s 3rd District Court of Appeal. “The United States Supreme Court, however, ‘has the final word on the United States Constitution.’”
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
The tenth amendment of the USA is CLEAR, and the Constitution of the state of Florida ALREADY DEFINES marriage.
Florida NEEDS NOT be forced to change its ACCURATE definition of marriage.
Pam Bondi is an amoral politiwhore.
She fits right in with the Floriduh GOPe.
How about let the PEOPLE decide as they already have damn it! I am getting sick of Repukes!
This is a strategy that allows her boss to punt the question before the Gubernatorial election.
How about legislatures make the law and not the courts??
She also went all spastic in 2012 when Newt said we are well past the point when we should have been impeaching judges who exceed their Constitutional authority (as did Ken Cuccinelli).
I bet she supports state's rights regarding marijuana, recreational or otherwise, or open carry laws for example.
The homosexual mafia only has power because people like Bondi give it to them.
Understand that I do NOT support gay marriage. I think these decisions are wrong but not for 10th Amendment reasons.
No. Not only is the 10th Amendment not clear over 200 years of SCOTUS and other Court decisions, the 10th Amendment really gives the States very little in the way of rights. It let’s them keep what they did not give away. But they gave away almost everything to the Feds via the Supremacy clause and the Commerce Clause (among others).
Also, there is no “clarity” on Constitutional interpretation. If there was, there would be no need for Courts to ever decide. It would be like a vending machine where you just push a button for an answer. Conservative, Libtard, in the middle ... it does not matter. Almost no one agrees 100% on Constitutional interpretation.
By way of example, to define what is “an unreasonable search and seizure” (the primary issue I have argued before SCOTUS) is utterly impossible. Each case is taken on it’s own merits with numerous judicial permutations and decisions added in.
As a law professor I had once said ... the answer is NEVER the Tenth Amendment. That’s about 99% true.
Since judges repeatedly overturn 10th Amendment solutions to this issue, what do you propose?
And if I recall correctly... yes: the Attorney General is required to defend that by virtual of her oath of office:
Section 5(b), Art. II, State Const., provides as follows: "Each state and county officer, before entering upon the duties of the office, shall give bond as required by law, and shall swear or affirm:
'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the state; and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of (title of office) on which I am now about to enter. So help me God.',
I don’t get her position in once sense. In another I can understand it.
Still, Pammy is sohhhh hittable and since Laz ain’t around much I think I’ll take my shot with her.
Yeah, we’ll go for a long walk in Paris, by the river Seine, sipping champagne and eating chocolate dipped strawberries, while we take in the scenery of river boats passing by.
This strategy is best done at dusk or in the beginning of the evening.
Women usually love this sort of attention...
So you went to school with Barry Fraudbama?
/s
Like the SC is so ‘American’. IMHO, the SC, for the most part, is anti-Constitution as well as anti-American.
Let God decide the issue. I think He already has.
SECTION 27. Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.
(History.—Proposed by Initiative Petition filed with the Secretary of State February 9, 2005; adopted 2008.)
Otherwise, if she understands how the Constitution works then she knows that the rules for deciding the constitutionally of things like gay marriage are simple. The Constitution's silence about marriage means two things.
The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about any issue, such as marriage, means that it's up to individual states to decide their own policies for such things.
Pro-gay, politically correct interpretations of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause aside, the states have never amended the Constitution to make gay marriage an enumerated right. So individual states can decide against gay marriage.
“I bet she supports state’s rights regarding marijuana, recreational or otherwise, or open carry laws for example.”
Hopefully, she does. However, with the present FloriDUH Supreme Court being as infested with Libtard Judges as it is, why chance giving a ‘Tard Judge an opportunity to exercise his “Inner Commie”?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
So why then is there any need for any other government whatsoever outside of the “Supreme” Court?
We could save ourselves a lot of money by not funding 100 quadrillion vestigial organs of government...
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.