FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 02/09/2015 6:49:01 AM PST by alancarp
Link only, due to AP source.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The deeper and more important fight over sexuality is the one that is going inside people and not the one out in the public arena.
I think a lot of people who claim to be on God’s side are losing that fight.
My experience in living my life as a drunk is that I have to work steps (The 12 Steps presented in “Alcoholics Anonymous”) to draw myself closer to God and His purpose for my life.
I really need to stop arguing and fighting with people close to me and people further away. I need to be less ‘political’ to be closer to God.
I have opinions and I express them here, but I need to accept the imperfect political situation and act according to my conscience without anger.
The 10th Amendment does not allow the States to ignore or violate the Constitution as a whole. But, the problem now is that the Feds are equating a lifestyle choice with an immutable characteristic such as skin color. If this stands, the proponents of most any aberrant sexual behavior will make the same arguments to try to force states to allow said behavior.
See, that is the difference right there, between law abiding conservatives and libs. Conservatives do as you suggest.
Libs will piss and moan, and go hell bent for leather forming committees, movements, entire fields of protesters, eventually finding that lone, obscure judge somewhere to overturn the previous ruling, the one, in many cases, previously decided by majority voting at the ballot, or another court.
The fact that only Scalia and Thomas were the only 2 detractors is very troublesome.
Don’t worry, that’s the next mission, to force religious institutions to perform ceremonies.
Well, I’ve given you reasoning based on the text and intent of the Constitution. If you don’t agree with that reasoning, then you need to give contra-reasoning based on the Constitution. It doesn’t matter what the federal government or judiciary has said if it is not based on the Constitution because the Constitution, as the Supremacy Clause says, is the Law of the Land and the ONLY source of federal authority.
You need to learn that and find out for yourself what is in the Constitution and what its presumptions are. The Constitution and freedom is YOURS. You need to own it. Read Judge Robert Bork’s books, that’s a good start. Don’t read the stuff put out by the Socialists who hate the Constitution. Then if you have an argument based on the Constitution, let me know. I’d like to hear it.
If people, especially conservatives who are here on FR don’t learn to stand up for the Constitution as written, originally understood, and intended, then people will have failed to do what Benjamin Franklin said after creating the Constitution in Philadelphia when asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” to which he replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Absolutely not. Don't believe the rubbish put out by the Leftists, especially those in government. They're working on the entire Constitution becoming dead letter.
The Constitution is the Law of the Land (Article VI Section 2). If the clause or section or amendment hasn't been validly amended by the process outlined in Article V, then that portion of the Constitution is alive and well. Has there been an amendment that overturns the Tenth Amendment? Of course not because the Tenth Amendment is simply an expression of the implicit presumption of the Constitution, something lovers of big government hate.
But the Constitution only has the force the American People insist. The Constitution is written law but it also needs to be alive in the hearts of Americans. As the Declaration of Independence says, our lives and freedoms are God-given and the Constitution is a miraculous gift from Heaven. But we must fight for what is rightfully ours or the thieves and wolves will steal it which they have been working on doing for a long time.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Please go back and learn the basic presumptions of the Constitution as explained in the Tenth Amendment. The power of the FEDERAL government are enumerated and delegated by the states and the people via the Constitution. If the power has not been delegated to the feds or prohibited from the states, the presumption of the Constitution is that power BELONGS to the states and the people.
Again, your opinion on the text and intent of the Constitution. And again, federal judges at all levels and throughout this country's history have disagreed with you.
Did you read my post?
I said what you said - Congress has not been granted the power to pass a law regulating marriages (except in DC and on Indian reservations and military bases), and the Constitution has not been amended to grant such a power, THEREFORE, it is a reserved power and THEREFORE the Supremacy Clause (Article VI §2) does not apply.
No offense, but this is exactly how one loses a debate.
States have POWERS, We the People have Rights. Rights are inalienable, powers are bestowed/taken.
In this case, the (usurped) Fed. POWER is used to suppress the States’ powers....again and again and again....
Course, that is what happens when you have a Democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic. Our fore-bearers have sorely let down their progeny.
I digress....
Just where IS ‘our side’ in all of this? Why are they/we NOT filing case upon case for all the ‘pretzel logic’ of the Left?? Where is our 14th incorporation of the 2nd, or Constitutional carry vs. the other 40+ States?
The Constitution belongs to YOU, not to some cloistered group. You treat the Constitution the way the Catholic Church used to treat the Bible - no one should read it or try to understand it except certain officials.
Nope, the Constitution, like the Bible, is YOURS, and it's up to you to learn it, understand it, and begin to base your arguments about notional politics on it.
I suggest you read The Tempting of America by Judge Robert Bork, a federal judge who was considered the leading Constitutional scholar of his time & who stood up to the Leftist push and judicial activism of the modern federal judiciary up to a few years ago when he died.
And when you can provide an argument that has been upheld by the courts then I'll pay attention.
In this last post to me, it looks like you meant what I meant (if it's not in the Constitution "it is a reserved power"). That's good. I wish more people realized that.
I agree with your post #133 all the way up to your last statement: THEREFORE the Supremacy Clause (Article VI §2) does not apply. So we're close, but it is an important point to get straight.
The Supremacy Clause most certainly does apply.
First of all, either the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land, or it is not. We can't parse out the authority of the Constitution depending on whether it conforms to our arguments or beliefs the way the Leftist judicial activists do, essentially eviscerating the weight, force, and authority of the Constitution. If the Constitution is to be followed, then the Supremacy Clause ALWAYS applies and it is the supreme Law of the Land.
Secondly, I think we agree that if a power isn't named in the Constitution, it is basally a reserved power. State nullification isn't named. So what does the Supremacy Clause say?
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...(Article VI §2 (partial)).
If a federal law, like Obamacare and many others, is not made in pursuance of the Constitution, that law is NOT the law of the land. Unconstitutional federal acts violates the Supremacy Clause whereas state rejection of such does not.
The Tenth Amendment expressly states that any power not delegated to the feds or prohibited from the states is reserved to the states and the people.
You have to understand that the Constitution is mainly pointed at and is a limitation on the federal government. If it is not an enumerated power delegated to the federal government by the states and the people via the Constitution, then it is not a valid federal power.
The issue here is whether the Constitution has delegated power to the feds to interfere with marriage. The answer is NO! Nowhere does the Constitution delegate an enumerated power to the feds that allows them to interfere with marriage. Therefore, the states are free to reject and nullify such unconstitutional federal acts.
What does “immutable” have to do with anything? We don’t (for example) say that it’s OK to discriminate against Jews because they could always convert to Christianity if they get tired of being discriminated against.
Look "freedom" up in your dictionary.
At it's core, freedom is an individual issue.
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.