Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chief Alabama judge would defy Supreme Court in gay marriage ruling
http://www.cnn.com ^ | February 12, 2015 | CNN

Posted on 02/12/2015 11:24:02 AM PST by NKP_Vet

Washington (CNN)The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court insisted Thursday he will continue to resist efforts to implement same-sex marriage in his state, even if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage later this year.

Chief Justice Roy Moore likened an eventual U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage to the Dred Scott ruling and Plessy v. Ferguson, two 19th century Supreme Court rulings that upheld slavery and segregation, respectively.

"If it's an unlawful mandate you can refuse to mandate it. You can dissent to the United States Supreme Court," Moore said in a testy interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day." "I will follow the law as I interpret it."

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: alabama; americanhero; chriscuomo; cnn; demagogicparty; homosexualagenda; homosexualsraus; libertarians; medicalmarijuana; memebuilding; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; roymoore; samesexmarriage; ssm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last
To: JSDude1
Alabama Constitution

The governor shall be commander-in-chief of the militia and volunteer forces of this state, except when they shall be called into the service of the United States, and he may call out the same to execute the laws, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion, but need not command in person unless directed to do so by resolution of the legislature; and when acting in the service of the United States, he shall appoint his staff, and the legislature shall fix his rank.

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-245668.htm


Alabama Statute


Note the Alabama government website disclaimer:

While every effort was made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the unannotated Code of Alabama 1975, on Alison, the unannotated code is not official, and the state agencies preparing this website and the Alabama Legislature are not responsible for any errors or omissions which may be in the code on the website. Only the currently published volumes and cumulative supplements of the Code of Alabama 1975, as published by West Group as Code Publisher and adopted and incorporated into the Code of Alabama 1975 by Act 2011-236 contain the official version of the Code of Alabama 1975.

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/coalogin.asp

61 posted on 02/12/2015 5:58:30 PM PST by Ray76 (Obama says, "Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark's father was.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Yep. How in the hell did “Gay Marriage” ever become an issue anyway? 10 years ago it was unimaginable.

Simplistic. Because I’m a simple man. If I can marry my boyfriend, then why can’t I marry my sister?

Or, why can’t I marry my mother? Brother? Your 6 y.o daughter? Your 6 y.o son?

The possibilities are endless......Common sense and a couple of thousand years of precedent should count for something.


62 posted on 02/12/2015 6:21:30 PM PST by saleman (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1

some of us do have the guts.


63 posted on 02/12/2015 8:48:05 PM PST by Shadowstrike (Be polite, Be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

But the Alabama National Guard could simply refuse to be federalized. County sheriffs could unite to declare the order null and void.


64 posted on 02/13/2015 6:03:49 AM PST by GodAndCountryFirst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

As you note, in the last sentence of your post, the single REASON we have the problems we face today:

An oligarchy, encouraged and EMPOWERED, over the will of the People, by the Executive branch....IE: We are, and have not been, a Republic, let alone a Constitutional one, for a great many year....


65 posted on 02/13/2015 6:39:52 AM PST by i_robot73 ("A man chooses. A slave obeys." - Andrew Ryan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1
Maybe, but I prefer the older system where the “State Militia/National Guard” were accountable to the State Governors, not the US President, directly.

What "older system"? The President has had the power to take over the State Militia/ National Guard since 1789. Read the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 15, and Article II, section 2, clause 1. The first time a President used this power was when George Washington federalized the Pennsylvania Militia in 1794 to enforce the federal whiskey tax.

66 posted on 02/13/2015 10:04:51 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst
But the Alabama National Guard could simply refuse to be federalized.

...which would involve defying a direct order from their Commander-in-Chief. That has never happened, except when states seceded during the Civil War.

When President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to carry out a federal court's school desegregation order in 1957, he was afraid they wouldn't obey the order to be federalized, and he called up the 101st Airborne Division of the regular U.S. Army in case the Guard resisted, but the Guard followed federal orders.

67 posted on 02/13/2015 10:13:20 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

“...except when states seceded during the Civil War.”

And?


68 posted on 02/13/2015 11:08:49 AM PST by GodAndCountryFirst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: GodAndCountryFirst
Do you think this will lead to secession?

Personally, I don't.

69 posted on 02/13/2015 11:19:20 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

It could. If not this, then something else will.


70 posted on 02/13/2015 11:28:46 AM PST by GodAndCountryFirst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; All
As mentioned in related threads, the first Supreme Court case which tested 10th Amendment-protected state power to regulate marriage in the context of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protections Clause was Pace v. Alamama (Pace), 1883. The case concerned an interracial couple and was decided in the state’s favor.

The Pace opinion shows that while the Court acknowledged the better-known interpretation of the EPC from the point of view of law abiding citizens, the Court nonetheless properly ignored that aspect of the EPC since the states had never amended the Constitution to establish limits on the 10th Amendment-protected power of the states to regulate marriage.

But the Pace justices also borrowed language from a 14A-based federal Civil Rights Law to clarify the lesser-know criminal aspect of the EPC, indicating that it also protected criminals by providing the right to equal punishment for a given crime.

The counsel is undoubtedly correct in his view of the purpose of the clause of the amendment in question -- that it was to prevent hostile and discriminating state legislation against any person or class of persons. Equality of protection under the laws implies not only accessibility by each one, whatever his race, on the same terms with others to the courts of the country for the security of his person and property, but that in the administration of criminal justice, he shall not be subjected for the same offense to any greater or different punishment [emphasis added]. Such was the view of Congress in the reenactment of the Civil Rights Act of May 31, 1870, c. 114, after the adoption of the amendment. That act, after providing that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, declares, in sec. 16, that they shall be subject
”to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Pace v. Alabama, 1883 .

But regardless that the Court decided Pace in the state’s favor, a later generation of justices essentially overturned Pace for questionable reasons imo, reasons which will be addressed shortly.

At this point, readers should beware that activist justices had infiltrated the Supreme Court by the late 19th century imo, the Court really going into a tailspin with anti-state sovereignty interpretations of the Constitution after socialist FDR had “nuked” the Court with activist justices by the early 1940s.

Getting back to the Court overturning Pace when it decided McLaughlin v. Florida (McLaughlin) against the state in 1964 (OUCH), the McLaughlin opinion shows that justices had decided that the Pace Court had interpreted the EPC too “narrowly” with respect to interracial marriage, and I agree in principle.

However, it turns out that the federal civil rights law that the Pace Court had borrowed the “narrow” language from to clarify the criminal aspect of the EPC was actually authored by John Bingham who also happened to be the main author of Section 1 of 14A where the EPC is found. So by saying that the language in Pace concerning the EPC was too narrow, McLaughlin justices were arguably wrongly ignoring the intentions of constitutional lawmakers, particularly since state power to regulate marriage has never been constitutionally limited as previously mentioned.

In fact, Bingham had clarified in the congressional record on several occasions that 14A did not take away state rights.

Again, and noting that I am a product of the last half 20th century, I agree with the McLaughlin argument that EPC was interpreted too narrowly in Pace with respect to interracial marriage by today’s standards. But given that the language in Pace was actually borrowed from the pen of Bingham, the Court wrongly “fixed” what it perceived to be a constitutional problem by ignoring state sovereignty and politically amending the Constitution from the bench when it overturned the Pace decision imo.

As I’ve ranted elsewhere, the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate on the basis of issues which the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect. But we cannot allow institutionally indoctrinated activist justices to fix questionable laws which discriminate against constitutionally unchecked “rights” outside the framework of the Constitution.

71 posted on 02/14/2015 2:55:14 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

In his day, Jackson opposed the nullifiers.

I think he’d lead an armed rebellion against Obama though. I would have voted for Adams/Clay but Jackson was a cool guy.


72 posted on 02/14/2015 9:08:03 PM PST by Impy (They pull a knife, you pull a gun. That's the CHICAGO WAY, and that's how you beat the rats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

“This is all an effort to have gays declared a protected class and give them special “rights” not available to others.”

Exactly! Anyone who has any doubts about what is going on needs to think carefully and realize there are only two choices. Either our government is trying to turn morality and culture upside down or everything our ancestors believed was right was actually wrong. Personally I believe my ancestors were mortals, subject to error, but I DON’T believe they had EVERYTHING BASSACKWARDS! People who allow themselves to fall for the liberal garbage have simply given in to evil.


73 posted on 02/16/2015 6:47:40 PM PST by RipSawyer (OPM is the religion of the sheeple.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Finally, an official of a SOVEREIGN STATE (yes, the US CONSTITUTION codifies paralleled SOVEREIGNTY) has the stones to stand up to the FAGGOTS AND COMMUNISTS IN DC AND THE "FEDERAL JUDICIARY".

THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY TYRANTS (which by the way ARE NOT codified in the CONSTITUTION)are in for a Chavez like surprise the minute the hard RIGHT gets the power.

DEGENERATE FAGGOTS IN BLACK ROBES can still show up to their plush digs at the amazingly plentiful federal courthouses, but GOD willing the Right Wing will cancel their salaries, their staff, and their perks.

74 posted on 02/16/2015 7:07:41 PM PST by Rome2000 (SMASH THE CPUSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

God rules. He may allow rebellious tyrants delude themselves for a little while. But the earth is His foot stool.


75 posted on 02/16/2015 9:18:35 PM PST by Theophilus (Be as prolific as you are pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Enjoyed reading your comments.


76 posted on 02/17/2015 5:53:38 AM PST by LowOiL ("Abomination" sure sounds like "ObamaNation" to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson