Posted on 03/03/2015 5:47:51 PM PST by GIdget2004
Declaring defeat is no way to go about achieving victory.
Never said anything about being defeated, just stated that some liberal federal judge will overrule the current legal order.
It is like I said something that was controversial, we all know what I said is inevitable. Doesn’t mean I agree, just stating the obvious.
That is emphatically incorrect - Principles of constitutionalism: federalism as a check on federal power
I'll do you one better than that - Baker v. Nelson, a case in 1971 in which two sodomites in Minnesota sued the state when it refused to issue them a marriage license. They lost their case at the state level and then appealed to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS received this case on mandatory appellate review, but refused to hear the case on the basis that there was no "substantial federal question." This is important because the fact that it was rejected on mandatory appeal means that they just punted the case, but that they were essentially rejecting the appeal on its merits - i.e. making a decision about the case.
They said that there was no federal question, essentially affirming that marriage is a state issue, and ONLY a state issue. This case also qualifies as a substantial ruling by the court, meaning that it is (in theory) controlling on all lower federal courts. In other words, all lower federal courts ought to be refusing to even rule on gay marriage challenges because they have ALREADY been overruled by the SCOTUS. There is no federal case for gay marriage supporters to make as it has already been rejected in 1971, and that is still where the matter sits.
Bttt
Oops, meant to say "they HAD NOT just punted the case..."
Amen!
“The Supreme Court of Alabama has ordered the state’s probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in the latest development in a fierce battle over the power of federal law.
In its ruling on Tuesday evening, the all-Republican court said a previous federal ruling stating that banning same-sex marriage violates the US Constitution does not prevent it from following state law.
In Alabama, marriage has been legally defined as the union of only one man and one woman for two centuries, it said, siding with an argument recently offered by a pair of conservative organizations.
‘Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty’, the court added.”......
Nice when judges do it - will be real progress when Governors, with the aid of Sheriffs, start telling the Feds to go away.
Ping for later reading.
Show me in the Constitution where marriage is a Federal issue! As a matter of fact, the reason DOMA was overturned by the Supreme Court was because marriage is NOT a Federal issue!
DUH!!
I mentioned how they have the same rights as us and can marry the opposite sex like us and we can’t marry he same sex just like them.
The woman was losing it and said to me that there is not the same equal rights bla bla.
the more I pressed her the more she just rolled her eyes and could not answer the question
U ended it with could I marry 3 women if there is no equality for polygamy.
She said it’s not the same and stormed off.LOL.
They have nice slogans but sure as hell can’t answer a question when they are forced to think about their slogans.
I don’t know why our side can’t argue these points along with where in the Constitution does it state you have a right?
That puts the judges to the law and not their agenda.
It doesn’t seem to me that Alabama is in any mood to obey that judge.
Good. Stand your ground Alabama regardless of what the outlaw feds do. You have every constitutional right to ban same-sex marriages in your state and the feds have no constitutional right to do anything about it. Marriage and MOST of what the feds are meddling in are not enumerated powers the Constitution has delegated to the feds. The feds interference with marriage is unconstitutional and illegal.
In which case maybe it’s time for some states to stand up against oppression and rethink this imperfect union.
God Bless Alabama.
The federal government is not our King and it is NOT our GOD.
Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.”
An essential presumption of the Constitution is, as the Declaration of Independence says, individuals are “endowed by their Creator [not by government] with certain inalienable rights.” The Constitution is pointed directly at the federal government which it both creates and limits. The ONLY power and right the feds have is from the Constitution - powers delegated to the feds BY the STATES and THE PEOPLE via the Constitution and LIMITED to what is enumerated therein as confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
On the other hand, the Constitution does not enumerate the rights and powers of private individuals because they are presumed in place as God given. Again, the Constitution wasn’t created to define or spell out individual or states rights - it was created to form and LIMIT the federal government.
Although the first ten amendments are commonly called “The Bill of Rights”, they really are not. (The Soviet Constitution has a huge Bill of Rights listing hundreds of rights which the government both grants and suspends at will - not so in America.) The first ten amendments are a sampling of rights and powers already belonging to states and individuals as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments confirm. Notice the language in those amendments: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom, shall not infringed...the right of the people shall not be violated...” These are sampling of rights the states and people already have that the feds cannot violate. They were put there because the Anti-Federalists wouldn’t have ratified the Constitution without something that expressly told the feds “hands off” individual rights if not an enumerated federal power. Again, all of this is confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The legal issue with “gay marriage” (an oxymoron like “gay rights”) is the feds have no constitutional right to do anything about it. Marriage and MOST of what the feds are meddling in are not enumerated powers the Constitution has delegated to the feds. The feds interference with marriage is unconstitutional and illegal. Marriage and gay marriage is a states’ issue and the people of each state have the right to decide how the state will handle it (including the option if the vote of the people of the state so decide, to take marriage out of the state government’s hands altogether and make marriage purely private affair).
When the feds nullify the Constitution by ignoring it and the limits it places on the feds, then the states have the DUTY and constitutional right to ignore and nullify unconstitutional federal acts. Alabama should stand its ground and do just that if necessary.
Too complex. The constitution is not a contract (I once had that opinion), a contract requires two parties and consideration. The Federal government did not exist until the ratification of the Constitution and the considerations are intangible.
Rather, the Constitution is a treaty amongst the States — changed with the 17th amendment when the States castrated themselves and federalized the nation.
Repercussions from the 17th amendment include not being able to pass DHS defunding for Executive Amnesty — and executive over reach as serious as any other.
I’m in the presence of greatness. Beautiful summation.
a) The national government did exist before the Constitution of 1789 under the Articles of Confederation (as did the Army, Navy and Marine Corps). The Articles, btw, are articles of perpetual union.
b) The Constitution did not take effect simply as a treaty among the states, as did the Articles. Instead, the states agreed to be bound by the outcome of special elections that chose representatives to a Federal Convention (much like the Electoral College). This gives the national government legitimacy stemming indirectly from the people and not just the state governments. It's a real national government.
c) Agree about the 17th Amendment-- the Senate was originally conceived of as a creature of the state governments. Now we have a collection of corrupt blowhards who are semi-national Federal officials almost impossible to remove from power once elected.
d) The primary issue regarding "gay marriage" is the complete abuse of the notion of substantial due process by the Federal courts, who more and more openly use that concept as a means of ramming their preferred political choices down everyone's throats. The only solution to this problem is either impeachment of the offending judges (including those on the SCOTUS) or (my preferred choice) Constitutional amendments allowing the Congress and the states to nullify court decisions.
Well the Constitution is the Law of the Land (Art VI, Sec 2, Supremacy Clause) whether you see it as a contract or not, with or without the 17th Amendment. The 17th Amendment does not overturn the Supremacy Clause.
The Constitution is the only legal bulwark of freedom against the tyranny of limited federal government power.
If the Constitution doesn’t delegate the power to the feds by a good-faith reading of the text and original understanding and intent of the ratifiers, then it is not a legitimate federal power. Most federal activity these days is unconstitutional.
The Constitution along with America, was handed over to the American People. As oft quoted, Benjamin Franklin coming out of the constitutional convention famously responded to a question, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” with the response, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
This is the very heart of the issue. It is not too complex, but something we must learn, keep, and guard with “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
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.