Another Dred Scott Ruling?

Townhall.com ^ | March 12, 2015 | Ken Blackwell

[Kaslin]

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to consider whether to overturn the marriage laws of all the states—as some activist federal judges have already done in some of the states--conservatives are naturally calling for judicial restraint. We must warn the court against another exercise of “raw judicial power” like that handed down with its infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. That cruel and unjust ruling is viewed as illegitimate by tens of millions of Americans. Young people, especially, are turning against abortion-on-demand. We see this in every pro-life march. And this public outcry is being translated into a bumper crop of pro-life legislation bubbling up in state legislatures.

The lethal Roe v. Wade ruling did serious harm to the Supreme Court’s reputation. Now, the Court may once again overstep its authority. The justices are being asked not merely to redefine marriage, but to end it. That is because once marriage is no longer recognized as the union of one man and one woman, there is no legal or logical stopping point.

The radical theorists who signed on to www.beyondmarriage.org know this. That’s why they want to rip marriage from its traditional place in society and replace it with a fluid and ever-changing set of relationships. These radicals say in their “Beyond Marriage” manifesto that any number of consenting adults should have legal custody of any number of children.

I believe the Court may be headed for more than a Roe II ruling. It is also headed for another Dred Scott opinion. That 1857 ruling of the Supreme Court said it was legal to take slaves from slave states into free territories and the slaves would remain slaves.

This Supreme Court ruling caused an uproar in the country and endangered the rights of Americans in the free states. It spurred the growth of the new anti-slavery party, the Republicans. It brought Abraham Lincoln new prominence in the state of Illinois and the nation.

When Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote his Dred Scott opinion, he falsified U.S. history. He tried to argue that Negroes were never a part of the political community that had ratified the Constitution. Thus, Taney maintained, black Americans were excluded from the famous words of the Constitution’s Preamble: “We the People” (We see echoes of Taney’s flawed reasoning in President Obama’s bitter complaint that he could not have entered the front door of the Constitutional Convention.)

No, Lincoln said. He quoted Mr. Justice Curtis’ dissent in Dred Scott. Black Americans were indeed a part of the political community that authorized the Constitution. Blacks were voters in five of the original thirteen states that voted to ratify the Constitution. Known then as free Negroes, these Americans, Lincoln maintained, “in proportion to their numbers had the same part in making the Constitution that white people had.”

President Lincoln and many others knew the so-called 3/5 compromise was more than a political equation, they knew it was an affront to the

"Laws of Nature and Nature's God".

Lincoln protested against the injustice of the Dred Scott ruling, to be sure. But he also challenged the factual basis of this deeply flawed ruling.

President Obama went to Selma, Alabama recently to commemorate the massive 1965 demonstration there led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That demonstration demanded voting rights for Black Americans. We should remember Selma and the “Bloody Sunday” that was necessary to achieve the too-long-denied equal voting rights for all our citizens.

Today, rogue federal judges are engaged in the most massive case of voter suppression we have seen since the days of Jim Crow! Across the country, but especially in the South, black Americans joined other citizens in voting to affirm true marriage. They helped place protections for natural marriage in their state constitutions. In Alabama, an astonishing 81% voted for marriage. This may have been the highest vote of blacks and whites united on any political issue in the state’s history.

All of that is being negated by unelected judges who arrogate to themselves the right to dismiss the votes of hundreds of thousands of black, white, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian voters who in state after state went to the polls to defend marriage.

Nor is this just a Southern issue. In Wisconsin in 2006—a banner year for Rep. Nancy Pelosi and her fellow progressives—fully 59% of Badger State voters affirmed true marriage. In that Northern state, that home of Progressivism, black voters and other minorities provided the winning margin for marriage.

This is what the Supreme Court threatens in its latest entry into legislating from the bench. If the Court overturns marriage, it will not only further de-legitimize itself as an institution, it will gravely damage American society. And it will undermine the “consent of the governed”—the only basis for just laws.

[Vendome]

Then they’ll contrive a “Plessy v. Ferguson” of sorts over bathrooms, clothing, ladies night any thing or word that has gender specific elements.

[Individual Rights in NJ]

Let them. They can make themselves a laughing stock if they want.

Real civilization tends to find a light to grow into. People won’t stop using pronouns and they won’t stop labeling things that make sense.

Only gov. offices and large corporations will and people will hoot and holler and deride them. Bad move if you want to control the plebs. Once you are a laughing stock it is over before it begins.

[Uncle Miltie]

"once marriage is no longer recognized as the union of one man and one woman, there is no legal or logical stopping point"

I want to marry my mother, son, dog and this here banana.

Why not?

[Night Hides Not]

Then they’ll contrive a “Plessy v. Ferguson” of sorts over bathrooms, clothing, ladies night any thing or word that has gender specific elements.

To be followed with a Korematsu inspired camps for Tea Partiers..

[Vendome]

Just need a few Potemkin incidents and voila!

[Wally_Kalbacken]

There will be an enormous number of complications from the tax code in dealing with these new "relationships". Think of the example of an elderly widower, competent but suffering a terminal illness. As he contemplates his estate plan, he realizes that by marrying his grandson, he can pass a much larger part of the estate to him (as surviving spouse, rather than exposing his estate to a generation skipping tax.) The tax code, as perverse as it is, was written by normal people, contemplating the lives of other normal people/generations/relationships. Bombs away!

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article Kaslin. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

What is the big deal concerning the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting gay marriage? I think that the corrupt judicial system is trying to promote gay marriage by taking advantage of low-information voters who have never been taught about 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus constitutionally unprotected “rights."

Politically correct interpretations of the 14th Amendment’s (14A) Equal Protections Clause (EPC) by pro-gay activist judges aside, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights, gay marriage in this case, there is nothing in the Constitution stopping the states from prohibiting gay marriage.

Regarding PC interpretations of the EPC, activist judges are ignoring that the Supreme Court has historically clarified that the 14A did not add new protections to the Constitution. It only strengthens those protections which the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.

“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

In fact, the Court’s statement reflect’s the official clarification of John Bingham in the congressional record, Bingham having been the main author of Section 1 of 14A where the EPC is found.

“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)

Again, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay “rights,” the corrupt judicial system has no constitutionally enumerated gay protections to apply to the states via 14A to stop the states from prohibiting gay marriage.

In other words, corrupt judges are trying to take advantage of widespread ignorance of the Constitution by wrongly trying to establish gay “rights” outside the framework of the Constitution.

[madprof98]

I wish I thought he were right. Instead, I expect the end of marriage to be greeted with an indifferent shrub—among those who even bother to notice and aren’t joining in the celebration.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The courts just wants to show once again how all-powerful they are and that they are themselves the only constitution.

[bkopto]

As he contemplates his estate plan, he realizes that by marrying his grandson, he can pass a much larger part of the estate to him

I love that: political jiujitsu against the .gov tyrants. However, when it comes to getting between the .gov and its perceived money, I doubt that anyone would get away with that maneuver. My idea for a tax free wealth transfer would be to convert all assets to bitcoin and give the private keys to whomever you want. Screw you feds.

[Amendment10]

"The courts just wants to show once again how all-powerful they are and that they are themselves the only constitution."

Thanks for clarification. /FRiendly sarcasm

[lentulusgracchus]

I want to marry my mother, son, dog and this here banana. Why not?

Miltie, you are just one fun guy. Can I come over to your house? Got cold wine? I'll bring a nice Wensleydale, and your mom can bring water crackers.