Posted on 07/01/2015 11:59:35 AM PDT by ghost of stonewall jackson
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell concedes that there’s little congressional Republicans can do to fight the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide, though he predicted a flurry of litigation aimed at protecting “religious liberty” in light of the decision.
The Kentucky Republican has been a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage: He was one of just six Senate Republicans to sign an amicus brief urging the high court to reject federal protection of same-sex marriage. And though he reiterated to Kentucky TV station WDRB on Tuesday evening that his position has not changed, he also said there is little that conservative opponents can do about it.
“I’ve always felt that marriage is between one man and one woman and the Supreme Court has held otherwise. That’s the law of the land,” McConnell said. Asked if Congress can do anything, he replied: “I don’t think so. I think the courts have pretty well spoken.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
IF I HEAR ONE MORE MEALY-MOUTHED SPINELESS, GUTLESS, COJONESLESS BLOB OF PROTOPLASM EXCUSE THEMSELVES WITH “IT’S THE LAW OF THE LAND”, I’M GOING TO EXPLODE. IMPEACH, DEFUND, OVERRULE, ANYTHING BUT DO NOTHING. SILENCE IS CONSENT.
Dred Scott was the Law of the Land; that did not deter John Brown or the other abolitionists nor did it prevent a civil war.
Immigration Laws are the Law of the Land but it doesn’t stop the half breed from breaking them.
He wouldn’t know what to do even if he did.
'In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result which was intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it.
The Constitution, like a contract between private parties, must be read in the light of the circumstances which surrounded those who made it .... A change in the popular use of any word employed in the Constitution cannot retroact upon the Constitution, either to enlarge or limit its provisions.'"
http://www.14th-amendment.com/Historical_Documents/Congressional_Globe/14th_15th_Amendments/Congressional_Globe.pdf
Translation: We don’t want people to say bad things about us—Besides, we’re afraid of queers—So we’re not going to do anything.
An amendment would be a sham. Even if Congress put it to the states, you wouldn’t get 3/4 of the legislatures to agree. So it would be just like the balanced budget amendment and the right to life amendment, something pols can say they support to placate the base without actually doing anything.
There is another legislative option though. Under Article III scotus’ appeals power I subject to “such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Congress can include language in any bill it passes to prevent scotus from ruling on the constitutionality of the bill, and attach criminal penalties to any judge who tries to do so. Or they could pass a bill requiring scotus to get prior approval from Congress before hearing any appeal on the constitutionality of a bill.
It would of course require both houses, the presidency, and some balls to pass such a law.
This rectal itch is one of our “leaders”?
If Obamacare could be pushed through, with enough pressure, a marriage amendment most certainly could. It would require a gargantuan education campaign with the best minds available working non-stop to present the reasonableness of exclusive marriage to the people of the states, along with the horrific fallout of redefining marriage (and there is a LOT more of this than anyone is willing to admit.)
“Can’t” only means WON’T. They can if they want to.
More specifically, regardless that activist justices have bluffed that the 14th Amendment requires the states to respect gay marriages from other states, McConnell is ignoring that Congress had already exercised its constitutional authority of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Section 1 of Article IV, to clarify that the states do not have to respect gay marriages of other states. This is evidenced by Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which is evidently still in effect regardless that the corrupt media wants everybody to think that the Supreme Court ruled DOMA unconstitutional.
DOMA:
This Act may be cited as the “Defense of Marriage Act”.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and activist justices along with it.
Asshat!
Obamacare is a bill, not a constitutional amendment. The Dems would not have had the 2/3 of both houses they would have needed, let alone the 3/4 of the state legislatures. So you make my point. If you want to do something about it, work on a bill exercising congress’ constitutional authority to regulate the power of scotus. IMHO that even more important than same sex marriage itself.
Like I said, anyone can say “I support the xxx amendment”, which means they will do nothing about it. But people like you will cheer and be placated.
ping
What a shock. Yertle caves in.
The Supreme Court has denied the existence of the Tenth Amendment. Fine. Constitutional amendment time, concurrent with some long-overdue impeachments.
Of course, impeachments start in the House so someone has to tell The Orange Man to grow a set as well.
As long as I’m dreaming, I’d like a pony.
And you would be dead wrong. I never "cheer" when people break their election promises. I work to vote them out of office.
I don’t know what you mean by breaking election promises. You just said they should push a constitutional amendment. If that’s what they promise it means they can do so without it actually accomplishing anything, as opposed to a bill which might actually be possible. If Boneless and Myrtle put an amendment up for votes today it wouldn’t pass, and they could claim to have tried. They couldn’t get a bill to pass now either, but might be able to in the future. It would at least have a little better chance.
The 14th Amendment equal protection clause applies to “any person”, singular.
Marriage involves two people.
States will act if we tell our legislators to apply to Congress for a Constitutional convention.
"The Congress...on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
which...shall be valid...
when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States...."
We could certainly get this one ratified:
1. Marriage may only exist between a man and a woman.
They could also put federal tax caps on.
Write and call your state legislators and ask them to apply to Congress for a Convention, which Congress is mandated to call if enough states' legislatures apply.
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.