Posted on 07/01/2015 2:31:14 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz are suggesting there might be ways for states and cities to nullify the justices’ ruling. They’re wrong.
The Supreme Court’s decision last week did make gay marriage legal nationwide. Unfortunately for social conservatives, it did not, however, make nullification legal around the nation.
Nullification is the historical idea that states can ignore federal laws, or pass laws that supercede them. This concept has a long but not especially honorable pedigree in U.S. history. Its origins date back to antebellum America, where Southern states tried to nullify tariffs and Northern states tried to nullify fugitive-slave laws. In the 1950s, after Brown v. Board of Education, some Southern states tried to pass laws to avoid integrating schools. It didn’t work, because nullification is not constitutional.
Yet futile hope springs eternal. Since the ruling, a handful of officials have suggested that states need not issue licenses for same-sex marriages. The two most notable voices are two Republican candidates for president, Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz.
Here’s Cruz, speaking to NPR:
"They cannot ignore a direct judicial order. The parties to a case cannot ignore a direct judicial order. But it does not mean that those who are not parties to case are bound by a judicial order ....
The entire premise of the decision on marriage was that in 1868, when the people of the United States ratified the 14th Amendment, that we were somehow silently and unawares striking down every marriage law across the country. That's a preposterous notion. That is not law. That is not even dressed up as law."
This is a little slippery to interpret—Cruz’s words are opaque, so that it’s unclear whether he’s actually arguing that officials should refuse to issue marriage licenses, or simply making an intellectual argument that they could.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Texas can.
The Bundy standoff didn't involve any governors either. Bundy's rights were defended by a group of stalwart patriots who saw that the fedgestapo stepping on HIS rights would inevitably lead to them stepping on everyone else's.
The same thing needs to happen the next time the fags force a bakery to whip up a poofter cake, or, Heaven forbid, they try to force a church into bankruptcy because they won't marry two pud-gummers. Then, when the local cops descend on the business to try to shutter it, they are met by armed militia who say "Not just No but HELL No!"
The bluff is called, and the gaystapo have one two choices: back down or escalate. And if they escalate, we start to go after not the cops who are just doing their jobs, but the fags who started the mess to begin with. And all their supporters and cheerleaders in the media.
They want a war? Let's give them one.
States MUST.
Interesting choice of photo’s ... Cowboy, Bearded, Texas flag wearing types .... because, Hey, Everybody’s Doing It.
As far as I am concerned, all laws at the state level banning same-sex marriage still stand. No court ruling can single handedly overturn them. Courts rule case by case and their cases may vary as to circumstances so their rulings may vary as well.
RE: This is a lie, and this whole screed is based on it.
Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts.
Well of course not. The federal courts are a body entirely different from the states.
The question then becomes this -— WHO and WHICH BODY in a state will propose and pass nullification?
I’d really like to see a few states band together to do this.
We’ll see who blinks first.
Others may get to a 2nd sentence, but I most certainly will not offer you more respect for that achievement.
Nullification is also based on jurisdiction.
Stop hating Obama just because he is black!
I said the day after the 2008 election that we had just witnessed a bloodless Coup d'état.
Yes, see 10th Article of Bill of Rights.
“I wish SOMEONE in our Congress would READ-UP ON CONGRESS AND SCOTUS authority!”
Our Senate leader is absolutely worthless.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3306564/posts
“The States that have their own marriage laws should band together and sue the Supreme Court. “
no, 38 states banding together do not need anything.
They can erase the Supreme Court, eliminate the President, and disband Congress.
Article V makes them the ultimate authority.
Plenty of precedent for that.
The same means that Eisenhower used in Arkansas a while back....
Best means to avoid issuing marriage licenses to gays is to stop issuing marriage licenses and performing marriages.
If you want to know how far this will go, all you need to do is read the law in Scotland or other places in the EU.
They force churches by force of law to marry anyone..
“Can States Ignore the Supreme Court on Gay Marriage?”
Of course states can ignore the federal fascist courts. Who or what will the fat pigs in DC send to enforce the ruling? Have you made a recent tour of any federal bureaucracy?
The neo-fascist federal bureaucracy is made up of fat, doughnut-munching, Affirmative action jellyfish. Do you think these crawling worms are willing to die on a hilltop for the glory of Obuma?
HELL NO! These slugs are not about to get up off their fat asses and play soldier against 100 million armed Americans.
So, back to the original question: Can States Ignore the Supreme Court on Gay Marriage?
Oh, hell yeh.
The state can give up on respecting marriage entirely.
When the term is expanded toward to much to be useful (expect everything from avowed single to cross species tribe including infrastructure and post facto declaratory unions), there is no point to recognize it at all. Some states have already begun exploring the option of vacation the term entirely.
Supersede. S-u-p-e-r-s-e-d-e.
It’s hard to take a writer seriously when they can’t go three sentences without a spelling blunder.
The unfortunate truth is if a ‘court’ can get away with welding this kind of power then there can be now rule of law in this county. So you ether try to ignore the edict or you give up on the idea of rule of law. At which point its do whatever you think you can get away with just as the lawless federal employees now do.
The only difference is we can act more quickly for there is but one group of them.
“The bluff is called, and the gaystapo have one two choices: back down or escalate. And if they escalate, we start to go after not the cops who are just doing their jobs, but the fags who started the mess to begin with. And all their supporters and cheerleaders in the media.”
There are hordes of queer-pressured dolts, but only a few thousand cheerleaders in the media. Funneling our resources into destroying the latter is a winning formula.
Take out their leaders, and the hordes of queer-pressured dolts would collapse and scatter like rats on a sinking ship.
Yes.
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.