Newsflash:
the federal government lords over everything and everybody in America.
Thank you for posting. Very informative.....
Caught in a bit of a Catch-22 ..
Gubamint derives its power from the people who consent to its rule..
Naturally all things corrupt in time when exposed to pressure and forces seemingly irresistible but also inherently destructive..
The essence of good gubernance is lost in a quest for feigned stability.
Eventually, the ship of state flounders and comes to rest on the shoals of time..
a wreck .. with few if any survivors..
It is my understanding after reading the ruling earlier that this is now sent BACK to the DISTRICT COURT for them to issue a final ruling.
ALL States can tell the Inferior Court to go POUND SAND:
Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).
Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.
Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
The duties not enumerated in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government belong to the states, according to the Tenth Amendment. Nowhere is the regulation of marriage given to the federal government. The recent SCOTUS ruling is wrong and should be ignored by the states. Go back to the Constitution and weed out any laws or agencies that are not designated as duties of the federal government.
Laws or court opinions that violate the laws of nature and nature’s God or the Constitution are null and void. In other words, they must be considered not to exist.
The ultimate check and balance within government, at every level, in every branch, is the moral, religious obligation understood and felt by every man and woman of character who take the required sacred oath of office to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.
BUMP!
It’s my understanding that there were only 11 states that had “same sex marriage” based on a law passed by the state legislature or by a statewide ballot vote.
The other 25 or so states that had same sex marriage were as a result of judicial rulings. I’d be interested to know how many of those judicial rulings were made by judges that were actually voted into office and not appointed.
The ruling by SCOTUS is wrong and has nothing to do with the 14th amendment.
Ping
Bookmark for later reading.
If so called sanctuary cities can ignore the law why not the rest of us?? Heck, if el presidente and the hildebeast can why can’t we??
Butt Butt Butt!
But Bobby Jindull said it’s now the law of the land?
Bookmark
Try not baking a cake for sodomites and see what happens.
If “sanctuary cities” can ignore federal law, why shouldn’t states?
Bookmark For Later Read...BFLR
bookmark
later cogitation
book marked
This is kinda what Ted Cruz is saying- He’s suggesting states do NOT have to comply because those states were NOT listed in the lawsuit brought before the supreme court, and only the state that brought the lawsuit must comply-
He knows the law better but he told Katie Couric that states are NOT legally obligated to abide by the law- Katie was flabberghasted, no doubt thinking she had something major on Ted now- but Ted knows law inside and out, and no doubt knows the federal government can NOT enforce the two unconstitutional laws nationally for the reasons he cited