Posted on 07/21/2015 3:17:00 AM PDT by markomalley
What to do when a Supreme Court Ruling violates the Constitution? This question should never have to be asked, because judges swear an oath to perform their duties “under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." But what if a judge ignores the Constitution when ruling? Let's examine this with respect to marriage.
What does the Constitution state on marriage? A word search will confirm that “marriage” does not appear in the constitutional text. Article I lists numerous powers granted to Congress. Defining marriage is not among them. Therefore, logical reading of the Constitution places that power at state level per the 10th Amendment.
Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Obviously some current judges are not logical in their judicial rulings. The judges attempting to legalize homosexual marriage refer to the 14th Amendment in their arguments. This was ratified post Civil War to stop southern state governments from depriving black Americans of their constitutional rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
What can change this decision? We found something under Article III, Section 2: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Article III, Section 2, Clause 2
So, could Congress conceivably/theoretically do something to "override" this decision? Or could it only do something along the lines of, "ok..but GOING FORWARD...it has to be x,y,z"?
Again, my 8th grade Civics class was a loooooong time ago, and I didn't pay much attention, anyway. :P I would appreciate enlightenment/thoughts from others way more savvy and knowledgeable than I to help me figure out what happened on June 26th. Because, ignorant as I am, even *I* thought, "wait...shouldn't that be a State issue?"
thanks.
It’s all in the, “penumbras and emanations” clause.
No.
No. Not even Texas.
As well as the “living document clause”.
The problem with your logic is that the Constitution was not written to apply to the states.
There is an inherent conflict between the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, one of which says that not all rights have to be listed and the second gives the states wide powers to deal with anything not listed. That’s fine, until those states are bound by the same Constitution. Now states are prohibited from infringing on the many unenumerated rights, regardless of their original ability to do so under the Tenth. The Ninth now rules supreme and unchecked.
That's what Brennan and the Supremes "evolved" during the 20th century, but it's nowhere in the Constitution, so it's legally meaningless. And nonsensical on its face, actually, since it contradicts the 10th, plus the entire burden of the powers as they're described in the rest of the USC.
In other words, if something is supposed to be so because the USSC says it is—while going outside the document that gives it any authority at all—it's not so.
Settling the issue in the physical world becomes a matter of money and guns, but there is no other route to take. Following the USSC on their whimsy because they say so leads nowhere, because they don't have a plan, and it's not even their job to have one.
It wasn’t the 20th Century; it was 1868. That’s when States’ Rights officially died, and when the 10th Amendment became subordinate to the Ninth.
We can decry this result, but we can’t pretend it came completely out of the ether. Once unenumerated rights became more important than the ability of states to implement their own policy, the groundwork was laid for precisely this.
“We ought to obey God,rather than men...” Truth told in Court by Peter and the other Apostles.Acts 5:29 see also Acts 4:) “Friendship with the world is enmity with God” I seem to recall written elsewhere. And the Apostle Paul wrote sage advice when he strongly put it “Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers...” To the church of God at Corinth.
It matters little to me what the State divorced from God does—or does not do. Jesus-that Rabbi from Nazareth called Christ by His own -themselves first called Christians at Antioch defined “marriage” to the Pharisee
as written in the Gospels according to Mark And Matthew. And both suggest He spoke of Genesis 1:27; and 2:24.
Under American Law from 1791 when Justice James Wilson taught American Law until 2003 when the state of Mass. led this current bloodless? revolution No State allowed any person Marry someone of the same sex. Human law reflected the Laws dictated by God in this. IF Any State were to do the right thin and refuse to recognize as legally married any same sex couple— or any palimony.
It would be nice.But even as it appears I cannot recognize as legal the Court opinion— nor the redefinition of Marriage.
The Constitution now says whatever the hell 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices currently want it to say. We are ruled be an oligarchy of 5 unelected kings.
A lot of folks smarter than me don't agree that the whole package of silly was contained in the 14th Amendment, partly because if facially was about "servitude" and nothing else. But on a more practical note, none of that Brennan cr@p happened in 1868, or 1878, or . . . because it would have made no sense to anyone. It happened when it did—I guess it began with Frankfurter—because it was connected to the world socialist movement that was being spread about in the 1890s and following. So screw it. It had nothing to do with the Constitution, before or after 1868.
This may be where the money and guns come in. But the point is, they're going to come in one way or the other. When you fold your cards on subsidiarity (States' Rights being an example), you have tyranny. That's not a goal. That's an obstacle.
The argument could be made for the 20th Century, but that would be Taft in 1925, holding that states were bound by the Constitution as much as the Feds were. Once that happened, the 10th Amendment became largely moot, and states’ rights were killed for good.
History shows that there is no such thing as "for good." This is true both for good and for ill. I believe our goals must reflect the reality that the rights and privileges of governing entities and citizens are always in flux. The interpretation even of clearly written Constitutional principles is heavily influenced by changes in power relationships among the entities. These are affected by communications technology, weapons technology (especially the scale of weapons), economics, and ideas.
To take one example, a corrupt US central government is currently trying to seize all power over every action of the citizens using the centralizing of data and the direct dispatch of Federal police powers to enforce an ever-evolving Federal ideology. But some would argue that government by data is only as strong as data security, and is inversely proportional to the power of private encryption.
Similarly, Federal policing effectiveness is inversely proportional the data capabilities and deadly force available to regions, states, local entities, or individuals. Technologies of all kinds prove to be advantageous to centralizing forces in one era, only to become a weapon in the hands of de-centralizing entities a short time later—simply because of tweaks in engineering or in philosophical attitudes.
It is our job to see that regions, states, localities, and individuals aggressively secure and protect their rights—simply because it is the best and most just way to govern and be governed. The most powerful weapon will probably be the one the Founders used: continually training the influential members of society in what history shows us about the effects of different political systems.
Does the word “slavery” appear in the Constitution?
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.