I'm not calling the Founders the Supreme Soviet, I'm calling the lawless Supreme Court the Supreme Soviet because that is how they act.
Do you actually think that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States" means the Supreme Court, or that the Supreme Court actually writes laws?
Show me in that Constitution to which you refer just where it gives authority to the Supreme Court to amend the Constitution in violation of Article V, or violate or Amendment 10 of that Constitution, 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, or where it explicitly gives them jurisdiction over marriage, or power to invert the meaning of the word, or to rewrite natural law, or to amend or annul State Constitutions, all of which they apparently think are within their powers.
Had the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment the slightest inkling that it would make inevitable the imposition of “gay marriage,” they would have either scrapped it altogether or written in it a clause safeguarding against such abuse. Had the legislators in both Houses of the U.S. Congress and the legislators of the states had any notion that the Fourteenth Amendment would make same-sex marriage inevitable they would surely have voted against it.
Robert A. J. Gagnon - HOW THE SUPREME COURT ABOLISHED ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION
Nice post. This is a very big deal, the Supreme Court really stepped in it this time. There are a lot of people willing to defend this clerk and defy the federal government on this issue. I hope Huckabee rally draws tens of thousand next Tuesday.
Had the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment the slightest inkling that it would make inevitable the imposition of “gay marriage,” they would have either scrapped it altogether or written in it a clause safeguarding against such abuse. Had the legislators in both Houses of the U.S. Congress and the legislators of the states had any notion that the Fourteenth Amendment would make same-sex marriage inevitable they would surely have voted against it.
Robert A. J. Gagnon - HOW THE SUPREME COURT ABOLISHED ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION
It’s like naming specific children in a will. And then, you have another child. And you forget to update your will. You die with a ten million dollar life insurance payout. Guess who is out of the running!
Lesson learned.
The SCOTUS’ power of judicial review means they apply the constitution and federal laws to state actors. So, if SCOTUS determines a state law or practice violates the federal constitution, the supremacy clause means that the constitution trumps that law or practice.
Current jurisprudence interpreting the constitution is that treating homosexual couples seeking a marriage license differently than heterosexual couples violates federal constitutional rights. It’s the wrong answer, but that’s what SCOTUS held.
If you don’t like it, the answer isn’t to throw a temper tantrum and stop obeying the law, it’s to get the law changed by winning presidential and senate elections and getting conservatives appointed to the bench.
Of course the framers of the 14th amendment didn’t think it would lead to gay rights. That is the primary reason Obergefell was wrongly decided. But a wrongly-decided supreme court decision is still binding law until you can use the political process to get it changed.
It’s fine to say SCOTUS can’t rewrite “natural law”, but you can’t run a government on principles of natural law which reasonable people are going to disagree with. You give a veto to everyone who disagrees with a decision on moral or natural law grounds, and the country becomes ungovernable within a month, which would sound appealing except i’m not a libertarian.