Posted on 03/16/2017 12:26:54 PM PDT by drewh
A bill introduced into the Arkansas state House of Representatives would restore the traditional definition as the law in the Natural State.
State Representative Stephen Meeks is the author of House Bill 2098, which reads, “Marriage shall be only between a man and a woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex is void.“ Moreover, “It is the public policy of the State of Arkansas to recognize the marital union only of man and woman.”
Meeks’s measure enjoys the support of at least 19 co-sponsors (including one state senator) and, should it be enacted, the bill would block recognition of same-sex unions sanctioned in other states.
Several pseudo-constitutional experts have criticized the content of the bill, claiming that it violates the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” of Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
In this matter of fundamental Constitutional importance, it is crucial to understand precisely what the Full Faith and Credit act was and was not intended to do.
First, as a matter of indisputable historical record, states have occasionally refused to acknowledge marriages legally entered into in other states. According to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, states that have valid public policy exceptions to legal acts of other states do not have to recognize those acts.
Some argue that such exceptions would disrupt the smooth and unregulated movement of citizens from state to state without having to worry about whether or not they would have to re-marry if they moved from one state to another. This is an irrational fear for as the name of the qualification implies, the public policy exception is just that — an exception. The rule that a marriage entered into in one state would be valid in another would still apply, unless that marriage violated the declared public policy of the laws of the second state.
At various times in the history of our country states have refused to recognize marriages solemnized in sister states when those marriages violated community standards for reasons such as polygamy and consanguinity. Such refusals to legitimize all marriages entered into in other states have never, despite the fear-mongering of the homosexual lobby and its shills, restricted the free and frequent movement of Americans from one state to another.
There is an additional aspect of the Full Faith and Credit Clause that would protect states from being Constitutionally forced to give legal effect to homosexual unions contracted in other states: the text of the clause itself.
The exact wording of the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that states give “full faith and credit” to the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”
Marriages, strictly speaking, are not judicial acts, they are licensed acts and as such they do not fall under the Full Faith and Credit umbrella, any more than a license to practice law in one state guarantees that same right in a neighboring state.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause, then, does not require one state to validate a same-sex unions entered into in another, but actually protects it from having to do so. All of this without the need of a Constitutional amendment!
Understanding the Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, its intended purposes and limitations, removes the fear that the Full Faith and Credit Clause can be used legitimately as a tool for making homosexual “marriage” the law of the land. Such a use was never the intent of our Founding Fathers, and it violates two centuries of constitutional precedent and interpretation.
The Full Faith and Credit clause has generally worked smoothly and quietly and has not received the same level of judicial attention as more controversial provisions of the Constitution, such as the commerce clause, due process, equal protection, and the treaty-making power.
In a country whose climate is undeniably contrary to the Christian concept of the family, it will be equally undeniable that the Full Faith and Credit Clause will become the focus of more attention in the near future and indeed may, as the Commerce Clause before it, be twisted by a Supreme Court that habitually usurps power, legislates from the bench, and purposefully removes the fetters the Constitution places on its power.
If the Supreme Court takes this tack, it falls upon the Congress of the United States to exercise the authority given it in Article III of the Constitution to limit the jurisdiction of the courts to redefine marriage.
If history is any guide, however, Congress will once again fail to fulfill its constitutional duty and it will fall upon the states to stand as the ultimate barricade to “progress of the evil” of federal usurpation. Thus, Representative Meeks steps into the breach, fulfilling his constitutional duty.
Next, let’s consider the argument forwarded by other enemies of the Meeks bill that it is prima facie void since it fails to recognize the “ruling” of the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges. Regardless of the reasoning of five judges and the deference it’s given by the media and members of most state legislatures, lawmakers in Arkansas and her sister states are well within the boundaries of their retained authority to nullify Supreme Court attempts to define the terms of the contract we call the Constitution.
Our Founders understood this.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1819 that if a certain practice ever became status quo, our Constitution will have become a felo de se — a suicide pact. The practice he was warning about was judicial review, the idea that the courts have the final say on a law’s meaning and that their determinations must constrain all three branches of government.
Undeniably, judicial review has become status quo.
Does this mean, then, that we as a country will commit suicide?
Jefferson explained the problem with judicial review, writing:
For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this [judicial review] opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation.... The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.
The author of the Declaration of Independence also pointed out, correctly: “Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.” Have we not seen this truth on full display the past week, with the Court repeatedly proving itself to be merely a rubber stamp for a radical leftist agenda?
Summing up the profound danger of judicial review in 1820, Jefferson minced no words in calling it “a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
That oligarchy reigns.
Regarding the “Progressives” praise of judicial review, it’s appropriate to review the origin of this practice.
First, it’s not in the Constitution. It was not passed by Congress, signed by a president, or voted on by the people. Rather, it was declared to be a power the Court should have in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision.
In other words, the Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court ultimate-arbiter power, and decade after decade, decision after decision, the Supreme Court has exalted itself into a de facto oligarchy.
The execution of such a law would undoubtedly pit Arkansas against the federal government, a fight where — for the last century or so — the fix is in. But it wasn’t always this way. And the Constitution was certainly not intended to function in favor of the federal government.
States, as creators of the federal government, are the arbiters of the limits of the latter’s power, and forcing them to accept the definition of "marriage" to include same-sex unions certainly falls outside those limits.
One way that states can continue simultaneously supporting the Constitution and their own sovereignty is by nullifying the federal court’s extra-constitutional edict. The Arkansas bill would take that state along this constitutionally sound course.
What state Representative Meeks and his co-sponsors seem to understand is that all state legislators and other state officials (including attorneys general and governors) are duty-bound to refuse to enforce every act of the federal government that exceeds its constitutionally defined powers.
As James Madison explained in the Virginia Resolution of 1798:
In case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
Nullification recognizes that states retain the power to invalidate any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
[[I’m sorry, but this is far from Fraud by Court. When you don’t like a decision, work to get it reversed.]]
How does one go about that? Does it go to congress to rewrite the court case in such a way that the supreme court would have to take up the case again? I seriously doubt they will ever reverse their opinion (The SC I mean),
There is no delegation to the Federal government for their regulation of marriage, the power is reserved to the States.
The “equal protection” claim is bogus, no one has been denied equal protection of the law.
People can “define and express their identity” however they want, legal recognition of a group of persons is not required for any person to “define and express their identity” or to excersize their rights of association or their conjugal rights. Marriage laws do not in any way inhibit or infringe upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights.
Throughout history in every major society marriage has been between man and woman, or man and women. Now comes a novel definition. The advocates of this novel definition claim a right to legal recognition of their novel definition. There is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for any purpose.
For the Supreme Court of the United States to use the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause to claim jurisdiction they must first adopt a radical and novel definition of “marriage”
Once the radical and novel definition of “marriage” has been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States they may then make a legitimate claim of an equal protection issue, but not until they have adopted the radical and novel definition of “marriage” is there an equal protection issue.
Not until they have adopted the radical and novel definition of “marriage” may they have the fig leaf of jurisdiction thus paving the way for the subsequent illicit imposition of the radical and novel definition of “marriage”
This circular absurdity is nothing compared to the breathtaking arrogance of declaring what the law of each and all of the States shall be.
By declaring that homosexuals may, in each and every State, marry, the Supreme Court of the United States have made themselves a Super-Legislature of ALL the States collectively as a whole - a Branch of Government which does not exist under the U.S. Constitution!
Not only have the made themselves legislators, they have erected a fourth Branch of Government. A fourth Branch of Government which substitutes its legislation for that of each and all of the States.
They have legislated. They have intruded upon the independent sovereignty of the States. They have acted entirely outside the Constitution.
To conceal and “justify” their compound criminality they clothe it with an invented “fundamental right” where there is no such right.
EVERY STEP of this goose march of homo-Fascism has been marked by gross impropriety in the courts, from the 9th’s decision in California’s marriage amendment nullification, where there was proven communication collusion between the court and the Justice Department; to Judge Vaughn Walker’s 3-time spanking for impropriety in his handling of the case by the Supreme Court as well as his open conflict of interest in the case; to the failure of two clearly biased justices on the USSC to recuse themselves from the case.
NO ONE is obligated to live under the dictates arrive at under such a corruption-laden system. Maybe you are content to do so, but no patriot is. We launched a revolution over much less.
Mandatory? No. Only if the parties choose to adhere to the ruling. Yes, obvious, but we have seen under the Odumbo administration that you can actually “choose” not to obey the ruling on the law. The USSC opines (non-declaratory) on Congressional laws. The USSC can disagree, but that is IT! It is up to Congress to then recraft the law to abide the USSC ruling.
Whether its law or not,the states should refuse to comply with such an unholy,tyrannical abomination.
Why should a free citizen be obligated to give constitutional dignity to a court decision of unprecedented significance that itself cannot honestly be squared with the history and intent of the 14th Amendment?
Marbury? Please.
The Left puts honest people in bad places.
Obergefell is illicit. The outrageous behavior of Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan demands their impeachment.
Once upon a time, Dred Scott was the law of the land too.
Withdrew it?
Not arguing whether a court ruling on constitutionality is valid, just not that it creates a new “law”. I recall something about separation of powers. Courts rule on torts, criminal cases and “judicial oversight” per Marbury v Madison, but that is another issue.
When a court strikes down a law as being unconstitutional, it voids that law, it does not replace it with new language-am I wrong? I have bot seen court ruling added to my states statutes and I look quite often.n
As far as I am concerned, if it isn’t written in the statues, it isn’t a law. Case law is the bane of our liberty.
Post #7
“Whether its law or not,the states should refuse to comply with such an unholy,tyrannical abomination.”
Does the name Ft. Sumter ring a bell?
I am not arguing for the wisdom or correctness of the decision, just it’s national validity, and that is unassailable.
Good question.
It does whatever the court says it does. It may uphold a law, declare it unconstitutional, modify it in whole or part, declare only certain parts unconstitutional, order Eggs Benedict for two, etc,
Exactly.... and it was reversed by the will of the people, though their duly elected representatives.
They use the Full Faith and Credit Clause when it suits them. For DOMA, no. For my concealed carry permit, no.
Gay marriage? Yes. Immunity for illegal aliens? Yes.
I’m surprised the States haven’t tried to pass a bill essentially nullifying the worst parts of Obamacare by passing their own laws on the matter, and allowing their citizens to opt out of buying heath insurance under their own constitution, citing the 9th and 10th Amendments. Mandating HC isn’t a right reserved in the BOR, and you can only make the 14th’s penumbras and emanations extend so far.
Good question. First, get the judges who were on your side on the decision. Ask them, what were the other sides most telling arguments. Often courts will draw a road map in a decision as to how to fix the law.
Then find a way around the problematic parts. Remember, for each element of a public debate process, there is the other side who believes passionately that they are right. There is often middle ground. Often what they “need” may have little importance to what you want/need, and you could care less about what is important to them. When that happens, great, we all win.
Gay marriage is a classic example. Great issue; horrible tactics on our side. Had we been willing to create a category of relationship where gay couples would have received the same tax advantages as straight couples, jint property, etc, or something that was a huge issue for them, the ability for a “life partner” to make legally binding decisions such as pulling the plug on a terminally ill spouse, we probably could have pushed the actual marriage issue off for 20 years, possibly forever.
Remember, you do make peace with your enemies, not your friends!
Also, elect enough reps to pass a CA... and good luck on that.
“NO ONE is obligated to live under the dictates arrive at under such a corruption-laden system. Maybe you are content to do so, but no patriot is. We launched a revolution over much less.”
Although I agree with you personally on the ISSUE of gay marriage, it is settled law.
“NO ONE is obligated to live under the dictates arrive at under such a corruption-laden system.” Correct. You may work within the law to change the system.... or leave. Your choice. There is no door #3.
“Maybe you are content to do so, but no patriot is. We launched a revolution over much less.”
Correct. If you do so, you may die very bravely.... and equally quickly.
“At some point the game can’t continue.”
Totally correct.
Personally, my personal thoughts are not to far from shooting them all, putting Tony Soprano in charge, and holding all legislative meetings at The Badda-Bing!
You are making the classic 10th Amendment argument.
With one more judge on SCOTUS, especially one replacing Mrs. Ginsberg, it might finally fly.
In the real world however, there are no simple answers. Life, and 225 years, have forced changes in the foundational concepts that would need to be addressed.
Live would become VERY complex.
Enjoy your chains.
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.