“Well, no. Actually, courts rulings do not become law, they can only strike down existing laws or policy.”
Well, no. Actually. A court ruling is a court ruling and observation thereof is mandatory, like or not. They are not limited to constraining orders.
A classic example: We enjoy Freedom of the Press. But the Constitution does not guarantee freedom of Radio, or TV, or the Internet. We enjoy those freedoms because SCOTUS decided the Framer’s intent was really “Freedom of the Media.” Back when the USC was adopted, the primary “media” was “The Press.” Now, that expanded freedom gives us the guarantee JR can operate FR, even though no “press” is involved.
Your TN/KY example is perfectly on point: Law or not, marriage license applicants, after the called-for fees, ceremony, etc, are legally married.
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.
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.