Too Late!
Who will go to prison next?
Who will take up arms and make the case for martial law?
Obama salivates, and awaits our response.
It's Tyranny my good man.
Where are our prospective candidates?
I hope they come to address the cause soon.
Posted on 09/05/2015 2:51:59 PM PDT by djf
Guess what, folks?
The case of Obergfell V. Hodges that the Supreme Court ruled on?
Here is an exact quote from the United States Constitution that talks about the judicial power:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Now, is this a case "arising under this Constitution..."
No.
Does it affect ambassadors or public ministers?
No.
Is it a case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction?
No.
Is it a case where the United States is a party?
No.
Is it between two or more states?
No.
Is it between states and a citizen of a different state?
No.
Is it between citizens of different states?
No.
Is it between two or more citizens of the same state claiming land under a grant?
No.
Is it between a citizen or a state and a foreign country?
No.
Nothing left over! The court had no jurisdiction to even hear the case!
[[Great! Now we need a Governor of any state (name yours) to say, “The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over this case. The decision is therefore null and void in the state of _____ and will not be enforced.”]]
They shouldn’t even have to be declaring that- it should be a given. It’s amazing that one unjust illegal ‘law’ has put every state o n the defensive all of a sudden, when it is the SC and the president who should be defending THEIR illegal decisions
You really need to appeal to the gutless Governors that fail to assert their constitutional authority.
Of course it does. The answer is "no, it does not violate the Equal Protection Clause," but the Court has to have jurisdiction in order to give that answer.
THAT is the ticket- it’s like the story of the Emperor’s new clothes. He got away with it as long as no one would step up and say he had no clothes on.
It’s just a big bluff - and as long as state governors, legislatures, etc go along with it the oligarchy keeps it’s power of subjugation. All we need are a few states to say - enough - you have no jurisdiction here, void it and ignore. What should have been done in Roe V. Wade too.
Then let’s just see them try to enforce it!
Great! Now we need a Governor of any state (name yours) to say, “The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over this case. The decision is therefore null and void in the state of _____ and will not be enforced.”
I know people want to prevent this and we are the majority, yet this is unstoppable! All nations end, it is the nature of change. Once England ruled the world and were the guarantors of justice and freedom, no longer. So shall it be with the USA, whether from within or without the nation shall be no more some day, latter rather than sooner I hope, but so shall it be. What will rise from it’s ashes is what concerns me, something better I hope, but I fear worse much worse!
You might want to dig up Democrat George Wallace and ask him how that works out.
Spoiler: not well.
the corruption within the supreme court has at least two causes:
(1) the acquiesence of the people, states and other branches of gov’t to the corruption of judicial review, which is not an explicit power given the court. this power derives from weak human nature. the nature of a man who doesn’t really want the responsibility to faithfully judge between two parties *under* or subservient to the law.
(2) the corruption of judicial tyranny. legislating from the bench via corruption of the truth in a law. this stems from the same problem: weak human nature in a judge. an abdication of responsibility for their decisions.
what can be done? resistance. from the other branches, states and the people.
unfortunately. the men in the other fed branches have thrown in the towel or are actively colluding with the court.
that leaves the states and the people.
As if that even makes a difference
Too Late!
Who will go to prison next?
Who will take up arms and make the case for martial law?
Obama salivates, and awaits our response.
It's Tyranny my good man.
Where are our prospective candidates?
I hope they come to address the cause soon.
Nothing’s unstoppable. All things have a cause. Think about the reasons behind Britain’s fall from empire. Nations by definition do not end, since they are counted by descent; has China ever “ended” since it began? or Japan?
State laws regulating marriage
are the norm – as the Windsor opinion spent pages
emphasizing. See id. at 2691-92. Windsor rejects any
reason for inquiring into animus because, as the court
below explained, State marriage laws reflect “exactly
what every State has been doing for hundreds of
years: defining marriage as they see it.” Pet. App.
55a.
Windsor did not create an independent right to
same-sex marriage. DOMA was held to be a “federal
intrusion” on State authority, Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at
2692, but Windsor nowhere suggested that State traditional
marriage laws intrude on federal rights. It
would have been unprecedented for the Court to
fashion a new right out of its limited inquiry into
animus, given the longstanding injunction against
“creat[ing] substantive constitutional rights in the
name of guaranteeing equal protection of the laws.”
San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.
1, 33 (1973).
[[Of course it does.]]
You are right, I misspoke-
They’ve got jurisdiction to render an opinion, (however misguided and partisan and subjective it may be), they do not however have jurisdiction to pass a law- that is up to the congress, and not the president,
Don’t get me wrong - the results of modern “interpretations” of the XIV Amendment are horrific.
I favor repeal on the grounds that there are no more living slaves, and very few (if any) children of slaves.
But I call ‘em like I see ‘em. An appeal to the USSC that argues that the Constitution allows, or forbids, certain conduct IS a case “arising under this Constitution”.
Congress could have left DOMA in place and Ordered the Judicial Branch to “remain silent” as per the US Constitution
Article 3, section 2:
with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
I’ll also refer you to post 31 where it lays out that marriage is a state issue, not a SC issue- The 14’th amendment is a SC issue to determine if rights are being violated, and the SC can render an OPINION on the issue, but it can not establish laws concerning marriage (again, only congress can do so), only a non binding opinion because States establish marriage laws as allowed by congress (ie: they can’t prevent Hispanic folks from being married simply because they are Hispanic because racism is not legal- however, they ARE allowed to ban people who practice deviant lifestyles from marrying because practicing deviant lifestyles is a choice, not a trait or class of people- it’s not genetic)
[[certain conduct IS a case “arising under this Constitution”.]]
I corrected myself in previous post- you are right- certain conduct does arise under the constitution- However, the court can only render an opinion- their opinion is not law (that I’m aware?) As far as I know, and I’m no legal scholar, congress has to render law based on either accepting their opinion, or rejecting it, and it is states who then pass state laws on marriage based on what congress has made law (ie: they can’t ban minorities from marriage because beign a minority is a genetic trait, not a lifestyle choice, and would be considered racism if it was banned)
This is hwy gay people have been so desperate to get their CHOICE labeled as a ‘genetic trait’ that ‘they can’t help’- But now it looks like they don’t even have to do that because the supreme court has single handedly undone millennia of state’s and government’s decisions based on partisan subjective opinion that DEFIES the established moral law
The “equal protection” claim is bogus, no one has been denied equal protection of the law.
There is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for any purpose.
The advocates of this novel definition of “marriage” are free to avail themselves of the process prescribed by Kentucky law to change the laws to incorporate this novel description. This in no way inhibits or infringes upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights. Again, there is no *right* to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose.
The people of Kentucky have decided that marriage is between man & woman. The federal government has no say in marriage laws, laws which have always been within the purview of the States.
The USSC has no authority to commandeer the legislative process of the States and declare that “same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States” nor is there any such “fundamental right”
There is no 14th Amend “equal protection” issue, the USSC should not have taken the case.
“However, the court can only render an opinion- their opinion is not law (that I’m aware?)”
Common law:
“The common-law system prevails in England, the United States, and other countries colonized by England. It is distinct from the civil-law system, which predominates in Europe and in areas colonized by France and Spain. The common-law system is used in all the states of the United States except Louisiana, where French Civil Law combined with English Criminal Law to form a hybrid system. The common-law system is also used in Canada, except in the Province of Quebec, where the French civil-law system prevails.
Anglo-American common law traces its roots to the medieval idea that the law as handed down from the king’s courts represented the common custom of the people. It evolved chiefly from three English Crown courts of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries: the Exchequer, the King’s Bench, and the Common Pleas. These courts eventually assumed jurisdiction over disputes previously decided by local or manorial courts, such as baronial, admiral’s (maritime), guild, and forest courts, whose jurisdiction was limited to specific geographic or subject matter areas. Equity courts, which were instituted to provide relief to litigants in cases where common-law relief was unavailable, also merged with common-law courts. This consolidation of jurisdiction over most legal disputes into several courts was the framework for the modern Anglo-American judicial system...
Common-law courts base their decisions on prior judicial pronouncements rather than on legislative enactments. Where a statute governs the dispute, judicial interpretation of that statute determines how the law applies. Common-law judges rely on their predecessors’ decisions of actual controversies, rather than on abstract codes or texts, to guide them in applying the law. Common-law judges find the grounds for their decisions in law reports, which contain decisions of past controversies. Under the doctrine of Stare Decisis, common-law judges are obliged to adhere to previously decided cases, or precedents, where the facts are substantially the same. A court’s decision is binding authority for similar cases decided by the same court or by lower courts within the same jurisdiction. The decision is not binding on courts of higher rank within that jurisdiction or in other jurisdictions, but it may be considered as persuasive authority.”
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Common+law
Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
You're contradicting yourself. If the Supreme Court can declare state marriage laws unconstitutional when they are racially discriminatory, then they can do more than render a "non-binding" opinion-- they can issue a binding order. That's exactly what they did in Loving v. Virginia in 1967-- they didn't render a "non-binding opinion" that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional; they ordered states to allow racially-mixed couples to marry. (Some Southern states didn't formally repeal their anti-miscegenation laws until well into the 21st Century, but that didn't mean that blacks and whites couldn't marry in those states, or that no one could get married in those states.)
Your point about gays being different from Hispanics has nothing to do with the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to interpret the 14th Amendment; you're just disagreeing with their interpretation. (As it happens, so do I, but that doesn't mean the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction.)
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.