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!
The Court decided both cases in the states' favor. These decisions show that state sovereignty-respecting justices agreed that the states had never amended the Constitution to expressly prohibit themselves from making discriminatory laws based on either sex or race.
In fact, the Court had clarified in Minor that the 14th Amendment added no new constitutional protections. It only strengthened those personal protections which the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
So since the states had never amended the Constitution to expressly give women the right to vote before the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Court clarified that they didn’t automatically have right to vote after its ratification, regardless of the “equal protections clause.”
Likewise for the so-called right of interracial marriage.
It is also important to note that the states amended the Constitution to basically allow women to vote after Minor was decided. This is evidenced by the 19th Amendment. More about Minor v. Happersett shortly.
But despite the Court’s clarification of constitutionally unchecked state powers to make laws which discriminate on the basis of race where marriage is concerned, post-FDR era activist justices stole 10th Amendment state powers to regulate marriage, imo, in order to legalize interracial marriage from the bench in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.
Getting back to Minor v. Happersett, while the states amended the Constitution to give women the right to vote after Minor was decided, it remains that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly prohibit themselves from exercising their 10th Amendment protected state power to prohibit either interracial marriage or gay “marriage,” such rights legislated from the bench by activist justices imo. (The so-called right to have an abortion is another fictitious “constitutional” right wrongly legislated from the bench by activist justices imo.)
H O W E V E R …
It’s actually the Senate, imo, that deserves the “credit” for forcing constitutionally unenumerated “rights” on the states. More specifically, regardless that the Founding States gave Congress the specific power to remove corrupt justices from the bench, the likewise corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate that has a bad habit of confirming activist justices has shown that it is not willing to work with the House to remove such justices from the bench for blatantly ignoring 10th Amendment-protected state powers.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt Senators and the pro-gay activist justices that they confirm along with it.
The nature of humans requires opposite genders for humanity to survive. That some couples may not produce offspring does not invalidate the requirement for opposite genders. Homosexual unions can not - by their very nature - produce offspring.
Interracial marriages produce offspring, homosexual unions can not. Laws banning interracial marriage did not touch the definition of marriage. The USSC has arrogated to itself the authority to alter the definition of marriage.
Comparing homosexual unions to bans on interracial marriage is nonsense.
No, because one amendment cannot nullify another. The Fourteenth cannot nullify the First or the Tenth. Pure power grab by the USSC.
XXI nullified XVIII. XII radically changed Article II. XVII radically changed Article I. And so on.
That doesn’t give the court any jurisdiction in these cases either way.
I’d be interested in thoughts on this opinion.
Are 55 and older housing communities legal?
From the article, “the Supremacy Clause provides that state laws must yield when they conflict with federal law.”
What federal law?
There is no federal marriage law, marriage laws have always been within the purview of the States. The people of Kentucky have decided that marriage is between man & woman.
The USSC has no authority to commandeer the legislative process of the States, Kentucky can not be forced to issue marriage licenses contrary to its laws or to have it’s laws written for them by the federal Supreme Court.
Should the President decide? The Vice-President? Speaker of the House? Me? My neighbor?
Guess who decides whether a particular case arises under the Constitution. I'll bet that you can figure out how we've been answering that question if you try.
You keep missing the point. We are not discussing whether the Supreme Court was right-- the issue is did they have jurisdiction to decide the case. They obviously did have jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the decision, IMHO, was wrong.
On what basis do they have jurisdiction?
That issue was decided back in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.
Laws banning interracial marriage *are* a equal protection issue. Laws banning homosexual “marriage” are not. “Homosexual marriage” alters the long standing definition of marriage.
Under Article III, federal courts have jurisdiction of cases "arising under this Constitution." A case arguing (rightly or wrongly) that a state law violates the 14th Amendment is a case "arising under" the Constitution.
(a) The decision allowing interracial marriage altered the long-standing definition of marriage throughout the South.
(b)But that's not the point-- the constitutional claim could be good or bad, but a federal court still has jurisdiction to decide it.
There is no 14th Amend “equal protection” issue, 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”
The well established meaning of marriage is a union of opposite genders. This has been understood for millennium.
C'mon, you know what Federal law. They're talking about the United States Constitution. You and I might disagree with that the Supreme Court did, but there's no need for us to pretend that we're too stupid to figure out what they did. The Court is claiming that a state cannot issue marriage licenses to just couples who are one male and one female. I don't understand the Court to be saying that a state has to recognize or license any marriages. Presumably, these states can, if they wish, not recognize or license any marriages. But, it they license normal marriages, they have to also license homosexual marriages. If these states want to repeal all their marriage laws, they probably can, but they don't really want to do that.
If we're going to restore normal marriages as being the only marriages, we have to proceed politically. The Court has spoken about where it stands. There's no point in pretending that this decision was just some kind of an accident caused by their failure to think things through.
That’s not a law, that’s a judicial diktat.
“The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States.” This goes too far. This commandeers the legislative process of the States. The federal government has no say in marriage laws, laws which have always been within the purview of the States. No court, least of all the USSC, has the authority to legislate.
There is no federal marriage law. The author’s babble about the “supremacy clause” is bogus.
The author I refer to is the author of the washington post article in 46
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.