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!
So, what else is new?
ping
Now What?
Because without jurisdiction, a courts ruling is void. A nullity.
Of course it is.
The plaintiffs asserted that the laws of Kentucky violated Amendment XIV, which says, in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, the question of whether or not State marriage laws deny equal protection to homosexuals absolutely "arises under [this] Constitution".
The result, of course, is ridiculous - but to hear the case is within the scope of Article III.
Many of us have said from the beginning that the Supreme Court has no legal authority to rule on this—NONE. It hasn’t stopped this lawless Court in the past, though.
Good luck with that.
Is the 14th amendment part of the constitution?
Yes.
As Al Gore would say, “There is no controlling legal authority.” Sad, but true. Maybe the GOP will step in and act...yeah, right.
LIKE
The Court has no need to read the Constitution. They just decide stuff.
Haven't you noticed??
Since Marbury v. Madison the USSC has been left to interpret what they will including questions of jurisdiction.
The Article V States Movement is anathema to the USSC in its perceived power as mentioned above.
No, it does not. Unless one wants to invalidate stuff like Reynolds versus United States and other like rulings; and the First Amendment was not even a consideration per Kennedy. Kim Davis is now denied equal protection of the laws as well as her First Amendment rights thanks to this lawless ruling sans jurisdiction.
So, the question of whether or not State marriage laws deny equal protection to homosexuals absolutely “arises under [this] Constitution” …
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.”
Sounds OK to me!
Listen, everyone. If you ask the Federal Courts if they have jurisdiction, what the hell else do you expect them to say?
They will say it’s a no-brainer, of course they have it.
But from my reading of the judicial power, I do not see anything that says that.
Period.
So we now appeal to the Super Duper Extra Supreme Most Glorius Court?
Be sure and let Predident Gore know about this.
Be sure and let President Gore know about this.
[[So, the question of whether or not State marriage laws deny equal protection to homosexuals absolutely “arises under [this] Constitution”.]]
Not so much- homosexuality is not a right anymore than pedophilia is a ‘right’ - it may be ‘allowed’ but it is not a right protected under the constitution
[[So, the question of whether or not State marriage laws deny equal protection to homosexuals absolutely “arises under [this] Constitution”.]]
Does the question of whether state marriage laws deny equal protection to pedophiles the right to marry underage children “Arise under this constitution’ as well?
Of course not because pedophilia, just like homosexuality, is established as a morally deviant practice- just because m ore and m ore people practice it, and more people accept it doesn’t make any less morally deviant- This country had a set of objective moral laws that are not open to the courts subjective opinion.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”
This can not stand as their defense because pedophiles, bestiality practitioners, polygamy practitioners, necrophilia practitioners etc can then ALL make the same case. If one immoral practice/lifestyle can suddenly be declared not immoral, then ALL must be- because “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;” according to the twisted defense of homosexuals on this issue-
A claim that a state law violates the 14th Amendment is a case "arising under this Constitution."
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.