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.
So, what else is new?
ping
Now What?
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.
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.
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.”
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.
A claim that a state law violates the 14th Amendment is a case "arising under this Constitution."
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.
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).
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.
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.