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”.
[[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
No, because one amendment cannot nullify another. The Fourteenth cannot nullify the First or the Tenth. Pure power grab by the USSC.