Skip to comments.
The SJC of Mass ignored the Massachusetts Constitution.
Massachussetts Constition and Amici Curae - Mass Citizens Alliance ^
| 11/19/03
| jwalsho7
Posted on 11/19/2003 6:01:09 PM PST by jwalsh07
Massachusetts Constitution
Chapter III, Article V. All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.
From the Amici Curae - Mass Citizens Alliance
Unlike the Federal Constitution, the Massachusetts Constitution expressly deals with the subject of marriage and specifically provides for jurisdiction in all causes of marriage. Part the Second, Chapter 3, article 5 of the Constitution states: All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony and all appeals from the Judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the Governor and Council, until the Legislature shall, by law, make other provision.
From this article, it is clear that unless the legislature makes an express transfer of jurisdiction concerning marriage, jurisdiction to determine all causes of marriage, divorce and alimony resides with the Governor and Council. As will be apparent from the history presented below, the Supreme Judicial Court has consistently recognized restrictions on its subject matter jurisdiction in the past, and has deferred to the Legislature the power to grant subject matter jurisdiction over cases or controversies involving the institution of marriage....
(Excerpt) Read more at 66.102.11.104 ...
TOPICS: Editorial; Front Page News; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: goodrich; judicialactivism; marriage; massachusetts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
Judicial Activism?
1
posted on
11/19/2003 6:01:12 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: Torie; SalukiLawyer; woodyinscc; Sabertooth
Judicial activism guys?
2
posted on
11/19/2003 6:03:01 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
Judicial Activism? Looks like it to me. Good find.
3
posted on
11/19/2003 6:03:56 PM PST
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: jwalsh07
Judicial Activism? Hell yes. The proper legislative response would be to impeach a remove the judges from office.
4
posted on
11/19/2003 6:07:02 PM PST
by
Paleo Conservative
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: Aquinasfan; All
5
posted on
11/19/2003 6:08:09 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
Since when does the Judiciary order the Legislative branch to do anything?
My only response, if I was a legislator, would be to cut their pay, and start impeachment proceedings.
6
posted on
11/19/2003 6:10:05 PM PST
by
MonroeDNA
(Please become a monthly donor!!! Just $3 a month--you won't miss it, and will feel proud!)
To: Paleo Conservative
Chief Justice C.J. Marshall is wed to Anthony Lewis of the New York Times. Lewis is not one of our fellow travelers to say the least. An interesting aside that not many are aware of.
7
posted on
11/19/2003 6:10:29 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07

Judicial Activism?
Nah, I'm sure the grandchildren of Puritans wanted to leave the door open for the eventual acceptance of wedded buggery.
|
8
posted on
11/19/2003 6:10:56 PM PST
by
Sabertooth
(No Drivers' Licences for Illegal Aliens. Petition SB60. http://www.saveourlicense.com/n_home.htm)
To: Paleo Conservative
Hell yes. The proper legislative response would be to impeach and remove the judges from office. You got it! But well they? Naaaa.
9
posted on
11/19/2003 6:11:06 PM PST
by
mc5cents
To: Paleo Conservative
Hell yes. The proper legislative response would be to impeach and remove the judges from office. You got it! But well they? Naaaa.
10
posted on
11/19/2003 6:11:19 PM PST
by
mc5cents
To: MonroeDNA
Since when does the Judiciary order the Legislative branch to do anything? Dunno, Madison and Jefferson certainly told Marshall what he could do with Marbury's commission. :-}
11
posted on
11/19/2003 6:12:04 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: mc5cents
Is there an echo in here?
12
posted on
11/19/2003 6:12:18 PM PST
by
mc5cents
To: Looking for Diogenes
Thiink again, they ignored the clear wording of the Constitution of Massachusetts.
13
posted on
11/19/2003 6:14:18 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: MonroeDNA
Since when does the Judiciary order the Legislative branch to do anything? Right. Checks and balances. The Court cannot write the legislation it is looking for. All the Court can do is say "Please write legislation that advances our agenda."
Whether the legislature wants to go ahead and write that law is a separate matter entirely.
14
posted on
11/19/2003 6:15:17 PM PST
by
ClearCase_guy
(France delenda est)
To: MeeknMing; My2Cents; onyx; JohnHuang2; xzins
FYI.
15
posted on
11/19/2003 6:20:26 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
Legislatures have to get some balls and start impeaching judges that don't follow the laws.
To: Always Right
I would agree with that. :-}
17
posted on
11/19/2003 6:29:00 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: jwalsh07
Thanks for the ping.
Where does the State of Mass. go from here?
Can Gov. Romney void this decision?
To: jwalsh07
Judicial Tyranny
To: woodyinscc; Torie
No, he has endorsed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. I don't see where it's necessary. The language in their Constituion is quite clear concerning marriage. It is the responsibility of the legislature and is not under the courts jurisdiction.
Actually, and I think my friend Torie would agree, that is as it should be if one believes in a republican form of government and states rights.
Torie: States Rights good or bad here amigo?:-}
20
posted on
11/19/2003 6:38:46 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson