Posted on 01/06/2014 7:55:17 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg
The Supreme Court has put gay marriage on hold in Utah. The high court on Monday granted the state a stay in their same-sex marriage challenge. The decision comes after a federal judge last month ruled in favor of gay marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Dissents from grants or denials of stays are not common, but they are certainly not unheard of. The only lesson I draw from this is that the Court's left wing is probably not going to make this a super-divisive case (though I could be wrong about that, of course).
Also, submitted for your consideration is Schenck v. United States which basically declared that the Constitution's absolutes (in this case the 1st amendment) were not actually absolute: that certain "exigent circumstances" (in this case war) necessitated a change in thinking.
When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.vs
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
When one realizes that the commerce clause, in its entirety, reads as To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
, that the interstate-commerce is held at the same level (and same authority) as foreign commerce — then one realizes that what we have (esp with the War on Drugs) in federal regulation is nothing less than Treason.
See, if the federal government were to try the same regulation on foreign nations as it does on the states (which at this point includes intrastate commerce and non-commerce) it would be nothing less than the declaration of war; the enforcement [or attempt thereof] ]would be the waging of war.
So, that such are enforced on the states is proof that war is-being/has-been waged on the several states.
Gotta love “exigent circumstances”. That’s the old run around the 4th Amendment as well. There are 78,491 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations. The national government is completely out of control.
Aye — I've gotten into some heated arguments (and been called a homo-sympathizer, "furthering their cause") for arguing that the legal (and political) arenas are not the places to address homosexuality.
The problem isn't laws, and it certainly can't be solved by laws -- laws only condemn, they never save.
Fortunately there is one who saves, Jesus — and he saves from all sins, for how could the blood-sacrifice of an infinite God not be potent against finite man's finite sins?
Of the homosexuals I've met, for all but one (who may've just been good at hiding it, or perhaps citing/claiming 'homosexual' as an excuse for a lack-of-sex-drive) it's been intuitively obvious to me that they've been deeply hurt and are very often starving for love (not sexual, but real hands-dirty/action-inducing love).
Fast & Furious — Treason, state-sponsored terrorism, violation of international treaty.
Benghazi — Malfeasance/misfeasance; possibly related to state-sponsored terrorism.
Prop 8 [non-]ruling — The supreme court denying/repudiating that CA's own supreme court can recognize standing.
Roe v. Wade — The supreme court can strike down all laws of a nature in all states by inventing a constitutionally-protected right (privacy), which apparently doesn't apply to any other government activity: see NAS, warrantless-searches, non-specific warrants, "exigent circumstances".
NFIB et al. v. Sebelius — The supreme court can reinterpret/rewrite law. Period.
Yeah, outta control.
There are 78,491 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Way, way too many.
I disagree - They didn't punt; they repudiated the power (and much legitimacy) of the CA supreme court. You see, they denied standing that the CA supreme court had recognized.
Has Orrin Grant Hatch taken a position, not that it would make any difference, in the words of his friend Hillary?
Sadly, the American people think all of those regulations are there to “protect” them from the elements.
No one ever explained where Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr., “found” John Paul Stevens or where GWB found Roberts.
Scalia provided the critical fifth vote c. 1990 in support of “flag burning”.
Anthony Kennedy is another example of Reagan failing to do his homework.
I haven’t seen that he has. But perhaps “taken a position” isn’t the best way to phrase it. :)
“I disagree - They didn’t punt; they repudiated the power (and much legitimacy) of the CA supreme court. You see, they denied standing that the CA supreme court had recognized.”
The conservatives know this is coming but they wanted to put it off to preserve what little respect the people have for the Supremes. I do not agree with that. I would have let it crash and burn as it will inevitably but Scalia and the other conservatives have given their lives to the institution and they want to hang on as long as possible.
“But the alternative was to decide the case and have Kennedy and the leftists declare a constitutional right for homosexuals, plural marriage, marry your dog people, etc to “marry.”
I also think this is the reason Sotomayor granted the stay. This a good case for Kennedy to declare the “constitutional right” to redefine marriage since the state of Utah will defend their laws, unlike California. In this case, the conservatives cannot pull the lack of standing dodge and the left will get their decision.
The Federal injustice system has a rabbit’s hat of “constitutional rights” where anything and everything they could possibly fancy can be pulled out at whim.
If men can ‘marry’ other men then they should be able to ‘marry’ animals and many more men than just one. After-all if you make the foundation of marriage the capacity to love rather than family then logically there can be no more limit upon marriage than there is a limit upon our capacity to love.
That is to say we can all ‘love’ as many people, animals, and objects as we might like. Where is our ‘right’ to ‘marry’ them all ?
Having read some of the Dred Scott ruling I couldent help but notice how dispute the racist rectoric and undertone of the judges.
The essence of the ruling, that the Federal Government has not the power to end a man’s enslavement by virtue of his presence in a Federal territory, was as sound as the presumption that slaves were property.
I’m not saying that slavery was right or that men could justly be regarded as property of other men, but that was the legal presumption of the time.
And with that presumption what Dredd Scott could no more obtain his freedom from his residence in a Federal territory than your presence in a Federal territory can automatically force you to give up your car.
A state is of course an entirely different matter and if Dredd Scott knew what he was doing he would have made his case in Illinois where the laws would and could have in fact freed him not suffering from the same 5th amendment disability that Washington and by extension all its territory(whom Washington governs directly) suffer from.
Of course the military might have thrown a Fit as the only reason his master was in that state was due to military service, but Illinois could have just rightly pointed out that he had no obligation to bring with him his slaves to a state where their captivity was illegal.
This in my opinion is the key failing of Dred Scott, not so much the ruling itself which I think on technical grounds was correct but the form & substance of the case was poorly chosen on the part of Dred Scott.
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.