Posted on 03/15/2014 5:54:51 PM PDT by massmike
Some federal judges need to go away.
the enemies within.
nashville is full of them thanks to Vandy .
buzzcrap is founded by gay wacko / journOlist/ obamabot Benny Smith from Leftico.
Or fudge... Tee hee
Yup... It’s in Article Four of The Constitution.
I think its long past due for states to tell these activist judges to pound sand. Enough is enough already.
Judges with her credentials should be impeached.
Judge Traugher is a Democrat.
Citizens need to work with their federal and state lawmakers to make it a crime for state and federal activist judges to use vague language to attempt to justify what are actually constitutionally indefensible decisions imo.
More specifically, contrary to the vague language that the judge used to defend gay marriage, here are points based on the Constitution and previous Supreme Court decisions which show that the states uniuely have the have the 10th Amendment to discriminate against so-called gay rights.
The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about any issue, such as marriage, means that goverment power to address such an issue is automatically reserved uniquely to the states.
When the Supreme Court decided against polygamy in the late 19th century in Reynolds_v._United_States, justices referenced English common law, indicated in the 7th Amendment, which prohibits anything but one man, one woman traditional marriage.
In fact, note the wording in the Preamble to the Constitution which reflects on traditional marriage.
"... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (emphasis added) ...,"
“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 the states are free to make laws which discriminate against the constitutionally unprotected gay agenda imo, as long as such laws do not also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Regardless that the corrupt liberal media attempted to distort the Supreme Court's decision concerning the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Section 2 of DOMA is evidently still in effect.
Section 2. Powers reserved to the statesNo State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
In fact, DOMA's Section 2 is reasonably based on the Constitution's Section 2 of Article IV, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate the effect of one state's records in the other states.
Again, patriots need to work with their state and federal lawmakers to make laws to remove and punish activist judges who use vague language to try to legislate new constitutional rights from the bench. Patriots also need to work with their state lawmakers to amend the Constitution to automatically impeach activist justices who likewise play games with the Constitution, particulary when they decide cases in ways that helps the federal government to unconstitutionally expand its powers.
Hmm.. funny how all of these have been handed down by a federal judge..
Not surprising at all - SCOTUS gave them license last year. They opened the door wide, practically begging lower courts to do this.
Why don’t the good people of Tennessee just tell the judge and the fags “Fine you made your decision; NOW ENFORCE IT”.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
All politics is local, even personal. No government on earth has the right to abrogate the Law of G-d. The people have the right, therefore, and the absolute moral obligation to resist such action with all their might. The people have the right to directly confront the appointed officials who seek to impose these violations of Torah on them without their consent and depose them. The people absolutely have the right to defiance. They must tell these tinhorn dictators that they will never have their consent and they will never never get capitulation. Massive civil disobedience in this case is the righteous response to judicial and ethical corruption. Case in point: When did America vote to take prayer out of school? The solution: Local citizens should impose prayer on the local schools by due process, in defiance of Washington DC. It has never been a question of eliminating oppression. The question is who will be oppressed, and by whom. If you think it’s a good idea for a few sexual deviants and their friends to oppress you and corrupt your children then do nothing. If, on the other hand you believe that “righteousness exalts a nation” then take your G-d given right as free men to fight and destroy those ideas that seek to destroy you and everything you live for. The time to act is now.
What's so ironic is that the core argument made by the homos in Windsor was an appeal to 'states rights' to have their marriage laws recognized. How quickly that argument got forgotten by these inconsistent hypocrites.
I didn’t hink it was “states’ rights” so much as “full faith and credit”, but I haven’t been following the most recent cases.
Regardless, get ready. This will continue to snowball until SCOTUS makes it official.
In otherwords to hell with the will of the people. The US Supreme Court has got to step in and put a stop of this LIBERAL JUDICIAL ACTIVISM. This latest left-wing battleaxe was appointed by rapist Bill Clinton.
So tell me, when will a republican judge rule that the election of the Kenyan is not valid because there was massive voter fraud and the Kenyan never presented evidence that he was eligible to run for president.
So once again, if some sodomite-loving judge, taking orders from Eric Holder, rules that she knows more than the will of the people, what good if the election process. We absolutely do not live in the land of the free any longer. It makes no difference at all what the people want. It’s what Barry Bathhouse wants and that’s all that matters.
When a judge or anyone else rules that a man having anal sex, or a woman strapping on a rubber dildo and pretending to have sex with another woman constitutes marriage, we are not long as a nation. The United States of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The following is from a related thread. And I didn't need to make significant changes to anything.
-----------------
Citizens need to work with their federal and state lawmakers to make it a crime for state and federal activist judges to use vague language to attempt to justify what are actually constitutionally indefensible decisions imo.
More specifically, contrary to the vague language that the judge used, here are points based on the Constitution and previous Supreme Court decisions which show that the states uniuely have the have the 10th Amendment to discriminate against so-called gay rights.
The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about any issue, such as marriage, means that goverment power to address such an issue is automatically reserved uniquely to the states.
When the Supreme Court decided against polygamy in the late 19th century in Reynolds_v._United_States, justices referenced English common law, indicated in the 7th Amendment, which prohibits anything but one man, one woman traditional marriage.
In fact, note the wording in the Preamble to the Constitution which reflects on traditional marriage.
"... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (emphasis added) ...,"
“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 the states are free to make laws which discriminate against the gay agenda imo, as long as such laws do not also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Regardless that the corrupt liberal media attempted to distort the Supreme Court's decision concerning the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Section 2 of DOMA is evidently still in effect.
Section 2. Powers reserved to the statesNo State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
In fact, DOMA's Section 2 is reasonably based on the Constitution's Section 2 of Article IV, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate the effect of one state's records in the other states.
Again, patriots need to work with their state and federal lawmakers to make laws to remove and punish activist judges who use vague language to try to legislate new constitutional rights from the bench. Patriots also need to work with their state lawmakers to amend the Constitution to automatically impeach activist justices who play games with the Constitution, particulary when they decide cases in ways that helps the federal government to unconstitutionally expand its powers.
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.