Posted on 01/19/2016 12:29:19 PM PST by Engraved-on-His-hands
States’ rights are States’ rights. I feel the same way about slavery in the Civil War. It’s wrong, but populations should have to right to decide what laws govern their states. Besides, if a policy is truly bad, the people can easily get rid of it. After all, “best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” -Abraham Lincoln
"The powers delegated.to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce..The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people."
Ok, so according to the author, marriage is not something the states have jurisdiction over. So that would mean that the Feds have power over marriage. The Feds just said SSM was the law of the land. What does the author think should be done? Whether author thinks it is moral or not (I don’t think it is) is immaterial. There are many things I find immoral that are legal.
I have seen a number of articles slamming Cruz because he takes the correct Constitutional approach to the issue. It is not perfect, but it is what the Constitution as written prescribes. But those articles never lay out a realistic, practical alternative solution to the issue. A Constitutional amendment would be the only fix according to their reasoning, and while we could try that, the chance of success is slim to none. At least if the issue is returned to the states, where it has always resided, the majority of states that opposed SSM could enforce the traditional definition of marriage in their states.
Bitterness is not attractive, Rick, sweetie.
So you’re coming out against states rights now?
The states nor federal government has a right to change God’s natural order of things.
You are correct. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was completely crafted as a wartime measure, based on the President’s role as commander in chief of the armed forces. It was a measure to win a war, within the president’s constitutional powers. More permanent measures were enacted within a constitutional framework.
I had to laugh. My late husband hated Lincoln. He had a number of reasons but the suspension of habeus corpus was one of them.
I miss him.
He said, “....Because you can’t do wrong, you can’t do something that’s morally wrong and against nature and the natural law....”
But he apparently thinks that “gay marriage” is not morally wrong and not against nature and natural law. Who is he, to decide these things? At best, it is hypocritical.
Cruz’ position of states’ rights is appropriate, no matter which side of the “queers are normal” argument you take.
My condolences on your loss. I’m glad you got a laugh, though.
WHAT?
Stick a fork in Rick. Hack.
Why Sanatorum has been totally unacceptable to Conservatives all along.
Wanting an Activist Judiciary imposing your values Senator Sanatorum is every bit as wrong as what the Left is doing with the Judiciary
wow I didn’t know ole frothy was still in the race!
Just because YOU don't like him doesn't mean Trump can't use him
The prize is America ... not our idealism
Get America back and her idealism will follow
In a race to legalize polygamy, I trust my state, Texas, to hold out much longer than turning it over to the FedGov, as Santorum suggests.
He needn’t use polygamy as an example. Should States have jurisdiction over calling gay relationships marriage? Santorum’s course takes us exactly where we are. If Cruz’ (and our Founder’s) opinion had held sway, that would still be illegal in my State.
I believe that most are missing the point. Santorum is not arguing against states’ rights in general. And he is not arguing in favor of federal government intervention in general. His position is that NEITHER the states nor the federal government have the right to do wrong. He is specifically arguing against states’ rights in this particular is because Ted Cruz is in effect arguing that states have the right to do wrong.
States do not have the right to endorse homosexual marriage any more or less than the federal government does.
Likewise, neither the states nor the federal government have the moral right to say that it is alright to rob a convenience store, rape the clerk, and murder the customers. In that type of scenario, Cruz would say that it is a states’ rights issue. Trump, Scott Walker, and many others would say that the Supreme Court has ruled and made it the law of the land and now we have to live with it. Neither is correct.
Um yeah they do.
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
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.[4]
Give it up, Rick... your political career was over the nanosecond your re-election loss was called for Bob Casey in 2006.
I don’t disagree with Rick, but I wish he would talk about Trump’s more dangerous position on marriage. Trump has been for same-sex “marriage” for most, or all, of his life, and I would doubt if Trump minds it being the “law of the land.”
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.