Obergefell Was as Unconstitutional as Roe

The American Spectator ^ | July 6, 2022 | George Neumayr

[T Ruth]

A GOP unwilling to admit that can’t save America.

The media is trying to mau-mau Republicans into a selective and unprincipled originalism, and it appears to be working. After the collapse of Roe v. Wade, many Republican pols signaled that they had no interest in overturning other nakedly unconstitutional rulings, such as Obergefell v. Hodges. Never mind that that ruling, which imposed a wholly invented “constitutional” right to gay marriage on all 50 states, was as much an attack on democracy as the Roe ruling.

“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent in that case. “This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

Scalia called the sudden discovery of a right to [homosexual] marriage in the Constitution the court’s most egregious act of judicial activism: “The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create ‘liberties’ that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.”

***

Is the GOP the party of the Constitution or not? By submitting to the left’s hectoring and waving the white flag on much of its cherished judicial activism of the last 50 years, Republicans reveal themselves as only very weak and occasional constitutionalists. ...

***

[Ken H]

Scalia taking a knife to the Tenth Amendment =>

---

“Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.”

[Nifster]

Until the state takes them away or denies them

[Brian Griffin]

“Masterpiece”

Most if not all western states were created under federal laws that require “perfect religious freedom”.

In theory, states can be terminated for violation of a fundamental requirement of their existence. This would mean US Senate seats vanish and state-related pensions and taxing power vanish.

[Brian Griffin]

“Necessary and Proper Clause”

It applies even if the enumerated power is improperly or unnecessarily used.

[MileHi]

Saved me the post

[Paladin2]

Thanks.

This seems to be the nexus of no shortage of cans of worms.

[Graybeard58]

Like abortion, marriage is a state issue. The federal government has no interest in marriage.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Marriage should be a religious matter but that would put a lot of divorce lawyers out of business.

[DoodleDawg]

Kelo v. City of New London (2005) should be in line.

Why should eminent domain be a federal issue rather than a state issue?

[DoodleDawg]

I expect the first Obergfell challenge will be filed before the end of the year.

[daniel1212]

"Most if not all western states were created under federal laws that require “perfect religious freedom”. In theory, states can be terminated for violation of a fundamental requirement of their existence. This would mean US Senate seats vanish and state-related pensions and taxing power vanish."

Yet freedoms are not absolute, thus starving your children to death as a religious procedure is not allowed, and in its perversity such would be equated by the more wholly Woke to opposing homosexual expression.

[fwdude]

Obegefell ... should not only be overruled by the Supreme Court, but repudiated and thwarted by all who desire and intend to uphold the Constitution.

I'd go further, and say that the actions enabled by Obergefell should be UNdone as well. Void all fake "marriages" in states which did not allow it, reclaim all financial benefits given as a result, and rehire, with payments of lost compensation, all county clerks and other officials who were fired or forced to resign because of this hideous, fascist opinion.

[Svartalfiar]

Scalia called the sudden discovery of a right to [homosexual] marriage in the Constitution the court’s most egregious act of judicial activism: “The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create ‘liberties’ that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.”

Scalia is wrong here.

The Constitution does mention this 'right' and any other right you can think of, it's all in the final 20% of the Bill of Rights.