Posted on 10/06/2014 7:07:01 AM PDT by GIdget2004
he Supreme Court has turned away appeals from five states seeking to prohibit same-sex marriages, paving the way for an immediate expansion of gay and lesbian unions.
The justices on Monday did not comment in rejecting appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.
The court's order immediately ends delays on marriage in those states. Couples in six other states should be able to get married in short order.
That would make same-sex marriage legal in 30 states and the District of Columbia.
But the justices have left unresolved for now the question of same-sex marriage nationwide.
(Excerpt) Read more at bigstory.ap.org ...
Might as well legislate that black is white and green, purple.
For safer borders too.
And for a new elected body whose only job is to initiate spending cuts and mandate debates if congress tries to veto them.
For more state power regarding education and law enforcement innovations. [Maybe give congress veto power after sufficient debates rake over establishment congress critters.]
For a mandatory debate system that puts nutty professors and activist judges on the hot plate.
And YES — for banning any redefinitions of MARRIAGE! [God willing, I'll flesh out these ideas more after this important election.]
States need to nullify unconstitutional federal government and federal court action and begin weaning themselves from federal funding to enhance states’ freedom to act as they see fit.
The longer we wait, the bigger the risk of secession or outright civil war. Spread the word and pass them on to your email list.
Convention of States - Alabama Way to go Alabama! A good introduction.
'Convention of states' to rein in government? Another great summary explanation.
The Case for an Article V. Convention. Fantastic explanation of Article V convention to the Mass State Legislature.
I would recommend watching the above three videos first and then:
Convention of States Lots of information here.
Article V Project to Restore Liberty Another good source.
A Summary of Mark Levin’s Proposed Amendments by Jacquerie
Chapter 1 of Mark Levin’s Book, The Liberty Amendments
Mark Levin, Constitution Article V, and the Liberty Amendments
Rep. Bill Taylor introduces a Convention of States
Mark Levin Article V, Liberty Amendments youtube video hub
Three hour video of C-Span interview with Mark Levin
Gaining Steam? Nearly 100 Lawmakers Descend on Mount Vernon to Talk Convention of States The beginning.
Convention to Propose Amendments to the United States Constitution
The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process
Friends of Article V Convention Links
Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism, and the Sirens' Song of the Seventeenth Amendment by Jay Bybee. Repeal the 17th!
Article V Convention: Path of Least Resistance by Robert Berry
The Final Constitutional Option
Article V Handbook - for State Legislators An important resource.
State Legislators Article V Caucus State Legislators, Join up at this site!
Send this list of links to your State Representatives and Senators here: Contact your State Legislators.
Sample Letter to state Representatives regarding the Convention of States Project and also, Talking Points. Both from Here.
Excellent Article V Letter to a State Assemblyman by Jacquerie
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke. Let’s all work together to get this going.
This is beyond the court’s authority. The states should enforce the laws they passed.
Now Idaho and Nevada as well.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gay-marriage-bans-idaho-nevada-struck-26027055
Flipping off the court could kick-start a crisis. If it results in enough state outrage, the outcome should be an Article V convention, a good thing.
It won't make any difference who chooses to defend a small church against against this assult on their 1st Amendment rights. The 2nd Amendment is undermined again & again by activist liberal judges, and they will do the same thing to churches who do not perform same sex marriages, irregardless of what the 1st Amendment proclaims.
If judges rule against Christian businesses for refusing to provide wedding cakes to homo couples, why would they not rule against churches or pastors who refuse to perform same-sex marriages. It's only a matter of time before judges will declare anyone who opposes same-sex marriages to be declared hate-filled homophobics who could lose their children or property for refusing to endorse & perform same-sex marriages.
Businesses as a rule are dealing with the general population. The law requires that any goods or services that they provide to one segment of the public, they have to provide for any other. Churches are dealing with matters within their own congregations, not the public.
The judges exceeded their authority. They need to be ignored.
Federal courts have no constitutional authority to overturn the states in these cases and we live in a Constitutional Republic, not an oligarchy.
It’s time for the states to start nullifying such unconstitutional decisions.
Sooner or later, somebody’s got to reverse or nullify Supreme Court decisions that incorporate the 1st-6th Amendments into the 14th amendment thus inverting the purpose of the 1st-6th Amendments which specifically targets LIMITING federal government power. Instead, the convoluted “Incorporation Doctrine” astonishingly and unconstitutionally INCREASES the power of the federal government by allowing it to enforce the 1st-6th Amendments. This has lead to the tyranny and unconstitutional usurping of state authority by the feds in cases like these gay marriage cases.
NULLIFY THESE UNCONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS!!!
They are either incorporated or not. It is “selective incorporation” that is the worst offense.
Ameritopia.
That was dicta. SCOTUS has ruled selectively on incorporation ever since.
Can congress nullify Supreme Court decisions?.
The history of SCOTUS in the 20th Century and beyond has been sweeping overrule of long-standing precedent, here and in other areas also, without any constitutional explanation, reasoning, or justification. The results have aided greatly in the catastrophic increase of unconstitutional power of the federal government.
If SCOTUS rulings are clearly unconstitutional and far-reaching, I see no reason why not. Certainly the Constitution does not forbid such action. In fact, such action is part of the "checks and balances" of the three separate branches of government created by the Constitution. If one branch's acts are clearly unconstitutional and far-reaching, it is up to the other branches to call them out on it and "nullify" such unconstitutional action.
But it doesn't stop there. If no branch of the federal government has the guts or the will to forbid such unconstitutional actions, then it is up to the states and the people to call them out on it and "nullify" such unconstitutional action by the federal ("feral") government as a whole. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments as well and the persuasive authority of the Declaration of Independence confirm the right of the states and the people to do this. After all, the Constitution is not owned exclusively by the federal government. It is owned by all Americans as both the creator of and limitation on the federal government.
You are relatively new here, so you missed the earliest discussion of the Slaughterhouse Cases here on FR out of which the article I linked (that from what I can tell you didn't read) grew.
Miller's thesis to interpret the entire amendment was not directly germane to the case, and therefore dicta. Moreover, the citizenship clause as excluding corporations was actually contrary to the intent of the authors of that clause (Bingham and Conkling) although it was likely not even considered by many of the legislatures that ratified it. I may disagree with the citizenship clause and its fraudulent intent, but its secret intent was clearly to include fictitious persons as deserving equal protection. Miller's interpretation was a stop-gap move. When it was later weakend in Gitlow v. New York (which applied only to the First Amendment and was therefore the beginning of selective incorporation) and finally bypassed by John Chandler Bancroft Davis' completely bogus headnote in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, SCOTUS' performance went from bad to worse.
Nevertheless, "selective incorporation" is the law of the land today, bogus or not, like it or not.
The right of the states and the people appear to be knocked down by some judge or court calling it unconstitutional I wonder if it can ever be done?.
Someone has to make a move soon it’s all getting out of hand and dangerous.
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.