On March 15, 1965, Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro in Molokai, Hawaii.
On March 25, 1965, Martin Luther King led thousands of demonstrators to the steps of the capitol in Montgomery, Alabama, after a 5-day, 54-mile march from Selma, Alabama.
Posted on 02/09/2015 6:49:01 AM PST by alancarp
Link only, due to AP source.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Well, if you’re referring to Alabama and Gov. Wallace and the school desegregation confrontation in the 60’s, the feds were actually acting constitutionally per the 14A (which authorizes the feds to interfere with the state ONLY regarding state segregation laws)- Wallace & Co. were out of line on that one.
No, I’m talking about a deliberate, good-faith effort of a state to determine whether a questionable federal act violates the text, original understanding, and intent of the Constitution. Don’t think Alabama did that back then. But the states need to do it now. Otherwise, they are relinquishing their most precious freedom to tyranny without a shot being fired. God forbid and by God’s grace many will fight for their God-given right to Life, Liberty and Free Pursuits.
I'm talking about through our history. From South Carolina trying to nullify tariffs to Northern states trying to nullify fugitive slave laws and on through the Civil War and up to today. The judiciary has taken a dim view of states trying an end run around the supremacy clause.
Article VI Section2 reads in part,
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...
Any law not made IN PURSUANCE of the Constitution, like Obamacare, is NOT the Law of the Land. The states need to understand that and be ready to fight for it.
Point out where the Constitution says the state has the right to decide that.
The Tenth Amendment confirms the presumptions of the Constitution which is mainly pointed at limiting the federal government. The Constitution begins with the presumption of ALL power in the states and the people. Our rights are not enumerated, they are presumed as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The states and people DELEGATE certain ENUMERATED powers to the federal government via the Constitution. If the rights and powers are not delegated to the feds or prohibited to the states by the Constitution, they are presumed to belong to the states and the people.
The states have the constitutional right and power to nullify unconstitutional federal decisions based on the Supremacy Clause, confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and no constitutional prohibition of such against the states.
Anything is better than recognizing counterfeit marriage. So yeah I totally agree with you. States must make a stand.
You are 100% correct. We need more elected officials who will fight - like Roy Moore. Unfortunately, I can these spineless quislings turning their backs on the good citizens of Alabama.
Notice that no Catholic Churches are marrying faggots and dykes.
Guess Martin Luther opened up a big ole can of worms.
I think your mistaken on that.
Well DoodleDawg, Ive given you constitutional-based reasoning for state supremacy and valid nullification.
You’ve got to have more at hand that just a flat conclusory statement like that. You’ve got to know and be able to express why you think the way you do or you need to re-investigate the issue.
The day Wallace stepped aside was the day public education started going to hell. Hindsight is 2020.
Which law made in pursuance of the Federal constitution permits two men or two women to execute a personal services contract under the sections of the Alabama (or any other state's) marriage code?
Even if Congress were to pass a law acknowledging the possibility that a same-sex relationship could be a marriage in DC and on Indian reservations and military bases, how does that law bind the states? It's certainly not a law "made in pursuance [of the Constitution] thereof".
The Civil Rights laws, although parts of them are of dubious constitutionality, were made to implement Amendments XIV and XV, and the power to legislate for this purpose was granted to Congress by the amendment process. That is most certainly not the case with Federal courts enjoining enforcement of state marriage laws, and even the Supreme Court has no proper basis to rule on these cases.
I just saw this on Bret Baier. The picture was two women who were easily 400 pounds each.
I literally am sick to my stomach after seeing that!
Watched the opening of CBS Evening News (Yeah, I know). They breathlessly reported it and compared it to the civil rights of the 60s.
No you've given me your opinion on state supremacy and valid nullification. That's one side. The other side is the historical fact that courts at all levels of the federal judiciary have continuously ruled that states cannot nullify federal law or court rulings.
That's the chicken-s--t way out.
I'm not sure there is one. But if there were does a state have the Constitutional right to nullify that law by ignoring it. That is the question that was being debated.
John Roberts simply “deemed” the Obamacare penalty a tax, and thus, by fiat, made it constitutional, so it has been said, since the Federal Government does have the power to tax. Actually, it seems to me that the ONLY thing about the ACA that is remotely constitutional is that they can tax you. The feds have no more right of “ownership” over your person than they did before, and cannot force you to purchase a product or participate in any particular form of commerce.
@Alter
And how will the feds come in and compel Alabama authorities or preachers to conduct marriages? What if they just say no? Are they going to jail people who refuse.
It seems to me that what will eventually happen is that, in some areas, the Federal government will have to somehow come in and perform the ceremonies. But, as they are not Alabama officials, will such a wedding be legal?
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.