Posted on 02/10/2015 6:03:47 AM PST by xzins
In a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas excoriated his fellow justices for refusing to temporarily stop enforcement of a federal district judge's ruling that overturned the marriage laws of the state of Alabama and ordered Alabama to recognize as legal "marriages" unions between two people of the same sex.
On Jan. 23, U.S. District Judge Callie Granade ruled that Alabama laws limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman violated the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the law. Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange petitioned the Supreme Court to prevent the judge's decision from going into effect until the Supreme Court itself issued its ruling on same-sex marriage--which the court will do this term.
The Supreme Court refused to stay the lower court ruling--with Justice Thomas and Scalia dissenting.
In his dissent from the court's refusal to grant the stay, Justice Thomas rhetorically smacked his colleagues for disregarding it own standard practices and the deference due to state governments and voters.
"This acquiescence [in the lower court ruling] may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution of that question [of same-sex marriage]," wrote Thomas.
"This is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities," he said. "And, it is indecorous for this Court to pretend that it is. Today’s decision represents yet another example of this Court’s increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States. Over the past few months, the Court has repeatedly denied stays of lower court judgments enjoining the enforcement of state laws on questionable constitutional grounds.
"It has similarly declined to grant certiorari to review such judgments without any regard for the people who approved those laws in popular referendums or elected the representatives who voted for them," wrote Thomas. "In this case, the Court refuses even to grant a temporary stay when it will resolve the issue at hand in several months."
Note that we’re having all kinds of problems with unconstitutionally big federal government because the corrupt feds don’t want to surrender state powers that they’ve stolen from the states back to the states.
Thanks for the ping.
The 9th and 10th amendments were compromised by the 17th amendment. Who is more in touch with the rights and sovereignty of the states? Definitely not a senatorial candidate who receives money from outside the state.
While I’m at it, abolish the 16th amendment too. America will see prosperity.
5.56mm
Bless your Submariner son - may not be combat, but extremely tough duty.
My oops. Pardon.
The 10th Amendment (like others) and the body of the Constitution including the "Welfare" clause and the "Commerce" clause have been distorted, spun, and parsed for years by the USSC. What did Shakespeare say again regarding lawyers?
I for one, forgive her. I won't forgive unrepentent hippy a-wholes like Jane Fonda with her mealy mouth I could have been wrong.
Regarding so-called federal immigration laws, in case you haven’t seen the following excerpts, both Jefferson and Madison had noted that the states have never delegated to feds, expressly via Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration, immigration a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue.
“4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “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,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added].” —Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.
And here is the related excerpt from the writings of James Madison in Virginia Resolutions.
"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, ...…
… the General Assembly doth solemenly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people [emphasis added]. ”— James Madison, Draft of the Virginia Resolutions - December 1798.
In fact, regardless that federal Democrats and RINOs will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that they cannot do something then they can do it, note that the Supreme Court has condemned that foolish idea. More specifically, the Supreme Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not expressly delegated to the feds via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration in this case, are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
The problem is that state lawmakers evidently don’t know the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers any more than the voters who elected them do.
This goes all the way back to Lincoln.
Agreed!
from: The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America, July 4, 1776.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government (emphasis mine), laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Were I a person of public notice, or otherwise of some significance, the above might be sufficient to excite a visit from the FBI. But, since I am but a mere humble citizen of a great republic, and of no further significance, it is likely these remarks will not incite the notice of an agent of the state.
Thanks for the BEEP!
“Article V” won’t change the culture of the tyrannical majority who will pervert the work product of a convention in the same way that they’ve perverted everything else within their purview.
The only thing wrong with the present constitution is IT ISN’T BEING ENFORCED.
There is a problem with the present constitution, and that is that it isn’t the original constitution. At a minimum, I would get rid of the 16th and 17th amendments.
Thanks for the ping. Sadly, many on the Supreme Court don’t give a fig for the Constitution. They make insanely ridiculous arguments to try and justify their rulings.
The Congress Critters are too busy trying to make sure that they don’t do anything that people might hold them accountable for to stand against the nonsense.
Scalia was my favorite Justice.
The reality is, Thomas is head and shoulders above him when it comes to defending The People from our out of control Federal Government.
He has always been underappreciated simply because he doesn’t question the Lawyers during oral arguments.
He just LISTENS and THINKS.
That is a valid observation. The problem is that human nature hasn’t improved since the original constitution was altered.
Fortunately the 1st amendment is still protected by the 2nd and we can still, for the moment at least, contradict such errors.
>>Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie
Does water still freeze at 32 degrees F?
Can two sperm create a viable human offspring?
I’m glad my mother and father were heterosexual, and Adam and Eve before them. Everyone of us must realize we’re the result of the sexual congress between a man and a woman. Marriage was never based on homophobia or the suppression of women. It’s based on the propagation of the species. And the family is the basic building block of society. (Read John Locke’s Second Treatise.) Otherwise, we’d reproduce like dogs. Oh wait, that’s exactly what’s going on in large segments of our society now, isn’t it?
I’m an opponent of an Art V convention.
One of the first they change will be the 2nd amendment.
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.