God bless Justice Roy Moore.
IMO, he needs to stick to a strong constitution-based argument for rejecting the federal court decision. Chris Cuomo was trying to get Moore to argue on the basis of personal morals. But federal authority is not based on personal morals. The Constitution is the ONLY basis of federal authority. Getting muddled on that point is how the Leftist Fabian Socialists have eroded our constitutional free republic.
Moore has a constitutional right to reject federal court decisions that are found, in good-faith, to be unconstitutional. The feds have no constitutional authority in the area of marriage and therefore have no legitimate right to interfere with Alabama’s marriage and anti-gay marriage laws. That is his argument.
It’s time for the states to stand up to these lawless thugs.
One reason that thug justices are getting away with trashing 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty is because Constitution-ignorant citizens are not aware that lawless Obama’s justices are wrongly ignoring Supreme Court case precedent which relates to these issues. The stuff below was just posted in a related thread.
-----------------
Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at pro-gay activist judges and justices who are hiding behind PC interpretations of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause (EPC) to justify gay marriage.
Contrary to what pro-gay activist judges and justices want everybody to believe about the constitutionality of gay marriage, some scratching on the EPC as it relates to 10th Amendment power to regulate marriage has shown that the Supreme Court has historically clarified that EPC relates to violators of state marriage laws as follows.
To begin with, the congressional record indicates that concern was expressed about how 14th Amendment would affect unique state power to regulate marriage, one lawmaker expressing that he wanted his state to retain the right to prohibit interracial marriage.
“I have no fault lo find with the colored race. I have not the slightest antipathy to them. I wish them well, and if I were in a State where they exist in large numbers I would vote to give them every right enjoyed by the white people except the right of a negro man to marry a white woman [emphasis added] and the right to vote.” — Rep. Andrew J. Rogers, 39th Congress, Congressional Globe, 1866 . (See top half of last column.)
So did the ratified 14th Amendment with its EPC prohibit the states from exercising their unique, 10th Amendment-protected power to regulate marriage, including regulating / prohibiting certain types of cohabitation? The Supreme Court’s decision in Pace v. Alabama (1883) clearly indicates that it did not.
More specifically, the Court didn’t buy an interracial couple’s argument that their relationship was protected by the EPC, but clarified that what the EPC actually did for them with respect to breaking the marriage / cohabitation law was to guarantee that they were equally punished. Here’s Justice Field’s explanation.
The counsel is undoubtedly correct in his view of the purpose of the clause of the amendment in question -- that it was to prevent hostile and discriminating state legislation against any person or class of persons. Equality of protection under the laws implies not only accessibility by each one, whatever his race, on the same terms with others to the courts of the country for the security of his person and property, but that in the administration of criminal justice, he shall not be subjected for the same offense to any greater or different punishment [emphasis added]. Such was the view of Congress in the reenactment of the Civil Rights Act of May 31, 1870, c. 114, after the adoption of the amendment. That act, after providing that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, declares, in sec. 16, that they shall be subject”to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.”— Pace v. Alabama, 1883 .
Note that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment where the EPC is found, is also the main author of the quoted language from the Civil Rights Act of 1870 referenced in the excerpt above.
So pro-gay activist justices are unsurprisingly wrongly ignoring 10th Amendment-protected power to regulate marrige as evidenced by Supreme Court case precedent concerning the EPC and marriage / cohabitation.
Note that Pace v. Alabama was later overturned after Constitution-ignoring FDR had “nuked” the Supreme Court with 10th Amendment-ignoring activist justices.
My FRiend, you have nailed it. The entire federal government, let alone one leftist judge cannot be allowed to dictate to the states outside clear constitutional authority. Time for the question : how many divisions does she have?
Moore should have looked at fake Catholic Cuomo and said “you being born and raised a Catholic, why do you spit in the face of your own faith that is very specific about what constitutes marriage and that is the union of one man and one woman”. Then when Cuomo gets hot under the color Moore should have followed up by saying “I’m not a Catholic, but I do know about about Catholicism and you have effectively excommunicated yourself from the Catholic Church by your refusal to follow the doctrine of almighty God, and that also includes your supporting abortion on demand, which is also a forbidden in the Catholic Church. Mr. Cuomo why do remain in a faith you have nothing in common with”.
State after state has had elections and the people overwhemingly say marriage is the union of a man and a woman and has been since the beginning of recorded time. Then along comes the leftist anti-Christian radical Obama looking for a few votes and he “evolves” on same-sex “marriage”. What a phoney POS. Well they can it “marriage” all they want, but anyone with a brain knows marriage is the union of a man and woman for the creation of children and the good of society. When men start giving birth to children they can say they are in a marriage, and guess what, that ain’t never happening.