The duties not enumerated in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government belong to the states, according to the Tenth Amendment. Nowhere is the regulation of marriage given to the federal government.
As in DOMA, but now this?
Posted on 07/05/2015 7:44:39 PM PDT by BlackjackPershing
And Zero is ignoring federal law by not securing our nations borders.
Go back to the Constitution and weed out any laws or agencies that are not designated as duties of the federal government.
Dept. of Education, yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis
under discussion
Also from the Tenth Amendment Center
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/10/29/more-on-civil-disobedience-and-nullification/
The duties not enumerated in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government belong to the states, according to the Tenth Amendment. Nowhere is the regulation of marriage given to the federal government.
“So let the 82nd Airborne Division.....”
So let the 82nd Airborne Division, Mexico, England, Canada
Germany, NATO and every other country that accepts the
Obamas invitation to plunder and loot America. And they
will support the Obama for a piece of the pie, you can
count on it.
“Let the CoC order the arrest of all 50 governors.”
Cannon fodder for drones.
Tactical nukes? No problem.
If the Obama wants it can be done.
If we patriots are going to die, then we die standing up.
Like they did in Warsaw in 1943.
I doubt there is one governor who would do anything but talk about the 10th amendment. Perry talked about it but that’s all he did.
Baloney.
The Feds are our dictators. See The Supremes.
Unconstitutional federal acts are by definition acts of tyranny and it is the constitutional right and duty for states to stand against and nullify unconstitutional federal acts.
Article VI, Clause 2 (”The Supremacy Clause”) of the U.S. Constitution states that the Constitution and those federal acts IN PURSUANCE of the Constitution are the supreme Law of the Land. Unconstitutional federal acts are by definition acts of tyranny and it is the constitutional right and duty for states to stand against and nullify unconstitutional federal acts.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments confirm that SCOTUS holds no unilateral power to interpret or in most cases IGNORE the Constitution. The Constitution LIMITS the feds and does not give the feds unilateral power to decide what that means. The Constitution is to be interpreted AS WRITTEN and originally understood and intended. The feds and SCOTUS have ceased ANY good-faith interpretation of the Constitution and for the most part ignore it or illegally rewrite it.
The so-called “Incorporation Doctrine” allowing the feds to enforce the first ten amendments is invalid and overturns without constitutional explanation or reasoning, the long-held precedent of the Supreme Court’s decision in Slaughterhouse in 1873. A strong argument by Judge Robert Bork against this unjustified expansion of federal power is below.
The states is where the real fight is to recover OUR freedom and OUR Constitution against the $4 trillion feds, 80% or about $3 trillion of which, including MOST cabinet and administrative departments, is unconstitutional and should be dismantled.
Of course those states must be prepared for financial independence from the feds who will pull the funding plug. Great! Isn’t that what our country is all about anyway? INDEPENDENCE! If the state is smart, it will keep their state government small, taxes low, and let the free market economy do what it does best - create wealth and a strong economy. Pretty soon that state will be more financially sound that the bankrupt feds.
It’s a fight for our freedom. The colonists were also outnumbered by the strongest military power in the world. Did they count the cost? Yes. Did they fight anyway? Yes, becasue freedom was worth it. Is it to us?
From Robert Bork’s “Tempting of America”:
“Miller was following sound judicial instinct: to reject a construction of a new amendment that would leave the Court at large in the field of public policy without any guidelines other than the views of its members. [ ] In a word, the history of the fourteenth amendment gave judges no guidance on any subject other than the protection of blacks. Beyond that, the Justices had nothing more to apply than their personal views. That, Miller thought, was reason enough to confine the amendment almost entirely to the subject of race” (id. at 37-38).
What is below is from an earlier post that I think is applicable to invalidating any true constitutional justification for the Incorporation Doctrine upon which the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been justified…
What is the basis for saying that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended it to apply only to former slaves?
- The historical context of the post-civil war reconstruction period to instate the former slaves as full U.S. citizens with full rights as others.
- The legal context of this being the middle of the three reconstruction amendments.
- The lack of clear text that proves specific provision of unparalleled and massive expansion of federal power which would have been completely out of place from the purpose of these post-civil war reconstruction amendments and would have produced much evidence, of which there is none, of debate and discussion about such a radical departure from American governance, as noted below.
- The weight of the probative value of accuracy and precedent in a SCOTUS case decided four years after the amendment was ratified versus 131 years later.
- The intent of the ratifiers, not the drafters. As noted below, there is scant evidence the ratifiers intended to apply Corfield v. Coryell rights and it is the intent of the ratifiers, not the drafters, that counts.
From Bork’s “The Tempting of America”:
“The fourteenth amendment was adopted shortly after the Civil War, and all commentators are agreed that its primary purpose was the protection of the recently freed slaves. As we have seen, of the amendment’s three clauses, two have been pressed into service of judicial imperialism - the due process and equal protection clauses - while the third, the privileges and immunities clause, has remained a cadaver that it was left by the Slaughter-House Cases. [ ] The fifth amendment’s due process clause, which applied only against the federal government, was later copied in the fourteenth amendment, which applied to the states. ‘There is general agreement that the earlier clause had been understood at the time of its inclusion to refer to lawful procedures. What recorded comment there was at the time of replication in the fourteenth amendment is devoid of any reference that gives the provision more than a procedural connotation’ (J. Ely, “Democracy and Distrust” (1980) at 105-16). That is true, and it is more than enough to condemn the hundreds of cases, stretching from Dred Scott to today, in which the courts have given the due process clause substantive content in order to read their own notions of policy into the Constitution.
“Ely’s attempt to make the privileges and immunities clause do the work that has been improperly assigned to the due process clause is, however, unsuccessful. He points out that ‘there is not a bit of legislative history that supports the view that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was intended to be meaningless’ (Id. at 103). That is hardly surprising. One would not expect ratifying conventions to enact a constitutional provision they intended to mean nothing. But that hardly solves the problem, and the problem is that we do not know what the clause is intended to mean.
“Bingham and Howard meant these additional rights [taken from Corfield v. Coryell]. That the ratifiers did is far less clear. Certainly there is no evidence that the ratifying convention intended such power in judges, and it is their intent, not the drafters’, that counts. Nor is it easy to imagine the northern states, victorious in a Civil War that lead to the fourteenth amendment, should have decided to turn over to the federal courts not only the protection of the rights of freed slaves but an unlimited power to frustrate the will of the Northern states themselves. The only significant exercise of judicial review in the past century had been Dred Scott, a decision hated in the North and one hardly likely to encourage the notion that courts should be given carte blanche to set aside legislative acts.
“Had any such radical departure from the American method of governance been intended, had courts been intended to supplant legislatures, there would be more than a shred of evidence to that effect. That proposal would have provoked an enormous debate and public discussion.
“We know there is no evidence that the ratifiers imagined they were handing ultimate governance to the courts. We know that a constitutional revolution of that magnitude would have provoked widespread and heated (to put it mildly) discussion but there is no record of any such discussion. The rather sweeping mandate must be judged counterfeit” (R. Bork, The Tempting of America (1990), excerpted at 180-83).
Yeah, but it wasn’t implied, merely understood.
Shout it from the mountaintops my FRiend.
Nah.
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.
Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
Yes.
Related text...
“[I]n declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803).
The states should ignore this ruling. We have hundreds of cities making it safe for illegals, we have states ignoring drug laws, and yet the states are supposed to go by this ruling. Screw that.
The SCOTUS ignored the Constitution, the states had spoken on this issue and the feds had no right to make a law.
Like I said , if certain cities and states ignore federal laws which suits their agenda then states should ignore this and still keep marriage as one man and one woman.
States and cities are ignoring drug and immigration laws and the feds do nothing. Why should states abide by this new ruling
forgot about that.
Great great great point and something I will use in my daily arguments ,.
Remember Kagan stating she believes in the Govt does not decide what marriage is?
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.