RE: Can you cite any precedence where a state kept a law on the books that was ruled unconstitutional, and enforced it until their state legislator got around to repealing it? I would love to hear where it has happened and worked.
We don’t need to go through all that. THAT IS IF WE REALLY FOLLOWED THE CONSTITUTION.
For one, the constitution is SILENT on the issue of same-sex marriage.
Therefore, since it is silent, we have the 10th amendment.
The 10th amendment tells us 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”
Since it is reserved to the States, then Kentucky should GET TO DEFINE ITS ONE LAWS ON MARRIAGE.
It just so happens that Kentucky has and currently, it PROHIBITS same-sex marriage.
Kim Davis is trying to UPHOLD Kentucky Law ( a law 5 black robed judges are usurping ).
Whereas, in Dred Scott, the justices defied natural law and presumed a “right” for whites to own blacks, the court’s 2015 Obergefell decision likewise defied natural law and presumed to deconstruct and redefine the institution of marriage.
Both decisions are illegitimate, and here’s why. For the U.S. Supreme Court to justifiably overturn some law duly passed by the United States Congress, its opinion must be deeply rooted in one or more of the following:
A clear reading of the U.S. Constitution;
Some prior court precedent;
History and the Common Law;
Our cultural customs or traditions;
Some other law enacted by Congress.
As the high court’s four dissenting justices rightly observed in Obergefell, the “five attorneys” who invented this newfangled “right” to “gay marriage,” failed, abysmally, on each and every requirement.
The same was true of Dred Scott.
And so both opinions should be summarily ignored.
Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to “check” judicial activism, up to and including when justices illegitimately legislate from the bench: “[T]he Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Our Republican-led Congress, from a regulatory standpoint, has the absolute constitutional authority to smack down this rogue Supreme Court. Unfortunately, to date, it has either been unwilling or unable to do so.
Still, it’s not Republicans alone who must halt this judicial imperialism. Every Freedom-loving American, to the extent that such animal yet exists, must also join the fight. After the Dred Scott opinion, they did.
They ought to do it in regards to what 5 lawyers of the Supreme Court did as well or we lose our freedom.
Dred Scott was a moral abomination, but to be fair the abomination was baked into the founding of the country. It needed a constitutional amendment to do away with it legally.
This present issue is something we didn’t wake up one day and find to be wrong after all. We knew it was wrong from the word go.
“We don’t need to go through all that.”
Well that’s too bad, because if you cant here, then you sure as hell cant in a court room.