Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Think and believe as you please. The reality is that a majority of Americans think that other people's choice of marriage partner is simply not their business, nor is it government's business.
The Supreme Court didn't lead on this issue. They followed.
The supremes are vile, convoluted and Corrupt. Small children even realize that fact.
No State has to issue marriage licenses. To force States to issue marriage licenses
is a violation of the Federal powers as specifically outlined in the Constitution.
Anyone who wants to force the States to issue marriage licenses is welcome
to try and amend the Constitution. Same-sex marriage supporters can roll back
in the recliner and claim it's "settled", and it may be, but there are still legal
maneuvers available to change that, as I outlined in Post 11.
Our Founding Fathers did not proscribe that we live under judicial dictatorship.
The same maneuvers apply to any SCOTUS ruling, not just this one.
No State has to issue marriage licenses. To force States to issue marriage licenses
is a violation of the Federal powers as specifically outlined in the Constitution.
Anyone who wants to force the States to issue marriage licenses is welcome
to try and amend the Constitution. Same-sex marriage supporters can roll back
in the recliner and claim it's "settled", and it may be, but there are still legal
maneuvers available to change that, as I outlined in Post 11.
Our Founding Fathers did not proscribe that we live under judicial dictatorship.
The same maneuvers apply to any SCOTUS ruling, not just this one.
Nice to See there's at least one sapient, intelligent mind-set who is outspoken and correct per this destructive subject, problem.
No State has to issue marriage licenses. To force States to issue marriage licenses
is a violation of the Federal powers as specifically outlined in the Constitution.
Anyone who wants to force the States to issue marriage licenses is welcome
to try and amend the Constitution. Same-sex marriage supporters can roll back
in the recliner and claim it's "settled", and it may be, but there are still legal
maneuvers available to change that, as I outlined in Post 11.
Our Founding Fathers did not proscribe that we live under judicial dictatorship.
The same maneuvers apply to any SCOTUS ruling, not just this one.
You still have it wrong. There was no order for the states to create marriage licenses.
The Scotus said that IF states issue marriage licenses, they can't create laws that exclude Gays and Lesbians from getting a license. If they do so, then the states have violated the rights of Gays & Lesbians under the US Constitution .
The states are forbidden to create laws that usurp the US Constitution. The states are in agreement with this. If you examine the Constitutions of the individual states, you are going to find something such as this.
The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, and of altering or abolishing their Constitution and form of government whenever it may be necessary to their safety and happiness; but every such right shall be exercised in pursuance of law and consistently with the Constitution of the United States.
The matter is closed. Furthermore people don't care about it. They are more worried about their jobs, putting food on the table for their kids, and their security.
No State has to issue marriage licenses. To force States to issue marriage licenses
is a violation of the Federal powers as specifically outlined in the Constitution.
Anyone who wants to force the States to issue marriage licenses is welcome
to try and amend the Constitution. Same-sex marriage supporters can roll back
in the recliner and claim it's "settled", and it may be, but there are still legal
maneuvers available to change that, as I outlined in Post 11.
Our Founding Fathers did not proscribe that we live under judicial dictatorship.
The same maneuvers apply to any SCOTUS ruling, not just this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM05
Nice to See there's at least one sapient, intelligent mind-set who is outspoken and correct per this destructive subject, problem.
Excellent and Well Said !!!
Well, just maybe a review of the Constitution may get you up to speed on just why and HOW the SCOTUS rulings directly affects how STATES must follow the law~~ a few links to get you started~~
Supporters of nullification have argued that the states' power of nullification is inherent in the nature of the federal system. They have argued that before the Constitution was ratified, the states essentially were separate nations. Under this theory, the Constitution is a contract, or "compact", among the states by which the states delegated certain powers to the federal government, while reserving all other powers to themselves. The states, as parties to the compact, retained the inherent right to judge compliance with the compact. According to supporters of nullification, if the states determine that the federal government has exceeded its delegated powers, the states may declare federal laws unconstitutional.[3] Nullification supporters argue that the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional not only is inherent in the concept of state sovereignty, but also is one of the powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.[4]
This view of the Constitution has been rejected by the federal courts, which consistently have held that under the Constitution, the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws. The courts have rejected the compact theory, finding that the Constitution was not a contract among the states. Rather, the Constitution was established directly by the people, as stated in the preamble: "We the people of the United States. . . ."[5] The people made the federal government superior to the states in certain ways. Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the Constitution and federal laws made in pursuance thereof are "the supreme law of the land . . . any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."[6] The courts have held that federal laws are therefore superior to state laws and cannot be negated by the states. Federal laws are valid and are controlling, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Determining whether a federal law is consistent with the Constitution requires interpretation of the law, which is inherently a judicial function. The federal judicial power granted by Article III of the Constitution gives the federal courts authority over all cases "arising under this Constitution [or] the laws of the United States."[7] The federal courts therefore have been given the power to determine whether federal laws are consistent with the Constitution, with the Supreme Court having final authority.[8]
Four principles were asserted in the text of the 14th amendment.
They were:
State and federal citizenship for all persons regardless of race both born or naturalized in the United States was reaffirmed. No state would be allowed to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of citizens.
No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty,or property without "due process of law."
No person could be denied "equal protection of the laws."
You still have it wrong. There was no order for the states to create marriage licenses.
The Scotus said that IF states issue marriage licenses, they can't create laws that exclude Gays and Lesbians from getting a license. If they do so, then the states have violated the rights of Gays & Lesbians under the US Constitution .
The states are forbidden to create laws that usurp the US Constitution. The states are in agreement with this. If you examine the Constitutions of the individual states, you are going to find something such as this.
The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, and of altering or abolishing their Constitution and form of government whenever it may be necessary to their safety and happiness; but every such right shall be exercised in pursuance of law and consistently with the Constitution of the United States.
The matter is closed. Furthermore people don't care about it. They are more worried about their jobs, putting food on the table for their kids, and their security.
From a Legal Law of the land standpoint ...the issue is temporary on hold. But, you are ignorantly Wrong if you think that issue will be accepted and embraced. And more fervently than abortion, the opposed to it will Fight it...and teach the destructiveness and Evil of it.
From a Legal Law of the land standpoint ...the issue is temporary on hold. But, you are ignorantly Wrong if you think that issue will be accepted and embraced. And more fervently than abortion, the opposed to it will Fight it...and teach the destructiveness and Evil of it.
It is over. Cruz can jump up and down and scream about an Amendment all he wants to overturn it. Rubio and Trump can whine about it and say they will get the courts to overturn it all they want, but its over.
While Republicans like Cruz, Rubio and Trump try to make an isdue out of it and might help in a Primary it will hurt in a General Election.
You still have it wrong. There was no order for the states to create marriage licenses.
The Scotus said that IF states issue marriage licenses, they can't create laws that exclude Gays and Lesbians from getting a license. If they do so, then the states have violated the rights of Gays & Lesbians under the US Constitution .
I didn't say there was such an order, because no order could be issued.
The insinuated point I was making is that States could stop issuing licenses.
There are many more avenues I've posted in this thread which nobody has
refuted.
OHHHH Rhut Rho Breaking News so now link at present..sorry~~ More bad news for GOPer's...Justice Scalia has died ( of natural causes)...hummmm looks like Obama may be able to bring another favourable Justice to SCOTUS prior to leaving office!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
