Posted on 03/22/2013 8:06:35 AM PDT by Pyro7480
...Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in cases that challenge the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8. The Court should uphold these laws and respect the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected officials to make marriage policy.
Next Tuesday, March 26, as the Supreme Court hears these cases, thousands will come to our nation’s capital to March for Marriage.
Make your voice heard in support of marriage between a man and a woman—and urge the Court to respect your constitutional authority. We don’t need an activist Court creating a Roe v. Wade on marriage.
Last Thursday, at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Senator DeMint highlighted the importance of marriage for America and limited government, and stressed the unity of social and fiscal conservatism:
We cannot hope to limit government if we do not stand up for our core civil society institutions, beginning with marriage. Marriage is the foundation of America’s cultural stability and economic prosperity, and the courts have no business overruling the people’s democratic decisions in the states. People can love whom they want and live the way they choose, but no one is entitled to redefine a foundational institution of civil society that has existed for centuries....
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.heritage.org ...
•08:30 AM: Gather at National Mall location between 10th Street and 12th Street NW and between Madison Drive NW and Jefferson Drive SW
•09:30 AM: March to the Supreme Court [ARROWS] and then return to the National Mall location
•11:00 AM: Rally begins at National Mall location (live music, speakers and more)
•01:00 PM: March for Marriage concludes
Please note that this schedule is subject to change.
bttt
14th Amendment, Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State (emphasis added), being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
in fact, regardless of 14A's equal protection clause, because she was a woman, the Supreme Court rejected Virginia Minor's claim that her citizenship entitled her to vote.
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT
Regarding my previous post concerning PC interpretations of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protections Clause, why do questions like the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting gay marriage, questions which are easily resolvable by just reading the Constitution, make it all the way to the Supreme Court for a decision? What are they teaching in law schools?
Constitution-ignoring plaintiffs are evidently depending on activist justices to likewise ignore the Constitution and decide cases in their favor.
In fact, when patriots march to DC to defend traditional, one-man, one-woman marriage, they should hold up signs referring to Section 2 of 14A and Minor v. Happerset imho.
When elderly people on Social Security come to the march they should hold up signs saying. “Index the SS tax deduction”, or “30 YEAR OLD SS TAX RATE IS NOT FAIR.” This is because 30 years ago in 1983 (Reagan Admin.), Republicans and Democrats decided to tax SS income for the first time. A complex formula was devised to determine how much income triggered SS taxation. It included a $25,000 deduction for a single person, and a $32 deduction for a married couple. That figure HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED for 30 years. If adjusted for inflation the figure would NOW be around $58,000 and $74,000. With a $74,000 figure I, a widow, could afford to marry the fine man I have met since my husband died 7 years ago. At 32,000 we simply cannot afford to do so.
Please help spread this information. Perhaps Congress will adjust for inflation and thousands of retired couples could afford to get married.
Did you go, got any pictures and an after action report?
Thanks
Judge Bork complained that constitutional law was no longer being taught. Or rather, not as the basic law of the country. One was free to re-interpret it, to make it conform with one’s political goals, on the grounds that it had no truly compelling authority.
the real question is WHO ARE THE CLERKS FOR THE JUDGES?
they will be writing these opinions.
THEY will be the ones who will hold sway over the judges.
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.