Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IRS Will Recognize Same-Sex Marriages in States That Don't Allow Same-Sex Marriage
Christian Post ^ | 08/30/2013 | Napp Nazworth

Posted on 08/30/2013 9:02:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Same-sex couples who get a marriage license in a state that has redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, but who live in a state that does not recognize their marriage, will be treated as a married couple for federal tax purposes, the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service announced Thursday.

The change in tax policy came after the U.S. Supreme Court this Summer struck down a provision in the Defense of Marriage Act that says marriage will be defined as the union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law.

The decision left unclear what it would mean for same-sex couples who married in one state but live in a state that does not recognize their marriage. It was left to the executive branch to decide many details about how the Supreme Court's decision would be implemented. Thursday's ruling, therefore, was the executive branch's clarification of the issue.

"Today's ruling provides certainty and clear, coherent tax filing guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide. It provides access to benefits, responsibilities and protections under federal tax law that all Americans deserve," Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said in a press release. "This ruling also assures legally married same-sex couples that they can move freely throughout the country knowing that their federal filing status will not change."

The ruling will apply to any part of the tax code that recognizes marriage. Civil unions, though, will not be recognized for tax purposes.

Same-sex couples can choose to, but are not required to, file an amended return for 2010, 2011 or 2012, and may receive a refund. Beginning with their 2013 tax filings, same-sex couples with a marriage license must file as either "married filing jointly" or "married filing separately."

The ruling does not apply to state taxes. So, a same-sex couple that has been married in a state that has redefined marriage, but lives in a state that has not redefined marriage, would file as married for their federal taxes and as single for their state taxes.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: abortion; deathpanels; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; irs; obamacare; rainbowspring; samesexmarriage; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

1 posted on 08/30/2013 9:02:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Land of the chimps is replacing USA.


2 posted on 08/30/2013 9:06:18 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The ruling does not apply to state taxes. So, a same-sex couple that has been married in a state that has redefined marriage, but lives in a state that has not redefined marriage, would file as married for their federal taxes and as single for their state taxes.

How could that be a problem?

Aren't you glad the feral government's bureaucracies single-handedly decide social issues for us? Don't you wish they could arbitrarily decide everything for us?

3 posted on 08/30/2013 9:07:12 AM PDT by Standing Wolf (No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Standing Wolf

Hey, Adam and Steve. Get your check book out!


4 posted on 08/30/2013 9:09:42 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Repeal The 16th!


5 posted on 08/30/2013 9:09:48 AM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Maybe in the grand scheme of everything, the gay marriage issue should have been revisited. In retrospect, so much time and policy has been directed at 2% of the population, of which, only a small percentage will ever “marry”. Given that the amount of broken families in this country and the problems of poverty and crime that result, the effort to address gay marriage seems well out of proportion to the real problem in this country.


6 posted on 08/30/2013 9:13:22 AM PDT by 11th Commandment (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I have a dog that has been humping my leg. I feed and house him. I take care of his medical bills. Seems to me the IRS is opening a door that good old Rover can pass through.


7 posted on 08/30/2013 9:14:55 AM PDT by Starstruck (If my reply offends, you probably don't understand sarcasm or criticism...or do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Errant
Repeal The 16th!

Agreed- solves a lot of issues with government social engineering!

8 posted on 08/30/2013 9:19:03 AM PDT by 11th Commandment (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I guess the 10th and 14th Amendments don't matter to this 0bama and Holder regime.

Heck, what am I saying, they don't care about the 1st, 2nd, or 4th Amendments either.

0bama swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the U.S.. Even to a neophyte of government, he and his administration have abrogated their responsibilities.

Impeachment must be considered in the House of Representatives. Paging Mr. Boehner, please pick up the pink courtesy telephone in the lobby.

5.56mm

9 posted on 08/30/2013 9:23:07 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

that’s so the IRS can collect more taxes as one homosexual loses part of his deductions

welcome to the marriage penalty, pal


10 posted on 08/30/2013 9:26:26 AM PDT by silverleaf (Age takes a toll: Please have exact change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Said it before... any government that equates two deviant homos as being the same as a husband-and-wife is a government that is neither worth respect nor preserving. Better the whole country burn to the ground than embrace this kind of evil.


11 posted on 08/30/2013 9:27:11 AM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greene66
Said it before... any government that equates two deviant homos as being the same as a husband-and-wife is a government that is neither worth respect nor preserving. Better the whole country burn to the ground than embrace this kind of evil.

There is a good chance your wishes will be fulfilled. I'm wondering where the bottom ends. I have no respect for this place anymore.

12 posted on 08/30/2013 9:33:01 AM PDT by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Only Two Days Until
September.

Less than $3.4k to go!!
We can do this!!

13 posted on 08/30/2013 9:35:41 AM PDT by RedMDer (http://www.dontfundobamacare.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Against the defense of Marriage Act.


14 posted on 08/30/2013 9:38:25 AM PDT by bmwcyle (People who do not study history are destine to believe really ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz

America Sucks.


15 posted on 08/30/2013 9:43:20 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Digger; greene66

Government Marxist plan is to debauche charity, to ridicule it and the people, so as to assume heroic bureaucrat power take over. Each time a judge cries for a poor student, it is done to justify oppressing its tax payer master.

They will side with the lowest level of trash retards to wage Khmer Rouge type crazed youth propagandized pogroms. All their minion sheeps of the skin of which this wolf clothes itself is just that: furniture, clothing, gun less slaves made of media libtard never spanked nor taught thought and concern in their lives, feral monsters of chaos from the deep, broken down to be rebuilt again in the government boot camp madrasahs.


16 posted on 08/30/2013 9:45:37 AM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Now the IRS comes out the closet. We knew they were rogue and without need of jury, perhaps not even legally founded, part of the conspiracy of lies and fake good sounding titles all government critters depend upon for their few pieces of silver of treason.

They can do whatever they want in charitable contributions to their sbirs from hell against the wishes of the states and the constitution.


17 posted on 08/30/2013 9:49:49 AM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Standing Wolf
That's step two and they'll win against a state that won't let them take all the deductions allowed marrieds.

Game over.

Why our Founders didn't want a national, but a federal government. The 17th Amendment and that dirty one before it are causing all this mischief.

18 posted on 08/30/2013 10:09:29 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What was that Liberaltarians? I thought you said ‘marriage was a state issue’

and pardon my french

FUBO!


19 posted on 08/30/2013 10:20:51 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

“Why our Founders didn’t want a national, but a federal government. The 17th Amendment and that dirty one before it are causing all this mischief.”

What? Marriage has never been a state issue. Never. Arguing that it was directly lead to this. Once they eliminated DOMA thanks to the complicity of folks like yourself, that opened the door.


20 posted on 08/30/2013 10:22:19 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment

“the effort to address gay marriage seems well out of proportion to the real problem in this country.”

Is the effort intended to curtail or promote the degredation of the family?


21 posted on 08/30/2013 10:24:02 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

It may or may not be a state issue but it certainly isn’t something the feds were authorized to meddle with. Are you guys seeing what happens when you let uncle fedgov do favors for you? Funny how you big government types love having that big pitbull in your yard and then cry when it turns on you.


22 posted on 08/30/2013 10:35:52 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog

“certainly isn’t something the feds were authorized to meddle with”

Now we’ve got gay marriage in all 50 states.

Thanks to you. Good job trashing DOMA.

“big government types”

Yawn. The only thing you ever criticize are social conservatives.


23 posted on 08/30/2013 10:37:54 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Same-sex ‘marriage’. No such thing according to the book of Genesis and the very words of Jesus Christ. They can play all the lying games they want but it doesn’t change the T-R-U-T-H.
24 posted on 08/30/2013 10:42:33 AM PDT by 444Flyer (How long O LORD? Habakkuk 2;Isaiah 55)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Of course they will. Law, schmaw. The law is whatever they say it is at any given time.


25 posted on 08/30/2013 10:48:16 AM PDT by Antoninus (Sorry, gone rogue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Now we’ve got gay marriage in all 50 states.

Because you invited fedgov into your institution. You all did that when you let it do those favors for you.

Yawn. The only thing you ever criticize are social conservatives.

Show me some liberals here and I'll make fun of them, too. But really you guys are providing me such a target rich environment with all the double standards and hypocrisy.

26 posted on 08/30/2013 10:53:32 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog

“Because you invited fedgov into your institution. You all did that when you let it do those favors for you.”

Ok, which is why you were opposed to DOMA, which, the instant it was removed we had gay marriage in all 50 states.

You say the ‘states have control over marriage’. Yet, there’s not a peep from you until I came in and called out liberaltarians for their opposition to DOMA.

How is that whole ‘states rights thingy’ working out for you? I asked the question how spousal visas were going to work. Silence. I asked about how bigamy and polygamy was going to be rejected. Silence.

Now that gay marriage is in all 50 states, you got what you wanted!


27 posted on 08/30/2013 11:03:39 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

I wasn’t the one who invited the vampires into the house. When all the fools who begged for and accepted fedgov’s money and favors is when the door was kicked wide open for it to shove gay marriage down your throats. You simply have no libertarians to blame for that one. That should have been a teachable moment for you, but you just can’t let go of your love for an all powerful fedgov.


28 posted on 08/30/2013 12:20:35 PM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge; Orangedog

Orange misses the point. The real reasons fags want “marriage” are listed below by homo spokespeople and leaders. And BTW - marriage (aka “real” marriage) has been recognized legally by some for of government for millenia. Pretending otherwise is not only nuts but a lie.

From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]

An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):

“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”

“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”

He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”

Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:

“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:

“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”

[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]


29 posted on 08/30/2013 12:24:20 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
Because you invited fedgov into your institution. You all did that when you let it do those favors for you.

I think you are blind to the big picture regarding what GOV's role is and how it's role to be legitimate must be limited.

Right now we see GOV regulating and taxing and fining businesses for reasons far more than protecting individuals life and property -we see GOV attempting to social engineer, in essence redistribute wealth arbitrarily' fairly. I would suggest that this is what is happening with the marriage institution as well. The utopian leftists are taking the societal norm that values families and marriage established for centuries and turning it on its head to be fair. To in essence redistribute the benefits to other groups.

This is not about a government of the people protecting institutions in existence before GOV was even constituted. This is about GOV being used to impose upon society a perverted leftist morality. This is about GOV overstepping its legitimate limits.

Conservatism is not about no GOV, it's about limited GOV.

30 posted on 08/30/2013 12:24:43 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment

See the real reasons why pervs want “marriage”, I just posted above. In their own words.


31 posted on 08/30/2013 12:25:13 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
Conservatism is not about no GOV, it's about limited GOV.

Sure, it says it's about smaller, limited government. Like how it shrank and limited government when it had control after the 2000 elections? The conservatism that gave us homeland security, medicare part d and all of the other things that shrank and restrained fedgov back then? I hear a lot of talk to get the suckers to the polls and then a lot of hypocrites making excuses for making fedgov bigger and more intrusive after the elections. Color me skeptical... At best.

32 posted on 08/30/2013 12:36:09 PM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

LOL. Marriage has always been a state issue. Show me your “national marriage license”. It doesn’t exist.

The IRS is a national imposition. It comes from the 16th Amendment, the dirty one before the 17th. We have a federal, not a national government. Think of the word confederation and take away the con. We have a federation of states with a very limited federal government.

Read the Constitution and familiarize yourself with it. Marriage isn’t a federal issue.


33 posted on 08/30/2013 12:45:30 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck

Civil unions aren’t recognized, that way the lawsuit which will force this on the states will hold water.

It’s all a strategy to get marriage equality for homosexuals.

The world’s turned upside down by these “liberals”.


34 posted on 08/30/2013 12:47:16 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

We should have passed a Marriage Amendment years ago. Polygamy is next.


35 posted on 08/30/2013 1:37:01 PM PDT by Pinkbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
We have a federation of states with a very limited federal government.

Well, that's the way it was supposed to be. But the states sold that early on, allowing the Feds to assume their debts.

Since that day in 1790, as Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson compromised over dinner, we've had a strong federal government with subordinate states.
36 posted on 08/30/2013 1:48:52 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

“Marriage has always been a state issue. Show me your “national marriage license”. It doesn’t exist.”

Again - you’ve been preaching this for how long now? The result, no DOMA, and gay marriage everywhere.

Fantastic job!


37 posted on 08/30/2013 2:14:02 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

“We should have passed a Marriage Amendment years ago. Polygamy is next.”

Exactly. But I’m sure we’ll hear more liberaltarian whining about any attempt to restrict sharia law.

Nice job breaking it!


38 posted on 08/30/2013 2:15:03 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

“The real reasons fags want “marriage” are listed below by homo spokespeople and leaders”

I’m willing to bet even money that Orange isn’t married which is why he’s supportive of the agenda.


39 posted on 08/30/2013 2:16:14 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog

“I wasn’t the one who invited the vampires into the house.”

You collaborated with them to take down DOMA. Kneecapping social conservatives is really working out great for you now, eh?

Call me when the SCOTUS upholds a state ban on gay marriage and then we can talk about the success of your strategy. So far you’ve been batting 0 for a helluva lot.


40 posted on 08/30/2013 2:17:44 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge; 1010RD; Orangedog

Please read my comment with the real reasons fags want same sex marriage:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3060665/posts?page=29#29

And is the fags who’ve made marriage a fedgov issue, not conservatives.


41 posted on 08/30/2013 2:28:41 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This will be pushed on to these states in all other areas: employer insurance, medicaid, state inheritance issues, etc. Count on it.


42 posted on 08/30/2013 2:33:52 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

In a tragic, indirect sort of way, all this was Romney’s fault. First, for ushering in the new paradigm of “same-sex ‘marriage’” in America (yes, he did it - he didn’t have to); then, by running for president without a backbone to win, and destroying every other conservative candidate who could have won.


43 posted on 08/30/2013 2:37:04 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell
We should have passed a Marriage Amendment years ago.

But, but.... the oh-so-wise liberaltarians and moderates said we shouldn't take that route unless absolutely necessary. NOW we can do it since it's necessary, right?

44 posted on 08/30/2013 2:39:05 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

“And is the fags who’ve made marriage a fedgov issue, not conservatives.”

Is Habeaus Corpus a state issue?


45 posted on 08/30/2013 3:01:26 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Is Habeaus Corpus a state issue?


No.

https://www.rutherford.org/constitutional_corner/habeas_corpus/

Habeas Corpus

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”—Article I, Section IX of the U.S. Constitution

Habeas corpus, a fundamental tenet of English common law, does not appear anywhere in the Bill of Rights. Its importance was such that it was enshrined in the Constitution itself. And it is of such magnitude that all other rights, including those in the Bill of Rights, are dependent upon it. Without habeas corpus, the significance of all other rights crumbles.

The right of habeas corpus was important to the Framers of the Constitution because they knew from personal experience what it was like to be labeled enemy combatants, imprisoned indefinitely and not given the opportunity to appear before a neutral judge. Believing that such arbitrary imprisonment is “in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instrument of tyranny,” the Founders were all the more determined to protect Americans from such government abuses.

The History of Habeas Corpus

Translated as “you should have the body,” habeas corpus is a legal action, or writ, by which those imprisoned unlawfully can seek relief from their imprisonment. Derived from English common law, habeas corpus first appeared in the Magna Carta of 1215 and is the oldest human right in the history of English-speaking civilization. The doctrine of habeas corpus stems from the requirement that a government must either charge a person or let him go free.

While serving as President, Thomas Jefferson addressed the essential necessity of habeas corpus. In his first inaugural address on March 4, 1801, Jefferson said, “I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government cannot be strong; that this government is not strong enough.” But, said Jefferson, our nation was “the world’s best hope” and, because of our strong commitment to democracy, “the strongest government on earth.” Jefferson said that the sum of this basic belief was found in the “freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.”

In the two centuries since the Constitution was ratified, habeas corpus has only been suspended twice. It was first suspended on April 27, 1861, in Maryland and parts of midwestern states by President Abraham Lincoln in response to riots and local militia action, as well as the threat that Maryland would secede from the Union. The second suspension of habeas corpus occurred during Reconstruction, in the early 1870s, when President Ulysses S. Grant responded to civil rights violations by the Ku Klux Klan. It was then limited to nine counties in South Carolina.

Throughout the twentieth century, the importance of the right of habeas corpus has repeatedly been confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. And one federal appeals court observed that the Supreme Court has “recognized the fact that ‘[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.’”

(excerpt)


46 posted on 08/30/2013 3:09:50 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”—Article I, Section IX of the U.S. Constitution

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html

Take a gander at this.


47 posted on 08/30/2013 3:39:36 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
You collaborated with them to take down DOMA. Kneecapping social conservatives is really working out great for you now, eh?

Yeah, you must have seen me there wielding all my influence with justice kennedy. Maybe I can have him give you a shout out in the next opinion he writes.

48 posted on 08/30/2013 3:56:59 PM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: All


Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


49 posted on 08/30/2013 3:59:09 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
And is the fags who’ve made marriage a fedgov issue, not conservatives.

Yep, must have been those queers decades ago that put all those tax exemptions for passing on assets to the spouse and all the other special treatment for married people. Crafty buggers they are, laying all that ground work while calling it family values and whatnot.

Seriously guys...conservatives helped make that mess. Own it, learn from it and move on. Or keep shaking your first at the sky and looking for someone else to blame for your own short sightedness.

50 posted on 08/30/2013 4:03:53 PM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson