Posted on 03/04/2014 9:16:31 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
In an emotional statement, Attorney General Jack Conway told reporters Tuesday that he will not appeal U.S. District Court Judge John G. Heyburn’s ruling that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages from other states. But moments after Conway announced his decision, Gov. Steve Beshear said he will appeal the ruling.
“General Conway has advised me that he will no longer represent the Commonwealth in Bourke vs. Beshear. The State will hire other counsel to represent it in this case, and will appeal Judge Heyburn’s decision to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and ask the court to enter a stay pending appeal,” Beshear said in an emailed statement.
Beshear, in his statement, said the matter will likely be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, but anticipated a further stay on Heyburn’s ruling until the appeal is decided.
“Without a stay in place, the opportunity for legal chaos is real. Other Kentucky courts may reach different and conflicting decisions. There is already a lawsuit underway in Franklin Circuit Court, and other lawsuits in state and federal courts are possible,” Beshear said. “Also, people may take action based on this decision only to be placed at a disadvantage should a higher court reverse the decision.”
(Excerpt) Read more at mycn2.com ...
Can the AG be fired/impeached for violating his duties?
He should be hung.
But Rand Paul worshipped Aqua Buddha. Jack Conway represents Kentucky values.
Good on Governor Beshear. Fight the Good fight.
What's there to decide?
As mentioned in related threads, not only did the Founding States make the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about things like marriage means that government power to reglate marriage is automatically reserved uniquely to the states, not the federal government, but the states have never amended the the Constitution to expressly protected so-called gay rights. So the states are free to make laws which discriminate against gay issues like same-sex marriage, as long as such laws don't unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Unsurprisingly, institutionally-indoctrinated (Constitution-ignoring?) attorneys seem to behaving a big problem with this issue.
What's there to decide?
As mentioned in related threads, not only did the Founding States make the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about things like marriage means that government power to reglate marriage is automatically reserved uniquely to the states, not the federal government, but the states have never amended the the Constitution to expressly protected so-called gay rights. So the states are free to make laws which discriminate against gay issues like same-sex marriage, as long as such laws don't unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Unsurprisingly, institutionally-indoctrinated (Constitution-ignoring?) attorneys seem to behaving a big problem with this issue.
Sorry for double post.
WTF....since when does he get to pick and choose which state laws he will defend?
FIRE his lazy ass.
Jack Conway: EAGER to see sodomy shoved down the throat of America and America’s children. But at least he is “emotional” about it, right?
Kentucky rednecks resemble (oops, resent) that.
Nothing new hear. Conway and Beshear playing both sides of the fence for the Democrat party.
Liberals think the 14th Amendment more or less repeals the 10th. Unfortunately in practice, that’s basically how it’s played out. Any perceived restriction can just about be twisted into an equal protection case.
FDR's activist justices are the one's who butchered lawmaker's intensions for the 14th Amendment.
From a related thread ...
First, regardless what FDR's activist justices wanted Constitution-ignorant citizens to think about Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation," the real Jefferson had clarified the following about the 1st and 10th Amendments with respect to "government" power to address religious issues. Jefferson had indicated that the states had made the 10th Amendment to clarify in part that the states had reserved government power to address religious issues uniquely to themselves, regardless that the states had also made the 1st Amendment in part to clarify that Congress is prohibited from having such powers altogether.
“3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed (emphasis added); …” —Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
The reason that Christians have been inexcusably letting their freedom of religious expression slip through their fingers is this imo. As a consequence of not studying the Constitution and its history for themselves, FDR's anti-religious expression justices got away with twisting how 14th Amendment lawmakers had intended for that amendment to be understood in order to rob the states of their power to address religious issues. More specifically, regardless that the 14th Amendment clearly indicates that only priviliges and immunities protected by the Constitution are to apply to the states, FDR's justices wrongly went beyond just privileges and immunities and applied the 1st Amendment's prohibition on Congress's power to address religious issues to the states. This is evidenced by the following excerpt from Cantwell v. Connecticut.
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws (emphasis added). The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940.
Glaring evidence of the Supreme Court's impropriety with respect to twisting the 14th Amendment is the following. john Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had officially clarified, on several occasions, that 14A did not take away any state rights.
“The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)“No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)
“Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)
So since Jefferson had clearly indicated that the states had the unique, 10A-protected power to address religious issues long before 14A was ratified, Bingham's words confirm that the states still had such power after 14A was ratified.
In fact, Justice Reid noted that judges are supposed to balance 10th Amendment-protected state powers with 14th Amendment protected personal rights.
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942
On the other hand, what good are our constitutonal protections when parents don't make sure that their children are taught the Constitution and its history as constitutional lawmakers had intended for it to be understood?
I agree with your post, however at this point it seems hopelessly academic to debate the issue with anyone. I would add that the 17th Amendment also terribly undermined State powers. However arguing for its repeal is also rather hopeless.
I thought there was a political adage that six months is an eternity in politics. But the following link indicates one day.
A day is an eternity in politics.
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.