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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court won't stop gay marriages from starting in Alabama
FOXNEWS.COM ^ | 2/9/2015 | AP

Posted on 02/09/2015 6:49:01 AM PST by alancarp

Link only, due to AP source.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Government; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: alabama; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; roymoore; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-164 next last
To: DoodleDawg

Well, if you’re referring to Alabama and Gov. Wallace and the school desegregation confrontation in the 60’s, the feds were actually acting constitutionally per the 14A (which authorizes the feds to interfere with the state ONLY regarding state segregation laws)- Wallace & Co. were out of line on that one.

No, I’m talking about a deliberate, good-faith effort of a state to determine whether a questionable federal act violates the text, original understanding, and intent of the Constitution. Don’t think Alabama did that back then. But the states need to do it now. Otherwise, they are relinquishing their most precious freedom to tyranny without a shot being fired. God forbid and by God’s grace many will fight for their God-given right to Life, Liberty and Free Pursuits.


81 posted on 02/09/2015 1:04:16 PM PST by PapaNew (The grace of God & freedom always win the debate in the forum of ideas over unjust law & government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
Well, if you’re referring to Alabama and Gov. Wallace and the school desegregation confrontation in the 60’s, the feds were actually acting constitutionally per the 14A (which authorizes the feds to interfere with the state ONLY regarding state segregation laws)- Wallace & Co. were out of line on that one.

I'm talking about through our history. From South Carolina trying to nullify tariffs to Northern states trying to nullify fugitive slave laws and on through the Civil War and up to today. The judiciary has taken a dim view of states trying an end run around the supremacy clause.

82 posted on 02/09/2015 1:07:07 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
People need to get the Supremacy Clause which does NOT authorize unconstitutional acts or decisions by the federal government.

Article VI Section2 reads in part,

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...

Any law not made IN PURSUANCE of the Constitution, like Obamacare, is NOT the Law of the Land. The states need to understand that and be ready to fight for it.

83 posted on 02/09/2015 1:15:50 PM PST by PapaNew (The grace of God & freedom always win the debate in the forum of ideas over unjust law & government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
Any law not made IN PURSUANCE of the Constitution, like Obamacare, is NOT the Law of the Land. The states need to understand that and be ready to fight for it.

Point out where the Constitution says the state has the right to decide that.

84 posted on 02/09/2015 1:34:47 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

The Tenth Amendment confirms the presumptions of the Constitution which is mainly pointed at limiting the federal government. The Constitution begins with the presumption of ALL power in the states and the people. Our rights are not enumerated, they are presumed as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

The states and people DELEGATE certain ENUMERATED powers to the federal government via the Constitution. If the rights and powers are not delegated to the feds or prohibited to the states by the Constitution, they are presumed to belong to the states and the people.

The states have the constitutional right and power to nullify unconstitutional federal decisions based on the Supremacy Clause, confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and no constitutional prohibition of such against the states.


85 posted on 02/09/2015 2:02:23 PM PST by PapaNew (The grace of God & freedom always win the debate in the forum of ideas over unjust law & government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

Anything is better than recognizing counterfeit marriage. So yeah I totally agree with you. States must make a stand.


86 posted on 02/09/2015 2:15:39 PM PST by Clump (I'd rather die with my boots on than live wearing a pair of knee pads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MarkRegal05

You are 100% correct. We need more elected officials who will fight - like Roy Moore. Unfortunately, I can these spineless quislings turning their backs on the good citizens of Alabama.


87 posted on 02/09/2015 2:23:29 PM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

Notice that no Catholic Churches are marrying faggots and dykes.

Guess Martin Luther opened up a big ole can of worms.


88 posted on 02/09/2015 2:46:21 PM PST by Rome2000 (SMASH THE CPUSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
The states have the constitutional right and power to nullify unconstitutional federal decisions based on the Supremacy Clause, confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and no constitutional prohibition of such against the states.

I think your mistaken on that.

89 posted on 02/09/2015 3:04:28 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Well DoodleDawg, Ive given you constitutional-based reasoning for state supremacy and valid nullification.

You’ve got to have more at hand that just a flat conclusory statement like that. You’ve got to know and be able to express why you think the way you do or you need to re-investigate the issue.


90 posted on 02/09/2015 3:08:29 PM PST by PapaNew (The grace of God & freedom always win the debate in the forum of ideas over unjust law & government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

The day Wallace stepped aside was the day public education started going to hell. Hindsight is 2020.


91 posted on 02/09/2015 3:13:50 PM PST by VerySadAmerican (Obama voters are my enemy. And so are RINO voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: alancarp; LucyT
But something stirred across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks were willing to march across a bridge. And so they got together, Barack Obama Jr. was born. ~~ SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), March 4, 2007

On March 15, 1965, Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro in Molokai, Hawaii.

On March 25, 1965, Martin Luther King led thousands of demonstrators to the steps of the capitol in Montgomery, Alabama, after a 5-day, 54-mile march from Selma, Alabama.


92 posted on 02/09/2015 3:16:20 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
Point out where the Constitution says the state has the right to decide that

Which law made in pursuance of the Federal constitution permits two men or two women to execute a personal services contract under the sections of the Alabama (or any other state's) marriage code?

Even if Congress were to pass a law acknowledging the possibility that a same-sex relationship could be a marriage in DC and on Indian reservations and military bases, how does that law bind the states? It's certainly not a law "made in pursuance [of the Constitution] thereof".

The Civil Rights laws, although parts of them are of dubious constitutionality, were made to implement Amendments XIV and XV, and the power to legislate for this purpose was granted to Congress by the amendment process. That is most certainly not the case with Federal courts enjoining enforcement of state marriage laws, and even the Supreme Court has no proper basis to rule on these cases.

93 posted on 02/09/2015 3:26:08 PM PST by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

I just saw this on Bret Baier. The picture was two women who were easily 400 pounds each.

I literally am sick to my stomach after seeing that!


94 posted on 02/09/2015 3:34:36 PM PST by hockeyfan44 (No more RINOS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

Watched the opening of CBS Evening News (Yeah, I know). They breathlessly reported it and compared it to the civil rights of the 60s.


95 posted on 02/09/2015 3:34:37 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
Well DoodleDawg, Ive given you constitutional-based reasoning for state supremacy and valid nullification.

No you've given me your opinion on state supremacy and valid nullification. That's one side. The other side is the historical fact that courts at all levels of the federal judiciary have continuously ruled that states cannot nullify federal law or court rulings.

96 posted on 02/09/2015 3:35:55 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: FrankR
Alabama needs to just repeal the marriage process altogether. Anyone wanting to get married will just have to find another state.

That's the chicken-s--t way out.

97 posted on 02/09/2015 3:37:50 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Which law made in pursuance of the Federal constitution permits two men or two women to execute a personal services contract under the sections of the Alabama (or any other state's) marriage code?

I'm not sure there is one. But if there were does a state have the Constitutional right to nullify that law by ignoring it. That is the question that was being debated.

98 posted on 02/09/2015 3:38:34 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

John Roberts simply “deemed” the Obamacare penalty a tax, and thus, by fiat, made it constitutional, so it has been said, since the Federal Government does have the power to tax. Actually, it seems to me that the ONLY thing about the ACA that is remotely constitutional is that they can tax you. The feds have no more right of “ownership” over your person than they did before, and cannot force you to purchase a product or participate in any particular form of commerce.


99 posted on 02/09/2015 3:39:14 PM PST by mtrott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

@Alter

And how will the feds come in and compel Alabama authorities or preachers to conduct marriages? What if they just say no? Are they going to jail people who refuse.

It seems to me that what will eventually happen is that, in some areas, the Federal government will have to somehow come in and perform the ceremonies. But, as they are not Alabama officials, will such a wedding be legal?


100 posted on 02/09/2015 3:45:41 PM PST by mtrott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-164 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