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

To: alancarp

Upshot is that Alabama is now - despite the will of both the people and the state legislature - the 37th state to allow gay marriage

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
My US Constitution, article 3, section 2 clearly states that in ALL CASES where a STATE is a PARTY to the action, the Supreme Court and ONLY the Supreme Court has LEGAL Jurisdiction. No Inferior Court has the authority under the Constitution to even hear the case, let alone rule on it.
Tell the inferior court to pound sand.


12 posted on 02/09/2015 7:02:03 AM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: eyeamok

There was an appeal to SCOTUS: they refused to stay the lower court’s ruling. So... yeah.


13 posted on 02/09/2015 7:05:21 AM PST by alancarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: eyeamok; alancarp
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. My US Constitution, article 3, section 2 clearly states that in ALL CASES where a STATE is a PARTY to the action, the Supreme Court and ONLY the Supreme Court has LEGAL Jurisdiction. No Inferior Court has the authority under the Constitution to even hear the case, let alone rule on it. Tell the inferior court to pound sand.

That's a creative interpretation of the law, but a wrong one. The Supreme Court has always interpreted that clause as giving it - as opposed to Congress - the power to assume or delegate jurisdiction over state party cases.

This was stated explicitly by the Supreme Court way back in 1861, although the precedents the Court cited go back to the founding of the American judiciary. Kentucky v. Dennison, 65 U.S. (24 How.) 66, 98 (1861). Aside from running contrary to the law, your interpretation would be unworkable - we'd probably need 1000 Supreme Court justices just to handle the workload. Insane.

23 posted on 02/09/2015 7:25:18 AM PST by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: eyeamok; alancarp
ALL CASES where a STATE is a PARTY to the action, the Supreme Court and ONLY the Supreme Court has LEGAL Jurisdiction. No Inferior Court has the authority under the Constitution to even hear the case, let alone rule on it.

Yes, but only within the context of the Constitution itself, within which SCOTUS is restrained. Here, it is SCOTUS' job is not to deal with the subject of marriage which is outside their scope of power, but to rule on the constitutionality of the case. Here, it is SCOTUS' job to strike down the lower court's ruling as you say, and to rule in favor of the state, again, not based on SCOTUS' own view of marriage, but because the state, not the feds, has the power to decide in marriage issues.

SCOTUS and the federal government have no constitutional authority to act or decide anything on the subject of marriage. Marriage is a states' issue.

52 posted on 02/09/2015 8:46:09 AM 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 12 | View Replies ]

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