Posted on 06/27/2015 12:15:11 PM PDT by 5thGenTexan
A non-Freeper friend brought this up. I thought I would throw it out to the community since I know there are better legal minds than I here:
"Since the basis of the ruling was using the 14th Ammendment, stating that since same-sex marriage was legal in some states, those laws needed to be consistent across states. With this precedent, does that mean citizens from open carry, concealed carry states can use the same inter-state protection in non carry states?"
I admit I have not read the USSC Obamacare ruling, but wanted to throw this out here where there will be those who have and understand this better than I.
No, becasue this SC follows neither precedent nor law.
Judge Andrew Napolitano and Allen West have already pointed this inconsistency out.
No, becasue this SC follows neither precedent nor law.
++++
You beat me to it.
Sorry, but this is the justification for the ruling, not its basis. The outcome was determined first then they had to find a way to justify it. Or as the Queen of Hearts said, "Sentence first - verdict afterwards." Do not think that this can be used as a precedent for an outcome that the court does not favor.
No, because we have moved from the rule of law to rule by law. The law is what they say it is when they say it. If you had the most power, the law would be what you say it is.
No, because it only applies when the Lefties want it to apply.
Some Biblical referenced history on the topic
Isaiah 1:21-26 is especially interesting because it describes the harlotry principle working within the social justice system. Judges were selling themselves out through accepting bribes or for personal advantage in some other area of life, and counselors—lawyers—were giving bad advice to tip the scales of “justice” favorably for their careers. Under such corruption, justice in Israel was difficult to find, so difficult that “the prudent keep silent at that time, for it is an evil time” (Amos 5:13).
A court just ruled against the NRA in Philadelphia regarding . Apparently local municipalities can make unconstitutional laws and the courts are fine with that.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3304162/posts
You have to keep in mind what Scalia said. Words no longer have any meaning. The courts can do whatever the hell they want and we have no legal recourse at this point.
The court has already upheld the individual right to firearm ownership in Heller.
But perhaps they just had a random moment of clarity.
Think Bruce Jenner.....
all law is now “tranny law” ..
it is what the say it is.
no logical consistency required
Think Bruce Jenner.....
all law is now “tranny law” ..
it is what they say it is till they said its something else
no logical consistency required
YEP, this is the way it will/should work out. Watch the Left try and stop us on Gun Rights.
This is where the term “INIQUITY” applies/comes from.
This kind of thing allows iniquity to occur.
People think it’s a word that doesn’t have much meaning because it isn’t popularly used anymore.
I believe it will start regaining an insurgence.
Prior to the 14th Amendment the federal government had little or no jurisdiction over the citizens of the many states of the union. After the 14th Amendment the federal government became directly involved with the citizens, to the detriment of our entire society and the constitutional republican form of government. At this point, we lost the Constitution of our heritage and we entered a Constitutional dictatorship. Because we elect a new person every four to eight years does not change the dictatorial powers the office holds. If you have any doubt, review the thousands of executive orders/ proclamations that create law and executive organizations—all without congressional approval.
This.
I knew the Supremes would use the 14th to sanction gay marriage. What I am most dismayed about is how they changed simple wording in SCOBAMACARE, twice. Clearly written language the said "penalty" not tax, and now "establishment of State" that clearly did not mean the Big Brother State regarding subsidies has flushed us further down the ash-heap of history.
Even a main consultant for the writing of Obamacare, Gruber, said it meant the States with exchanges regarding subsidies. How the vote was 6-3, I can only guess as so many do.
Like I said, I am not up on this at all. But, I know people here are and will be. Maybe together, we come up with a response that will stop this madness.
The Obamacare and same sex marriage ruling were two different cases.
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.