No, becasue this SC follows neither precedent nor law.
Judge Andrew Napolitano and Allen West have already pointed this inconsistency out.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Obamacare and same sex marriage ruling were two different cases.
No. Same sex marriage has been determined to be a right across the board - no contingencies.
Although the right to bear arms is guaranteed, the right to conceal or open carry is not. It is a privilege which you must qualify for.
Noting that the issue of same-sex marriage and thread title mentioning Obamacare are two different issues, the following material addresses the Court’s 10th Amendment-ignoring legalization of same-sex marriage. (What am I overlooking?)
I’m glad that your friend mentioned consistency of laws between states. Not only did activist justices not only wrongly ignore 10th Amendment-protect state sovereignty to prohibit constitutional unprotected gay marriage, the states having never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, but please consider the following.
The argument by pro-gay activist justices that marriage laws needed to be consistent across the states wrongly ignores that the Founding States had given the power to make such decisions uniquely to Congress as evidenced by the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause of Section 1 of Article IV.
In fact, Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is evidently still in effect, Congress officially clarifying that the states do not have to recognize gay marriages from other states.
DOMA:
This Act may be cited as the “Defense of Marriage Act”.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
So pro-gay activist justices forcing gay marriage on the states in the nam name of consistency seems to be in direct conflict with Congress’s constitutional authority to decide the effect of one state’s records in other states.
But also note that corrupt, RINO-controlled Congress is probably elated that activist justices have done its dirty work for it.
NOT JUST HELL BUT HELL NO. There is ZERO chance of equal protection for concealed carry. The ONLY way there would be state by state gun laws is if they make the laws as strict as New York or San Francisco.