Posted on 09/03/2015 4:57:23 PM PDT by markomalley
I'm not calling the Founders the Supreme Soviet, I'm calling the lawless Supreme Court the Supreme Soviet because that is how they act.
Do you actually think that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States" means the Supreme Court, or that the Supreme Court actually writes laws?
Show me in that Constitution to which you refer just where it gives authority to the Supreme Court to amend the Constitution in violation of Article V, or violate or Amendment 10 of that Constitution, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, or where it explicitly gives them jurisdiction over marriage, or power to invert the meaning of the word, or to rewrite natural law, or to amend or annul State Constitutions, all of which they apparently think are within their powers.
Had the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment the slightest inkling that it would make inevitable the imposition of “gay marriage,” they would have either scrapped it altogether or written in it a clause safeguarding against such abuse. Had the legislators in both Houses of the U.S. Congress and the legislators of the states had any notion that the Fourteenth Amendment would make same-sex marriage inevitable they would surely have voted against it.
Robert A. J. Gagnon - HOW THE SUPREME COURT ABOLISHED ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION
“You make me puke.”
Don’t attack me for stating the fact. I’m against same-sex marriage. Do a little research before you attack.
In case you haven't noticed, WE LIVE IN THAT WORLD ALREADY!
See: Occupant of the White House.
“A marriage is between one man and one woman.”
I agree.
“I “spit” on your law.”
Not my law - I don’t agree with it either, and I don’t deserve the attack.
TELL THAT TO OBAMA!
If the sitting President of the United States REFUSES to uphold laws he disagrees with, why should any of us be any different?!
Nice post. This is a very big deal, the Supreme Court really stepped in it this time. There are a lot of people willing to defend this clerk and defy the federal government on this issue. I hope Huckabee rally draws tens of thousand next Tuesday.
You may not like it, neither do I, but it is what it is.
I agree with socalgop….we work to change the law.
Had the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment the slightest inkling that it would make inevitable the imposition of “gay marriage,” they would have either scrapped it altogether or written in it a clause safeguarding against such abuse. Had the legislators in both Houses of the U.S. Congress and the legislators of the states had any notion that the Fourteenth Amendment would make same-sex marriage inevitable they would surely have voted against it.
Robert A. J. Gagnon - HOW THE SUPREME COURT ABOLISHED ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION
It’s like naming specific children in a will. And then, you have another child. And you forget to update your will. You die with a ten million dollar life insurance payout. Guess who is out of the running!
Lesson learned.
It’s a shame that things have come to this and I hate to sound so jaded, but I really think that going to jail will be the best thing that could possibly have happened to this lady’s political future. She should look around for a Congressional seat.
The SCOTUS’ power of judicial review means they apply the constitution and federal laws to state actors. So, if SCOTUS determines a state law or practice violates the federal constitution, the supremacy clause means that the constitution trumps that law or practice.
Current jurisprudence interpreting the constitution is that treating homosexual couples seeking a marriage license differently than heterosexual couples violates federal constitutional rights. It’s the wrong answer, but that’s what SCOTUS held.
If you don’t like it, the answer isn’t to throw a temper tantrum and stop obeying the law, it’s to get the law changed by winning presidential and senate elections and getting conservatives appointed to the bench.
Of course the framers of the 14th amendment didn’t think it would lead to gay rights. That is the primary reason Obergefell was wrongly decided. But a wrongly-decided supreme court decision is still binding law until you can use the political process to get it changed.
It’s fine to say SCOTUS can’t rewrite “natural law”, but you can’t run a government on principles of natural law which reasonable people are going to disagree with. You give a veto to everyone who disagrees with a decision on moral or natural law grounds, and the country becomes ungovernable within a month, which would sound appealing except i’m not a libertarian.
I'm just talking about her voluntary surrender of her rights, in exchange for limited privileges granted by the State, along with personal indemnification against being sued for doing harm. That's how it works. No matter what she swore to, the State considers it a voluntary, binding contract. From the point of view of the judge, she's invoking rights she gave away and exchanged for privileges HE has the power to limit solely for the interests of the State and not her. And that's what he's doing, based on the previous SCOTUS ruling on this issue.
Everybody wants indemnification, but few realize what they give up to obtain it. Its the pearl of desire, non-responsibility, that the government holds out like the snake held out the apple in the garden.
Maybe not, but this clerk has EVERY discretion to refuse to perform an administrative task based on the Constitution.
What is the ONE question to ask regarding ANY federal act? Answer: IS THE FEDERAL ACT CONSTITUTIONAL?
This act clearly is not constitutional. The constitution gives the feds no authority to meddle in the subject of marriage in general or in state marriage laws in particular.
All this clerk needs is a state that is willing to back her up by nullifying unconstitutional federal acts which by defintion is tyranny.
What’s the Supreme law of the land?
The Constitution AND what?
“The Laws of the United States which shall be made IN PURSUANCE thereof” (The Supremacy Clause: Art VI, Cl 2).
The “Incorporation Doctrine” is not “in pursuance” of the Constitution as written, amended, originally understood, and intended. The heresy of the Incorporation Doctrine has been found to be utterly unconstitutional and a fraud. The 14A was a post-Civil-War reconstruction amendment limited to the intent of establishing ex-slaves to full citizenship - THAT’S IT.
The Constitution gives the feds NO authority to meddle in state marriage laws. The states have the RIGHT and the DUTY to nullify and resist unconstitutional federal acts which by definition are acts of tyranny.
Unconstitutional federal law is INVALID law.
Many “conservatives” say,”You must obey the law” without distinguishing between VALID law and INVALID law and for the feds, the CONSTITUTION is the measure of INVALID law.
Again, invalid federal law MUST be resisted and nullified by the individual states.
I mean, sure if you want to resist the federal and state government because you subjectively believe the law is invalid but no legislature has repealed the law or court invalidated it, that’s fine, but all that means is that you’ve made a moral decision to break the law.
So don’t be surprised or outraged if you end up in jail/contempt of court/punished by the system as a result.
The laughable thing about this is that she’s an elected democrat who is just doing this to bolster her reelection chances in a swing district.
They already did that in 1798.
Hard to nullify invalid and unconstitutional law all by yourself. That’s why the fight for freedom against unconstitutional federal acts, which by definition are acts of tyranny, must be waged at the state level.
But didn’t the American Revolution have its beginnings with individuals declaring the tyranny of oppressive English law to be invalid? “The moral decision to break the law” under these circumstances can possibly best be described by words in the Declaration of Independence:
“[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government.”
We have a moral DUTY to resist and nullify unconstitutional federal acts. It may be that such resistance could forestall and possibly prevent secession. But the Declaration of Independence gives us the moral template of the required steps for eventual secession, every step hoping against state secession unless or until necessary.
No, the effort in 1798 relied on cooperation of other states. Kentucky (and other states) need to resist on the merits of their own individual states evaluation and notification of how and why a federal act is unconstitutional.
Of course it is. That's why Petreaus was crucified and Hillary gets to skate.
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.