Posted on 02/10/2015 6:21:47 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Why is it even necessary?? Clearly article 3, section 2 grants CONGRESS the authority to limit what the court can hear and act upon
“ with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
A simple majority can fix the problem overnight.
Thank you for saying that.
Sodom and Gomorrah needed 10 righteous people in order to be spared...
What if America did?
Article III Sec 1- “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Congress can tell the courts what their jurisdiction can and cannot be. If they actually wanted to. Cruz is going in the right direction.
From the 14th Amendment.
What no one is getting is that these are CORPORATE LAWS.
How they are being applied to PEOPLE is the REAL problem.
“ALL innocent human life should be protected in ALL States.”
I agree. It should be the next amendment.
Just suggesting one weapon in the arsenal. None of which are being used, 55 million lives later.
It won’t be...
Tragically, the GOP uses pro-lifers like the Democrats use blacks.
Great question.
When Christ returns, will He find faith on the earth?
Biology matters—as new research released this week confirms—and no amount of legislation, litigation, or cheerleading can alter that. Whether the high court will elect to legally sever the rights of children to the security and benefits of their mother's and father’s home is anyone’s guess.
New Research on Same-Sex Households Reveals Kids Do Best With Mom and Dad
Equal protection to sin?
A mere 12 years ago, these would have been considered ridiculous.
But if the criteria is "love" and "happiness", what law can rule against that?
The 14th amendment argument (flawed as it is) is not that the 14th amendment specifically protects some right to same-sex marriage. Rather, it is that state laws don't just grant the status/title of "married" to married couples, but also provide a wide range of tangible benefits and protections (tax benefits, inheritance/estate planning benefits, the marital privilege in court proceedings, etc.). So, the argument goes, states that restrict marriage violate the equal protection because they do not provide the legal benefits and protections of marriage equally.
It's a flawed argument, but one that does not depend on any specific protection of same-sex marriage.
Equal protection to be treated as corporate entities with privileges granted by the government, rather than rights granted by God.
Nothing will change until that little swap of meanings is common knowledge.
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.