(I would dearly love to get involved in some of these legal arguments. And bang some heads together. It has become a mockery of true judicial deportment. I'm not sure if I would have any of them on my Supreme Court. Much less the inferior courts.
I take that back. There have been some judges lately who have stood up for legal principle, as opposed to political bias. But generally speaking, that branch of the government is as corrupt as the others.
All to be expected, I suppose. When Man decided to try to go his own way... )
from Freedom Force & constitution.com: ‘This May be Justice Moore’s Last Stand’ - Michael Ware - September 30
(An Alabama judge, a stanch Christian who used to be Chief Justice in that state, has been censured for sending an administrative order to probate judges on the SCOTUS’s ruling regarding same-sex marriage, telling them to ignore the ruling, as unconstitutional; rather, to uphold the state's constitution in the mater, under the letter and spirit of both the 9th and 10th Amendments to the federal Constitution, this being - still - a federal constitutional republic; not a centralized form of government. THE LGBTQ crowd, with the Southern Poverty Law Center leading the ‘legal’ way, went after him, and have managed to have him cashiered as a judge. Something terribly wrong going on here. Plus, we have a staunch leftist commenting here, pretending to be a staunch supporter of the Constitution - when it serves his/their purposes…)
I thought this was one nation under god. That is the way this nation was started. None of the new order will change my mind to what is right because they are wrong and I stand with Justice Moore and the policemen of this country, along with our troops and sailors! God always will show how just he is!
- Jarod Russell Dennis McLain • 7 hours ago
The law of the land is the Constitution, not the Bible.
- The constitution does not give the federal government the authority to interfere into the internal management of the states.
- Bram Sortwell Joe Davis • 6 hours ago
Exactly. The Supreme Court ruling invented a right that the federal power needed in order to stomp on good order and state affairs.
Jarod Russell Bram Sortwell • 6 hours ago
Not at all. The case was about equal treatment under the law.
Bram Sortwell Jarod Russell • 6 hours ago
What law? Better be a rightful federal law if the Supreme Court ruled on it.
Jarod Russell Bram Sortwell • 6 hours ago
U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 2:
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.
No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
- Bram Sortwell Jarod Russell • 5 hours ago
Don't see your point. Are you saying certain impulsive behaviors cannot be illegal? Taken to its logical conclusion, any impulse of man, any deep seated vice of humanity, cannot be illegal.
- And these provisions say equal protection of the laws. In that context, the law being discussed cannot be the amendment itself, but laws within the states. So what laws were not being consistently enforced in a state's jurisdiction?
- Jarod Russell Bram Sortwell • 5 hours ago
- I am merely telling you why the Supreme Court ruled as they did. No doubt lawyers brought up your point of view during the hearings before the Court.
In my example, the "Law" being referenced is the Constitution itself, which has long been known as "the law of the land". And, it was the 14th Amendement, for one, that was not being applied equally to all citizens in the individual States.
Retired MSgt USAF Jarod Russell • 2 hours ago
- That Clause within the 14th Amedment was specifically worded for Freed Black Slaves YOU Idiot.
- That is a bs answer. Not one word in the 14th Amendment allows for ANY Federal Government interference in the State's Powers of Civil or Religious Marriage. That decision is and always will be an Unconstitutional one. The 14th Amendment was written to give Freed Black Slaves the Rights of all Other Races under Constitutional Law. It had and still has NO Mention of Marriage anywhere within the 14th Amendment. Equal Treatment was specifically for Freed Slaves only, within the 14th Amendment You Ignorant idiot.
Do you not understand the role of the Supreme Court?
- Bram Sortwell Jarod Russell • 6 hours ago
Perhaps but you don't either. Marriage is not an enumerated power to the federal power. There are a myriad of differing marriage laws in this land because they are determined by each state. The Supreme Court does not have the rightful power to rule on this.
- In Obergefell v Hodges, which was brought before the Court on the premise that gays were being denied equal treatment under the Constitution, the Court decided their rights were being denied. This case was NOT based on marriage, but on the 14th Amendment.
- The 14th Amendment was all about making sure that the several States did not have one set of laws for their black citizens and one set for their white citizens, or separate APPLICATION of the laws; that all U.S. citizens must be equally protected before the law - whatever the law is. The 14th Amendment did not set the Constitution on its head, and say, in effect, 'All the powers that formally resided in the several States - i.e., not the enumerated powers - shall now reside in the federal government'.
To say it did is to say that that law is an ass.
...And on that note........