GOP bill would block courts on gay marriage

[Somerville]

You do know that George Wallace was a democrat, right?

This has what to do with the thread?

 

[Master PO]

Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]GOP bill would block courts on gay marriage

Yup, you heard that correctly. Apparently we need to protect the constitution by doing away with part of it.

question for you...you say you are for democracy.

well explain.... if a state would by referendum place in their constitution a ban of SS marriage should not you be for that process,...since it was a democratic process of the people?

seems you have conflict, since the people of state want something, and others want to use the courts to override the people.

 

[clownboy]

This has what to do with the thread?

Read your own post, that I quoted.

 

[Somerville]

The question I have, which I have not seen addressed either here or anywhere else:

When a same sex couple is legally married in one of the states which allows such an action, may they be treated as unmarried when residing in or travelling to a state which does not allow same sex marriage? Or is a failure to treat them, in a legal sense, as married, a violation of their rights under the 14th Amendment?

 

[JasperL]

Go back and read what Jefferson and the other founders said about the Madison v Marbury decision and the courts actual grant of power. Has nothing whatsoever to do with right, left or chicken wing.

Right, it's been settled law from the time of Jefferson. What other precedents is the new, improved SC obliged to ignore?

Again, you're wrong. Assassination is not within their grant of power, everything I mentioned is directly within their grant of power.

It's harassment for the sake of harassment and an obvious and intentional abuse of power by the Executive branch against the judicial branch. By your own admission, the purpose is to somehow bring them into some line that is only known to you, or alternatively, to strip them of meaningful power. I can't actually tell what the desired outcome might be, but it's surely to punish the SC because some ruling or another displeases the (presumably) POTUS.

And if that's legal, then obviously the POTUS can direct similar measures against Congress. Should be fun to see the reaction when McConnell and perhaps Issa suddenly find themselves with an official under Obama's direction following them around 24/7, waiting for the slightest 'crime' to haul them off to jail.

 

[Master PO]

The question I have, which I have not seen addressed either here or anywhere else:

When a same sex couple is legally married in one of the states which allows such an action, may they be treated as unmarried when residing in or travelling to a state which does not allow same sex marriage? Or is a failure to treat them, in a legal sense, as married, a violation of their rights under the 14th Amendment?

marriage is not a right, its a privilege, because it is a licensed/ legal function.

if a state grants the privilege of marriage to its people, then anyone entering that state must be granted the same privilege..... thats constitutional law.

however privileges cannot be exported....one state cannot grant you a privilege, and you expect another state to honor that privilege.

 

[Somerville]

Read your own post, that I quoted.

Wrong. You quoted chromium in post #13, not me.

I would still ask you the question: What does George Wallace, having once been a Democrat, have to do with this thread? From others of similar political bent, I'm guessing it is the tired old canard about "Democrats were against civil rights for blacks! They are nothing more than hypocrites when they accuse me and my fellow "independents" of being racists!!"

 

[TheDemSocialist]

That's not a quote of Article III. The constitution never mentions marriage.

No ****... Its from the article.

 

[shrubnose]

My guess is that President Obama will veto this bill if the GOP passes it.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

question for you...you say you are for democracy.

well explain.... if a state would by referendum place in their constitution a ban of SS marriage should not you be for that process,...since it was a democratic process of the people?

seems you have conflict, since the people of state want something, and others want to use the courts to override the people.

The thing is we work with democracy within the supreme law of the land.... You know this to be very well to be true.

 

[Master PO]

The thing is we work with democracy within the supreme law of the land.... You know this to be very well to be true.

then why do we have people like yourself, that talk about the rule of people.

if the people are supreme which is what democracy is about, people should be able to make any law they choose.

in a democracy the people are law unto themselves

 

[TheDemSocialist]

then why do we have people like yourself, that talk about the rule of people.

Within the rule of the law......

if the people are supreme which is what democracy is about, people should be able to make any law they choose.

Within the rule of law..
And you do know there is a difference between representative democracy and direct democracy. The latter which you mentioned, "people should be able to make any law they choose", is something called direct democracy... Did you not know this?

in a democracy the people are law unto themselves

C'mon... Dont be this dull...

 

[clownboy]

Right, it's been settled law from the time of Jefferson. What other precedents is the new, improved SC obliged to ignore?



It's harassment for the sake of harassment and an obvious and intentional abuse of power by the Executive branch against the judicial branch. By your own admission, the purpose is to somehow bring them into some line that is only known to you, or alternatively, to strip them of meaningful power. I can't actually tell what the desired outcome might be, but it's surely to punish the SC because some ruling or another displeases the (presumably) POTUS.

And if that's legal, then obviously the POTUS can direct similar measures against Congress. Should be fun to see the reaction when McConnell and perhaps Issa suddenly find themselves with an official under Obama's direction following them around 24/7, waiting for the slightest 'crime' to haul them off to jail.

All the precedents that flow from that abuse, fruits from the poisonous tree so to speak. But that is not practical or survivable. Go forth and sin no more is the answer.

As to that last, it's not the Executive that has the grant to do what I have suggested, it's the Legislative branch. They have the power to set salaries for both the judicial and executive branches. And there already are folks who track and arrest congress critters for any breach of law, they call themselves the FBI. Those same folks give the SCOTUS justices a wide berth.

 

[JANFU]

You are a socialist, you introduced the thread. So it must be a socialist thread.

Yawn.

Up here, Canada there are a few ways, Private Members bill, then as we have a Parliamentary system, Govt. Bills.
So what is the procedure in Congress?

 

[clownboy]

My guess is that President Obama will veto this bill if the GOP passes it.

Again, there is no indication this bill will even make it to committee or to the calendar.

 

[Somerville]

marriage is not a right, its a privilege, because it is a licensed/ legal function.

if a state grants the privilege of marriage to its people, then anyone entering that state must be granted the same privilege..... thats constitutional law.

however privileges cannot be exported....one state cannot grant you a privilege, and you expect another state to honor that privilege.

What are the limits on a state refusing the "privileges" conferred by another state? May a state refuse to accept another state's driver's license when a driver is simply passing through the state?

You have argued incessantly as to the Declaration of Independence being an intrinsic part of the American legal code; so what happened to the inalienable RIGHTS of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"?

 

[Master PO]

Within the rule of the law......


Within the rule of law..
And you do know there is a difference between representative democracy and direct democracy. The latter which you mentioned, "people should be able to make any law they choose", is something called direct democracy... Did you not know this?


C'mon... Dont be this dull...

democracy be it direct or representative is still rule of the people...there is no differnce.

this is why i shake my head at you an others......who advocate for democracy, which i have stated over and over does not respect the rights of individuals or equality under law, because it it based on rule of people........ not rule of law.

many times you have expressed happiness then democracy is exercised in situation you like, however you favor using the court system to over turn democracy, when it is against you.

democracy as a form of government is vile and we need to rid ourselves of it.

 

[Master PO]

What are the limits on a state refusing the "privileges" conferred by another state? May a state refuse to accept another state's driver's license when a driver is simply passing through the state?

You have argued incessantly as to the Declaration of Independence being an intrinsic part of the American legal code; so what happened to the inalienable RIGHTS of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"?

states can mutually accept privileges of another states, because they are states powers.

the DOI is non positive law..it has no force of law....its unalienable rights, and life, liberty ,pursuit of happiness/property...... are natural rights......marriage is not a right.

i am not against people of the same sex being married, if a state grants the privilege then it must grant them for all, but 1 state does not create privileges for the other 49 states.

note:....as far as full faith and credit under the constitution, it was based on judgements of the courts.

 

[maxparrish]

I believe the "message" King was sending was that federal judges are making bogus rulings on gay marriage, and that they should practice judicial restraint OR they will be subject to hostile legislative messaging, so I agree. If his "message" is also that this bill should or will amend the Constitution then he is wrong. It's language as a 'curative' would make a very poor amendment.

Nor do I believe in the bogus constitutional principles often "read into" Article III language, nor am I fully supportive of the text as written. It needs amended.

That is not only not responsive to what I asked, I think it's wrong.

You mean it is TOO responsive to your transparently loaded question. You asked if I believe in the constitutional principles embodied in Article III of the Constitution? Any like any loaded question maker, you wanted me to say only "yes" or "no" to your view of unknown real and imagined principles.

So to repeat:

"Nor do I believe in the bogus constitutional principles often "read into" Article III language, nor am I fully supportive of the text as written. It needs amended. ". In other words NO I don't support the principles often read into it, NOR the full principles as expressed in the written text.

Art III is pretty clear about the powers it gives to the Judicial branch (ie "all judicial powers") but thank you for admitting that you don't believe in all the constitutional principles after complaining about how others don't follow constitutional principles.

Yes, it is "so clear" that judicial review of the constitutionality of legislative and executive acts was never agreed upon, nor seriously contemplated. That is one, among a couple, or phrases and sections that need clarified, rewritten, or added to..

And, by the way, do you know that "not believing in" certain embodiments of real or imagined constitutional principles is NOT the same as actually not following them? Opposition to a Constitutional clause is a matter of opinion. Refusing to obey a Constitutional provision is breaking the law. You act as if you don't know the difference.

The only message King is sending is to his supporters. It's nothing more than political grandstanding as it has no chance of passing and even if it does it will not change anything.

Well that is my original point. His "message" was political grandstanding, without effect.

 

[JasperL]

All the precedents that flow from that abuse, fruits from the poisonous tree so to speak. But that is not practical or survivable. Go forth and sin no more is the answer.

Sure, sin no more, but it's only you that knows what a sin is when it comes to SC precedents. You've told us one decision followed for over 200 years that you don't like, so which others do you suggest the SC is obliged to ignore? If not you, who gets to draw up this list of precedents that should no longer apply to future decisions?

It also seems we have a remedy - amend the Constitution. Strip them of the power to decide on whether laws do or don't violate the Constitution. That would work better than a campaign of harassment and intimidation, which is what you suggested.

As to that last, it's not the Executive that has the grant to do what I have suggested, it's the Legislative branch. They have the power to set salaries for both the judicial and executive branches. And there already are folks who track and arrest congress critters for any breach of law, they call themselves the FBI. Those same folks give the SCOTUS justices a wide berth.

LOL. What you suggested was an obvious and admitted attempt to "take on" the Supreme Court, presumably for acting beyond its authority.

 

[shrubnose]

Again, there is no indication this bill will even make it to committee or to the calendar.

BS like this is one of the reasons why the GOP probably won't control the White House anytime soon.

 

[JANFU]

er, no. It apparently is an encroachment by the federal government onto the state's realm of authority.

Does the Constitution have a hierarchy when Federal & States come into conflict? Federal or State, which way does the court generally rule?

Supporters of SSM are using the 14th amendments, are they not?
And the 14th did lessen States rights where a State would /could circumvent Federal laws against discrimination? yes, no , maybe?

 

[JasperL]

democracy be it direct or representative is still rule of the people...there is no differnce.

this is why i shake my head at you an others......who advocate for democracy, which i have stated over and over does not respect the rights of individuals or equality under law, because it it based on rule of people........ not rule of law.

many times you have expressed happiness then democracy is exercised in situation you like, however you favor using the court system to over turn democracy, when it is against you.

democracy as a form of government is vile and we need to rid ourselves of it.

What do you favor - an aristocracy of some sort?

I've read briefly about movements to do just that. The Neoreactionary movement for one.

 

[cpwill]

Does the Constitution have a hierarchy when Federal & States come into conflict? Federal or State, which way does the court generally rule?

According to the Constitution, the Federal Government has primacy within the powers granted to it that are Few and Defined, and the State Government has primacy within the broad powers remaining.

Supporters of SSM are using the 14th amendments, are they not?

:shrug: they attempt to, which is silly. The idea that the 14th Amendment was intended as a mechanism to define marriage as just between "two or more people of any gender" is undemonstrable for the simple fact that it is not true.

And the 14th did lessen States rights where a State would /could circumvent Federal laws against discrimination? yes, no , maybe?

It did, in a defined way. For example, states are still free to discriminate against 12 year olds and the blind when it comes to handing out drivers licenses.

 

[JANFU]

According to the Constitution, the Federal Government has primacy within the powers granted to it that are Few and Defined, and the State Government has primacy within the broad powers remaining.



:shrug: they attempt to, which is silly. The idea that the 14th Amendment was intended as a mechanism to define marriage as just between "two or more people of any gender" is undemonstrable for the simple fact that it is not true.



It did, in a defined way. For example, states are still free to discriminate against 12 year olds and the blind when it comes to handing out drivers licenses.

Lat line was funny.
The 14th was used for desegregation and for Roe V Wade.
2 cases that are far apart.