GOP bill would block courts on gay marriage

[Paleocon]

Thats what the law does.... Why cant you tell me why it has to be thrown out?

Because it's a question based on a false premise.

 

[Glowpun]

My God, how really, truly stupid can some of these politicians be? It seems the RP attracts the worst kinds.

 

[chromium]

I think this is the relevant language:



From what I've read, including here, it doesn't necessarily mean the bill itself will survive challenges, but Congress has the authority to regulate the SC, and decide its jurisdiction within reason.

His idiotic bill would leave intact all federal court rulings on SSM to this point. That's at least 37 states

Appellate jurisdiction refers to lower court rulings only. The SCOTUS can and has taken cases before they even reach the lower courts. Original jurisdiction includes "those in which a state shall be party," for example the lawsuits against state SSM bans not recognizing the marriages from another state, or if the federal government has issue with a state, for example federal vs state marriage recognition. Guess who interpreted Article III in this way? Oh right, the supreme court. Just like SCOTUS will strike down this proposed law or broaden Article III with another interpretation. The case will proceed, they'll issue the ruling in june and then what?

Also look at the absolute bull**** comment by this weasel politician, if you think this would be healthy for checks and balances and protection from the majority oppressing the minority:

"We can't decide the case for SCOTUS, only what cases SCOTUS can take up." Yeah ok, when you handpick which cases the courts can preside over, that IS deciding the outcome. He is arguing we should only have 2 branches of government and that they should forever get away with making unconstitutional laws like "DOMA"

 

[chromium]

as I understand it, the issue is the state laws which ban SSM. That means the state is a party so SCOTUS has original jurisdiction which Congress cannot remove.

Not only do i agree with that, but as in US v Texas (1892), the SCOTUS can simply re-interpret what is covered by original jurisdiction, striking down the senator's law for good measure. Hell, SCOTUS has even prevented congress from trying to directly limit this jurisdiction (Marbury v Madison). The only thing that could prevent SCOTUS from deciding this case in june is in fact a constitutional amendment

I hope it does get voted on regardless, so the politicians are all forced to go on record

 

[Paschendale]

Seems like yet another right winger who hasn't read the ninth amendment.

 

[cpwill]

And where is that?

And a 14th Amendment!

and a 10th Amendment.

 

[CriticalThought]

and a 10th Amendment.

Yeah, the 14th kinda limited the 10th. The whole "No State shall..." part kind of makes that pretty evident.

 

[cpwill]

Yeah, the 14th kinda limited the 10th. The whole "No State shall..." part kind of makes that pretty evident.

It did. And it did so specifically:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

No slaves, no unequal treatment under the law (the formulation given was that the law, in its' august majesty, equally forbade the rich and the poor man from sleeping underneath a bridge), no failure to protect some citizens in favor of others, etc. Which means that the language of the 10th Amendment:

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.

Remains properly controlling in this issue as described in the Federalist Papers:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

 

[JasperL]

It did. And it did so specifically:

No slaves, no unequal treatment under the law (the formulation given was that the law, in its' august majesty, equally forbade the rich and the poor man from sleeping underneath a bridge), no failure to protect some citizens in favor of others, etc. Which means that the language of the 10th Amendment:

Remains properly controlling in this issue as described in the Federalist Papers:

But you know the issue is whether unequal treatment applies to SSM. It's another thread, but the reality is it applies if the Supreme Court says it does. For decades at least, people thought the states had the power to prohibit interracial marriages. Now we don't believe that - I've not seen anyone assert such a thing recently - but in 1960 large majorities in some states would have said, "Of course we can prohibit that - states' rights!" Times change, opinions change, laws change, court rulings change.

I've read some good essays on the evolution of the law and the arguments are compelling that the courts do a pretty good job reflecting both the will of the elected branches and the people and therefore follow societal changes rather than lead them. Seems pretty clear that's what's happening with regard to SSM. If the SC rules that SSM should be legal across the country, it will (by this reasoning) not coincidentally happen at roughly the same time a majority of the country believes that it should be legal. And there is a majority or near majority in Congress that holds the same view.

And the mechanism proposed is also pretty simple. Presidents and Senators get elected and hold roughly the median view of the population, and so when it comes time to appoint justices to the appeals and Supreme Court, not by accident those individuals are selected in part because they also ascribe to those roughly median views of the electorate, and so their rulings follow the will of the elected representatives and the people who elected them. I don't see a problem with that, actually.

 

[AGENT J]

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.

Just MORE mental retardation that will eventually HELP achieve equal rights.
These bigoted desperate steps only further expose the hate of SOME.
To be honest and fair though millions of GOPers support equal rights/SSM no matter what these loon is doing.

Equal rights ARE winning, Equal rights ARE going to win in the end. False dishonest claims about the 10th (that have already lost in court) and bigoted steps to try and stop equal rights and laughable claims that equal rights already exists for gays are all meaningless. They are all being destroyed and honest, educated and objective people laugh at them.

Let the haters hate and the crybabies cry, they are losing and its hilarious.

 

[Master PO]

Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive. Yes we are a Republic, but we also are a Democracy because we directly elect our representatives and senators. They are our representatives in our representative democracy.

in the time of the founders...they is not such things as a democratic republic........it does not exist..

the u.s. was created with a republican form of government.......democracy is a democratic form.

if the founder had wanted a democracy, the senate and presidency would have been elected by the people...they were not.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

in the time of the founders...they is not such things as a democratic republic........it does not exist..


the u.s. was created with a republican form of government.......democracy is a democratic form.

if the founder had wanted a democracy, the senate and presidency would have been elected by the people...they were not.

Thats nice and all. Call it what you want but in-fact we are a republic and we do use democracy to elect our representatives to our legislature.

 

[Master PO]

Thats nice and all. Call it what you want but in-fact we are a republic and we do use democracy to elect our representatives to our legislature.

oh...really, before the 17th, senators were elected by their state legislature........hardly democratic

the president is elected by the electoral college in DECEMBER........hardly democratic

 

[TheDemSocialist]

oh...really, before the 17th, senators were elected by their state legislature........hardly democratic

Yup. Do we not elect them now or something?

the president is elected by the electoral college in DECEMBER........hardly democratic

Never said he was democratically elected..

 

[Master PO]

Yup. Do we not elect them now or something?.

then!.......... america's government was not created to be a democratic.... as i have said.

said he was democratically elected..

democracy is collective, and does not secure individual liberty, the founders constructed the federal government to block collectivist activity of the people in american government..federalist 63

 

[TheDemSocialist]

then!.......... america's government was not created to be a democratic.... as i have said.

Eh. Your argument at first seemed to be "oh you are for democracy, then why cant people directly vote on everything themselves!?"... Then it was "there are no differences in democracy because its rule of the people".. Then it was "I have no problem with democracy as a form of a republican government". You didnt really bring up the Founders until post #86. Was it created democratic? Meh you can argue either way yes or no with white land owning men being allowed to vote for representatives... But I would argue no. It was also created as a repressive state with slavery, women not given the same rights as men, and not everyone given equal rights. So yea, sure it was created that way, but guess what we have moved on and decided as a society to allow direct voting of both house and the senate and expanded voting rights to women, and black citizens.

democracy is collective, and does not secure individual liberty,

Of course it can secure individual liberty. Remember we have a little thing called the Constitution of the United States of America.

the founders constructed the federal government to block collectivist activity of the people in american government..federalist 63

And that is why we have a constitution where it protects what the founders deemed liberty.

 

[Master PO]

Eh. Your argument at first seemed to be "oh you are for democracy, then why cant people directly vote on everything themselves!?"... Then it was "there are no differences in democracy because its rule of the people".. Then it was "I have no problem with democracy as a form of a republican government". You didnt really bring up the Founders until post #86. Was it created democratic? Meh you can argue either way yes or no with white land owning men being allowed to vote for representatives... But I would argue no. It was also created as a repressive state with slavery, women not given the same rights as men, and not everyone given equal rights. So yea, sure it was created that way, but guess what we have moved on and decided as a society to allow direct voting of both house and the senate and expanded voting rights to women, and black citizens.


Of course it can secure individual liberty. Remember we have a little thing called the Constitution of the United States of America.


And that is why we have a constitution where it protects what the founders deemed liberty.

article 4 section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.



democracy is a vile from of government...why? ...because it is no different then monarchy or an oligarchy....because each one of them has tranny in it...because in each one power is place into ........1 single entity.

monarchy in 1 man..........who becomes a dictator

oligarchy in a group of men..........who rule as feudal lords

democracy in the people.............which is rule of the people, and runs on majority rule.

the founders SPILT POWER.......and place power in the people, and power in the state government......by having power split..one single entity has all the power to be tyrannical, which is with senate controlled by the states was created.

you have stated in another thread, that you don't like that states are banning SS marriage.......well what are people doing?

they are using democratic actions..democracy to place in their statE constitutions...things you don't like using democracy has their tool.......yet you want to use the court system to overturn the people. .."rule of the people"

YOU ARE IN CONFLICT WITH YOUR OWN BELIEFS.

 

[Somerville]

OK, I laughed when I saw this with original emphasis

"democracy is a vile from of government...why? ...because it is no different then monarchy or an oligarchy....because each one of them has tranny in it...


Tranny: -- slang used chiefly to describe people who are transgender, i.e. transsexual, drag, transvestites or cross-dressers. Though "good ol' boys" often use it when speaking of their vehicles' transmission.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

article 4 section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Ok.. Again, none of this is in contradiction of anything I have stated...

democracy is a vile from of government...why? ...because it is no different then monarchy or an oligarchy....because each one of them has tranny in it...because in each one power is place into ........1 single entity.

So electing your House Reps and Senators is "tyranny"?

monarchy in 1 man..........who becomes a dictator

oligarchy in a group of men..........who rule as feudal lords

democracy in the people.............which is rule of the people, and runs on majority rule.

So we are ruled under a system of government no different than a monarchy or oligarchy?

the founders SPILT POWER.......and place power in the people, and power in the state government......by having power split..one single entity has all the power to be tyrannical, which is with senate controlled by the states was created.

To this I'll just say what I said before: "So yea, sure it was created that way, but guess what we have moved on and decided as a society to allow direct voting of both house and the senate"

you have stated in another thread, that you don't like that states are banning SS marriage.......well what are people doing?

"People" really arent doing much. The courts are.

they are using democratic actions..democracy to place in their statE constitutions...things you don't like using democracy has their tool.......yet you want to use the court system to overturn the people. .."rule of the people"

This point here brings me back to my very first post in response to you: "The thing is we work with democracy within the supreme law of the land...."

YOU ARE IN CONFLICT WITH YOUR OWN BELIEFS.

No I am not...

Really dont know what the point of this post was...

 

[Master PO]

Ok.. Again, none of this is in contradiction of anything I have stated...

So electing your House Reps and Senators is "tyranny"?


So we are ruled under a system of government no different than a monarchy or oligarchy?


To this I'll just say what I said before: "So yea, sure it was created that way, but guess what we have moved on and decided as a society to allow direct voting of both house and the senate"


"People" really arent doing much. The courts are.

This point here brings me back to my very first post in response to you: "The thing is we work with democracy within the supreme law of the land...."


No I am not...

Really dont know what the point of this post was...

if you would ever take the time, to read the founders on why the constructed out government based on a "mixed government"..you would have your answer why the founders hated democratic forms of government.

you favor democracy will of the people........however when people use the action of "rule of the people" to do things you don't like...you cry foul!

 

[jaeger19]

It does not, in fact, it explicitly states that the federal government does not have that authority.



Not entirely - we have a second amendment.

According to you... the supreme court does not have the authority to questions the states authority regarding gun laws.

Or is it your position the supreme court only has jurisdiction WHEN you want it to...

 

[cpwill]

According to you... the supreme court does not have the authority to questions the states authority regarding gun laws.

That's an interesting argument. Can you show me where I made it?

 

[rocket88]

Except this "GOP Bill" represents few (or no) other GOPers - King is a back bencher, a Tea Party firebrand that GOP leadership has called "an a-hole". But leave it to the ever vigilant left to highlight the useless efforts of 1 of 250 GOP Congressman as a "GOP Bill".

Too stupid for further comment.

This is what we need to learn to do on the left. It's awfully convenient for the right to just go around disowning everybody on their side who says something dumb. There's always some convenient excuse.

 

[maxparrish]

This is what we need to learn to do on the left. It's awfully convenient for the right to just go around disowning everybody on their side who says something dumb. There's always some convenient excuse.

I agree they could learn to do it - although they'd have to reject their own senior leadership and supporters of stature, not some obscure backbencher. Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi provide more than enough crazy talk for disownership, perhaps you will be the first to do so?

 

[roguenuke]

Darn ole 10th Amendment. Who does it think it is, anyway, amirite?

Supposed to be there to protect the rights of individuals, something states' rights people tend to completely ignore when it comes to the vast majority of issues they claim the 10th covers.