Roy Moore suspended... again.

[TLK Valentine]

It's not a law. It's the Constitution, which guides our laws.

You might do well to read it when you find the time -- Article VI is of particular interest:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Constitution has nothing to say about personal sexual choices and certainly the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with personal sexual choices we choose to make.

Roy Moore wasn't trying to legislate personal sexual choices (at least not in this case, and certainly not for lack of interest), but he was trying to legislate discrimination based on those choices... that's UnConstitutional.

]The 5 judges made an ideological ruling to tell society what morality is in their eyes. They spit on the Constitution in so doing. Yet, you applaud them.

You have an opinion. You think it's correct. You think it matters. Good for you.

Meanwhile, you've been wrong on nearly every fact you've brought up thus far in your attempts to support that opinion.

You were wrong about the 14th Amendment being the basis of the SSM ruling.
You were wrong about the Constitution being the law.
And now you're wrong about these 5 judges (as opposed to, say, Roy Moore?) trying to tell society what morality is.

In baseball, we'd call that "three strikes." But I'll be generous and offer you a fourth swing... if you can get something right.

 

[MennoSota]

You might do well to read it when you find the time -- Article VI is of particular interest:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.



Roy Moore wasn't trying to legislate personal sexual choices (at least not in this case, and certainly not for lack of interest), but he was trying to legislate discrimination based on those choices... that's UnConstitutional.



You have an opinion. You think it's correct. You think it matters. Good for you.

Meanwhile, you've been wrong on nearly every fact you've brought up thus far in your attempts to support that opinion.

You were wrong about the 14th Amendment being the basis of the SSM ruling.
You were wrong about the Constitution being the law.
And now you're wrong about these 5 judges (as opposed to, say, Roy Moore?) trying to tell society what morality is.

In baseball, we'd call that "three strikes." But I'll be generous and offer you a fourth swing... if you can get something right.

What law? Show us the specific law being referenced that has been made by the State of Alabama. Can you show us the law, this judge broke? If not, your argument is null and void.

 

[TerranceL]

What law? Show us the specific law being referenced that has been made by the State of Alabama. Can you show us the law, this judge broke? If not, your argument is null and void.

Slightly related question: Do you believe in the concept of a smaller, less intrusive government?

 

[Arcangl86]

What law? Show us the specific law being referenced that has been made by the State of Alabama. Can you show us the law, this judge broke? If not, your argument is null and void.

The Supreme Court of the United States has found that denying a marriage license based on the sex of the partners is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States and not only did Justice Moore swear to uphold it, but so did those judges he was telling to violate it.

 

[MennoSota]

The Supreme Court of the United States has found that denying a marriage license based on the sex of the partners is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States and not only did Justice Moore swear to uphold it, but so did those judges he was telling to violate it.

The Constitution is the guide for our laws. It says nothing about same sex marriage in the Constitution and the Constitution is not a moral guide, which is how the 5 judges used it. It was a complete misuse of the Constitution, which now sets precidents for morality being created by the SCOTUS, thus turning the judicial branch into a priesthood and blurring the lines between separation of church and state. What has happened is a complete abuse of authority by 5 of our Supreme Court judges. Justice Scalia was 100% correct in his scathing dissent.

 

[Arcangl86]

The Constitution is the guide for our laws. It says nothing about same sex marriage in the Constitution and the Constitution is not a moral guide, which is how the 5 judges used it. It was a complete misuse of the Constitution, which now sets precidents for morality being created by the SCOTUS, thus turning the judicial branch into a priesthood and blurring the lines between separation of church and state. What has happened is a complete abuse of authority by 5 of our Supreme Court judges. Justice Scalia was 100% correct in his scathing dissent.

I hate to break it to you, but morality has been set by SCOTUS for a long time, even though that isn't what happened here. However making something legal doesn't magically make it moral. For instance, if I were married it would be immoral for me to cheat on my wife, yet it would be 100% legal. And Justice Scalia was entitled to his opinion, but it wasn't really based on any legal reasoning that I could discern. It honestly sounded more like a angry old man screaming at the kids to get off his porch then a man who was one of the more brilliant legal minds I have ever read, even if I disagreed with him often.

 

[lasthero]

What law? Show us the specific law being referenced that has been made by the State of Alabama. Can you show us the law, this judge broke? If not, your argument is null and void.

As has been explained to you multiple times, there is no law, nor does there need to be one.

The Supreme ruled that gays are allowed to marry.

End of line.

That you don't like it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether you think they should be able to or not - they are legally allowed to do so in the United States. Period. Keeping them from doing so is illegal.

 

[lasthero]

The Constitution is the guide for our laws. It says nothing about same sex marriage in the Constitution and the Constitution is not a moral guide, which is how the 5 judges used it. It was a complete misuse of the Constitution, which now sets precidents for morality being created by the SCOTUS, thus turning the judicial branch into a priesthood and blurring the lines between separation of church and state. What has happened is a complete abuse of authority by 5 of our Supreme Court judges. Justice Scalia was 100% correct in his scathing dissent.

By all means, keep complaining about it. I'll let you borrow the world's smallest violin.

 

[pat34lee]

No. Federal law overrides state law. That is why the feds could still prosecute Marijuana in Washington and Colorado. The section you are quoting only talks about the delegation of powers.

They overstepped there too. Where in the Constitution
is the stated power of the feds to control marriage or
decide what medications are legal or illegal for that
matter?

ANYTHING not written in the Constitution as a power of
the feds is a power belonging to the states and/or the people.

 

[Maren]

What law? Show us the specific law being referenced that has been made by the State of Alabama. Can you show us the law, this judge broke? If not, your argument is null and void.

The law that has been made by the State of Alabama is the law(s) that apply to marriage. What the Supreme Court ruling did is 1) invalidate any law that required a one male and one female -- judging that limiting marriage by sex was wrong, just as the Supreme Court ruled that limiting marriage by race was illegal (Loving v Virginia). It is worth noting that Alabama only repealed the law prohibiting interracial marriage in 2000, despite that fact that, because of Loving v Virginia, interracial marriage had been legal in Alabama for 33 years.

2) The Supreme Court also struck down any portion of a law that required one male and one female to make a marriage, the requirement is essentially crossed out of any state law, since because of the Supreme Court ruling those clauses are unenforceable. Again, this is the same sort of thing that happened when miscegenation was repealed.

Which brings up an interesting question -- do you believe the Supreme Court was wrong when they struck down miscegenation laws, making interracial marriage legal? Did the Supreme Court not have the right -- despite the fact Scalia agreed with the Loving v Virginia ruling?

 

[pat34lee]

Try reading the entire Constitution.

I have, many times. If you think you know part of it
that I'm missing, feel free to show me up on here. I
can take it. What is the enumerated power of the
federal government to control marriage or the Supreme
Court to pass laws in place of the legislature?

 

[pat34lee]

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

This means nothing for several reasons you should
already know. Who does the Constitution task with
making laws and treaties? HINT: Not the SCOTUS.

Not only do they not have the power, they don't
have the jurisdiction to interfere with marriage
laws.

 

[Maren]

This means nothing for several reasons you should
already know. Who does the Constitution task with
making laws and treaties? HINT: Not the SCOTUS.

Not only do they not have the power, they don't
have the jurisdiction to interfere with marriage
laws.

As I asked in a prior post in response to another person: what do you think of Loving v Virginia -- one that even Conservative justices like Scalia claim was a good decision?

 

[Arcangl86]

This means nothing for several reasons you should
already know. Who does the Constitution task with
making laws and treaties? HINT: Not the SCOTUS.

Not only do they not have the power, they don't
have the jurisdiction to interfere with marriage
laws.

But they are given the Judicial Power, which among other things lets them figure out what happens when laws conflict.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What law? Show us the specific law being referenced that has been made by the State of Alabama. Can you show us the law, this judge broke? If not, your argument is null and void.

The United States Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Obergefell v Hodges.

As you clearly don't care about the Constitution (even less than Moore does, which is an accomplishment) it is your argument which is null and void.

(strike four, btw)

 

[TLK Valentine]

What has happened is a complete abuse of authority by 5 of our Supreme Court judges. Justice Scalia was 100% correct in his scathing dissent.

That's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it -- it changes nothing, however.

 

[Vylo]

They overstepped there too. Where in the Constitution
is the stated power of the feds to control marriage or
decide what medications are legal or illegal for that
matter?

ANYTHING not written in the Constitution as a power of
the feds is a power belonging to the states and/or the people.

14th amendment. Have you not been reading the thread?

 

[MennoSota]

14th amendment. Have you not been reading the thread?

It does not apply in this situation, even though 5 ideologues used that argument to push their ideological agenda.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It does not apply in this situation, even though 5 ideologues used that argument to push their ideological agenda.

Actually, it does apply, precisely because 4 ideologues found themselves one ideologue short.

You think you can ignore court decisions you don't like -- interestingly, So does Moore.

(strike five)

 

[Vylo]

It does not apply in this situation, even though 5 ideologues used that argument to push their ideological agenda.

That would be the supreme court. Perhaps you should look up what supreme means. They ruled, this is the meaning, this is the law.