Is it constitutional for states to try to defy the system?

2015-06-27T12:39:39-04:00

I've noticed a bunch of states, Alabama,Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana all are looking for ways around the supreme court ruling yesterday. I get that people do not like the decision, but when it comes to the supreme court, you win some, you lose some. People talk about how the president is being unconstitutional. Isn't not respecting a supreme court decision the same thing? If states or politicians look for ways around the system or buck the system because they don't happen to like this or that decision, isn't that thus an attempt to break down the constitutionally put in place system? I know some people feel the ruling itself is unconstitutional, but again you win some you lose some and beyond that two wrongs do not make any of it right, or is this one of those hypocritical times when the president is being unconstitutional but since people don't like the SCOTUS decision it's alright to go against it.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 27 at 2015 12:48 PM

2015-06-27T12:48:37-04:00

It's political nonsense

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 27 at 2015 1:00 PM

2015-06-27T13:00:23-04:00

These states with their outlook loved the Hobby Lobby decision, Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, because of the conservative nature of their populations and the influence that their religious leaders have.

Well, the same sex marriage went against them, TS folks suck it up. Civilization isn't going to crumble, your marriage won't be affected. You can still go out drinking on Saturday night and sit in your pew on Sunday.

This country is a republic not a theocracy, the constitution is the book of law in this country not the bible. So the 14th amendment prevailed.

But we know that you won't accept this, you'll try every way to get around this. Time and human events are against you, change happens.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jun 27 at 2015 1:03 PM

2015-06-27T13:03:34-04:00

The Founders envisioned 13 separate experiments in freedom (one for each of the founding states). As states were added there were several occasions when some states embraced behavior other states shunned. Then came the Civil War. Now we all march pretty much to the same drum, tho living in (say) Texas is dramatically different than (say) Mane.

By definition SCOTUS defines the law of the land.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jun 27 at 2015 1:11 PM

2015-06-27T13:11:33-04:00

The Constitution provides for rebellion. Voters can throw the bums out. States can amend the Constitution. United the states can push back. Individually, they will fail.

Personally, I think that those focused on traditional marriage are limiting themselves. Why not ask, by what right does the government, any government, define marriage? There are two aspects of marriage: The contract and the matrimonial ceremony. No one should be denied the legal rights appertaining to "marriage". These can be granted by the signing of an agreement, no ceremony required. Those who perform marriage ceremonies should have the right to set the standards and conduct of those ceremonies and no government should have any right to interfere. This is called separation of church and state. Isn't that what we want?

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 27 at 2015 2:00 PM

2015-06-27T14:00:57-04:00

"Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise ‘neither force nor will but merely judgment.’ The Federalist No. 78, p. 465

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial ‘caution’ and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own ‘new insight’ into the ‘nature of injustice’." - ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/scotus.pdf

The interesting thing is that Chief Justice Roberts used the same "force of will" to uphold Obamacare twice, where the clear letter of the law stated otherwise. Now is a bit late to complain about the SCOTUS writing law from scratch rather than interpreting the law as laid out in the Constitution and as passed by Congress.

When judges write the laws as they would like them to be rather than as passed by the representatives of the people, the people lose their freedom and must bow to tyranny.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Jun 27 at 2015 3:56 PM

2015-06-27T15:56:52-04:00

Fortunately there is still appeal processes which the States can use. They can also go after a constitutional amendment to over ride this legislation from the bench...

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2015 5:46 PM

2015-06-27T17:46:00-04:00

With all this talk of states rights and the confederate flag, sounds like the 1800's if you ask me...

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jun 27 at 2015 5:54 PM

2015-06-27T17:54:34-04:00

Good question LCpl Mark Lefler. The hardest part is that related to the marriage issue is the rational the majority opinion used to rule that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional is that took away what rightly belonged to the state. They used a case in NY about death benefits as the focal point and included the fact that NY changed its laws to include same sec marriage at a later date. So they used one state as an example [ignoring all of the state constitutions which had been altered to limit marriage to one man and one woman in the expectation that legislatures would try to force same sex marriage].
1. There is a process for the states to amend the constitution, there have been efforts to call a convention of the states to bring about one or more amendments. If the court makeup changes to a more conservative understanding of the constitution then approach could make sense. Since any amendment offered would need to pass judicial review most likely soon after passing in a test case.
2. I think the best path is for states to secure the rights of businesses, religious institutions, etc. The legislation would need to be well crafted - it wasn't long ago when a Midwestern state quickly backtracked one had been a popularly supported law which was targeted by well funded outside interests. Now that same sex marriage is the law of the land the arguments against the freedom of religion statutes will have been dampened in some parts of the country. Hopefully a good model which has worked in a few states could me modified to others.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Jun 27 at 2015 6:17 PM

2015-06-27T18:17:19-04:00

The POTUS appointed the SCOTUS so there for why would they go against him.Lower courts have ruled that it is unconstitutional but then the SCOTUS steps in and says that it is. Every-time!

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jun 27 at 2015 6:33 PM

2015-06-27T18:33:18-04:00

State nullification of US laws has been held to be unconstitutional repeatedly by SCOTUS.
Amendments to the US constitution can be created in two distinct ways, you just need an overwhelming majority to do so (which you should).

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jun 27 at 2015 7:01 PM

2015-06-27T19:01:44-04:00

Sure it is. Always will be until a particular suit gets heard by a Federal court that the State loses. The problem is a heavy handed Justice department that can get overzealous trying to enforce what they think the court meant. They prefer to error on the side of getting forgiveness later. I expect this to get worse over time.

Response by SSG Leonard Johnson made Jun 27 at 2015 7:05 PM

2015-06-27T19:05:28-04:00

Yup.....sure is

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2015 9:09 PM

2015-06-27T21:09:02-04:00

If your question is "Is there a way for states to legitimately fight this ruling", the answer is yes. They can elect representatives that support their position and they can call for a constitutional amendment. If your question is "Can the States legitimately ignore the Supreme Court ruling and do their own thing", the answer is no. The Supreme Court gets to decide what is and is not constitutional.

Response by CPL Brian Clouser made Jun 28 at 2015 3:06 PM

2015-06-28T15:06:49-04:00

The short answer is found in Ammendment 10
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.
The SCOTUS has been making up laws, changing the meaning or the intent of existing laws for years now That is one reason why I think that there should be term limits for them.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Jun 28 at 2015 11:00 PM

2015-06-28T23:00:59-04:00

Actually, the Supreme court is not infallible, they are not Gods, this is not the first time they've acted extra-constitutionally. The Court was notorious for acting outside the constraints of the Constitution during FDR's administration also. (When they stopped agreeing with FDR though, his solution was to TRY to have more of them appointed to give him a new majority that would do his bidding.)

Though I believe the Supreme court acted unconstitutionally with their decision (The Constitution does not give the Federal government the enumerated power of regulating interpersonal relationships), I have no problem personally with "gay" marriage. In fact, I think we should get the government OUT of the business of regulating, or licensing marriage, as such institutions have historically been in place to prohibit certain marriages. First to prevent whites and blacks from marrying, and up till now, preventing homosexuals from marrying.

All marriages can, and should be handled civilly, between consenting adults, by contract, and should not involve, or require the insertion of government into the equation, this would put an end to the madness and intrusiveness of government in an institution that it has no business butting it's nose into. This would also likely have the effect of eliminating the special privileges afforded, or penalties assessed to the (licensed) married of our country.

That being said, the States DO have options.... there is the idea of an Article V convention, where 2/3 (34 states) to call a convention of States legislatures which could vote for a Constitutional amendment, which then has to be implemented by Congress. (Neither the Court, nor the President have a say in ANY Amendment process.)

As far as simply trying to defy the order, I think those States are going to have a difficult road. Of course this Supreme Court decision has opened a whole can of worms with regard to religious freedoms, as well as to polygamy. We live in interesting times.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Jun 28 at 2015 11:10 PM

2015-06-28T23:10:53-04:00

It is never right to act outside the Constitution. Not for the President, not for SCOTUS, nor for Congress. Unfortunately they ALL do so regularly, and openly with NO push-back by their like-offending (supposed and intended) checks to power.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 11:54 AM

2015-06-29T11:54:22-04:00

You can always appeal....

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 3:28 PM

2015-06-29T15:28:44-04:00

Constitutional? Probably not, but it sure seems to be the American way!

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 29 at 2015 8:20 PM

2015-06-29T20:20:59-04:00

From what I have seen, states like Oklahoma are proposing bills that say something along the lines of "Churches do not have to perform gay weddings." If that's what you mean LCpl Mark Lefler, what's the problem? There is already a separation between Church and State so that is not illegal. I just don't see why there has to be a law stating it when it's already in the Constitution. If a gay couple wants to get married and a church refuses to perform the ceremony, that's their right. Find another church that WILL perform the ceremony.

That would be like me saying "Even though I'm not Jewish and neither is my wife, we want to have a Jewish wedding." Good luck getting a Rabbi and Synagogue to agree to it.

Or if I am completely missing your point, I apologize.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jun 29 at 2015 8:34 PM

2015-06-29T20:34:06-04:00

The states should resist any decision by the government or the U.S. Supreme Court they find to be unconstitutional. Every U.S. citizen should resist any decision by the government or the U.S. Supreme Court they find to be unconstitutional. With that said, resistance should be made through proper channels.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Jun 30 at 2015 2:24 AM

2015-06-30T02:24:17-04:00

if they can get enough together, they can make an amendment to the Constitution, same for any topic, enough states pass it, it's an amendment, and there's nothing certain people can do to stop it.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2015 5:49 PM

2015-07-03T17:49:49-04:00

The Tenth Amemdment of the Constiution clearly addresses this and clarifies that the states are well within their power to defy the system:

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.

Further explained here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt10_user.html

Lastly, and correct me if I am wrong, but nothing the SCOTUS does is put into the constitution therefore it would be impossible for states defying a SCOTUS order to be doing it in a manner that can be described "unconstitutional". The only way to change the constitution or add to it is by a process called a Convention of the States or a vote by two-thirds of each house of Congress. I don't believe neither of these things have happened so the recent LGBT order has nothing to do with the Constitution at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Tenth 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.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2015 7:28 PM

2015-07-15T19:28:22-04:00

LCpl Mark Lefler The question should just as well be, was the decision constitutional in the first place. Let's look at the document that made the Constitution valid. This is the view of Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration of Independence to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States ... as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

Federalism has usurped the powers reserved to the States under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. Now I don't personally think the states you listed should secede over the recent Court decision, but that doesn't mean there aren't reasons for some kind of change. Let me quote from the Declaration, the charges against King George III:

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. (Hasn't President Obama blocked the enforcement of Immigration laws?)
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. (President Obama hasn't dissolved the House of Representatives, but he clearly overrode their rights to withhold funding for Obamacare, which is unconstitutional.)
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. (Czars for everything under the sun ...)
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
(Kyoto accords, treaties which are in effect without Congressional approval, UN anti-gun legislation, among others.)
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: (Obamacare again.)
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: (Using the IRS to persecute conservative organizations.)

It's possible it is DEFENDING the Constitution to demand that the government return to the principles laid out in the Constitution and the Declaration.

Response by SSG James Arlington made Jul 15 at 2015 7:33 PM

2015-07-15T19:33:27-04:00

Up-front in the Constitution is the supremacy clause. Period. End of discussion.

Response by PO3 John Wagner made Jun 5 at 2018 5:13 PM

2018-06-05T17:13:12-04:00

Constitutional? States were established as primarily self governing entities.
The congress and senate are where national laws are enacted.
The Supreme Court is where states can go to argue with federal law when they deem it necessary.
Notice the executive branch is not mentioned.
The president has powers which are large in the short term.
Presidential powers and rulings can be overturned by the legislative branch.
Yes, unfortunately the SCOTUS can be used as a legislative body. An unfortunate byproduct of our two party system.
The two party system is a choice and not a law. Many countries with multiparty systems have better overall luck with political compromises.
Unfortunately socialism seems to be the outcome in most cases.
It is easiest to promise things to the mob of uneducated partisan voters. They are easiest to fool and have the shortest memories.
Folks who must spend the vast majority of their time putting bread on the table and taking care of home have little time or ability to study issues or learn enough history to make solidly educated personal political decisions. They go with their labor union or church or any other group which it is easiest to allow to do the thinking for them.
I never allowed myself to vote that way... following or being directed by the mob that is.. however, until the last election I didn't spend much time observing and thinking either.
Maybe not so much part of the problem but until 2016 I wasn't really part of the solution either.
States rights have been increasingly trampled.... allowed by willing pork barrel and public trough feeding legislatures and individuals.. specifically ever since WW2 when the sheer size of the federal government turned it into a self sustaining and extremely powerful monster with the checkbook.
Eisenhower's warning was rather bizarre in it truth and oddly enough his invention was and is used to make that very evil continue.
Eisenhower warned about the consequences of an increasingly large military industrial complex.
The warning can easily be translated to the bureaucractic behemoth which now exists.
Eisenhowers interstate system.. a virtual wonder of the world.. is the very device used to control the states.
If you don't do what we want we will simply cut off your federal highway dollars.
Billions and billions of dollars. What state will stand up long against that kind of economic pressure?

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jun 5 at 2018 7:45 PM

2018-06-05T19:45:34-04:00

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. ... Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.