Posted on Jun 27, 2015
Is it constitutional for states to try to defy the system?
9.95K
70
66
8
8
0
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.
LGBTQ+
Law
Politics
Supreme Court
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 26
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
I'm not going to go point for point, its just more then I want to deal with at the moment, suffice to say, I feel your views of obama's policies are incorrect and twisted into a conservatives incorrect view.
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
LCpl Mark Lefler, I'm sure King George III said something similar when the colonists over and over petitioned him for redress. But the point remains - when almost half the country (the half that PAYS taxes rather than the half that collects government handouts) is not represented, is castigated and ignored, and persecuted by agents of the government, then it should be understood that they are going to be unhappy. That doesn't mean they have to be pandered to or made happy, but the very vocal minority gets pandered to while the government not only ignored the laws, but prevents agents of the government from enforcing the laws.
KG3 could have listened a bit, BEFORE the revolution. Obama could do the same thing. And the primary thing someone needs to listen to is that the government CAN NOT continue to spend like the bill will never come due, and CAN NOT continue to raise taxes with no end in sight.
There's a huge population of military ex-pats in Costa Rica, among other places that welcome Americans with retirement pensions. Why do you think that is, except to avoid punitive taxation?
So you tell me ... the Supreme Court listened to the gay community. Does anyone in government owe me the SAME opportunity to be heard on an issue that is just as important to me as theirs was to the gays?
KG3 could have listened a bit, BEFORE the revolution. Obama could do the same thing. And the primary thing someone needs to listen to is that the government CAN NOT continue to spend like the bill will never come due, and CAN NOT continue to raise taxes with no end in sight.
There's a huge population of military ex-pats in Costa Rica, among other places that welcome Americans with retirement pensions. Why do you think that is, except to avoid punitive taxation?
So you tell me ... the Supreme Court listened to the gay community. Does anyone in government owe me the SAME opportunity to be heard on an issue that is just as important to me as theirs was to the gays?
(0)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
Obama did listen to the poeople since you now they elected him twice, what your doing wrong is your misinterpreting your dislike and disagreement with him with him doing something wrong which is incorrect, really you just have to understand that as a conservative your not going to get your own way all the time.
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
Sure, he won twice, and his party, through legalizing illegal aliens and giveaways, is trying to insure they stay in power. And I don't expect better from the Republicans, who discovered in the 80's that they could win elections if they spent money like drunken sailors, i.e. like Democrats.
But there remains a point, and one of the biggest points is that Obama is ignoring the LAWS OF THE LAND by preventing enforcement of immigration laws. After all, if your point is that Obama won and that's that, the SAME point applies to the LAWS were passed, and that's that.
So if he can do what the law SPECIFICALLY states is wrong, you'll have to accept it if I do what YOU think is wrong.
Greece and the EU should be a wakeup call. It's impossible to spend as if there is no tomorrow. California should also be a wakeup call. For almost 40 years California has no created a single water reservoir, while their population (and thus their water usage) doubled. Now they expect everyone else to bail them out, so they can continue to waste money instead of planning for the future.
The point remains that we the people (even if it's just people you don't like) have the right to voice our opinion, have the right to demand that the government quit social engineering, have the right to demand responsibility in spending, and if necessary, have the right granted to us by the Declaration to sever relations with a government that won't listen.
But there remains a point, and one of the biggest points is that Obama is ignoring the LAWS OF THE LAND by preventing enforcement of immigration laws. After all, if your point is that Obama won and that's that, the SAME point applies to the LAWS were passed, and that's that.
So if he can do what the law SPECIFICALLY states is wrong, you'll have to accept it if I do what YOU think is wrong.
Greece and the EU should be a wakeup call. It's impossible to spend as if there is no tomorrow. California should also be a wakeup call. For almost 40 years California has no created a single water reservoir, while their population (and thus their water usage) doubled. Now they expect everyone else to bail them out, so they can continue to waste money instead of planning for the future.
The point remains that we the people (even if it's just people you don't like) have the right to voice our opinion, have the right to demand that the government quit social engineering, have the right to demand responsibility in spending, and if necessary, have the right granted to us by the Declaration to sever relations with a government that won't listen.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
With all this talk of states rights and the confederate flag, sounds like the 1800's if you ask me...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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?
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?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Up-front in the Constitution is the supremacy clause. Period. End of discussion.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
well like lousiana is thinking of stopping the issuing of all marriage liscense, to me thats like throwing a temper tantrum.
(0)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
LCpl Mark Lefler, if that's the case I'm pretty sure the Louisiana Supreme Court will shoot that down real quick.
(0)
(0)
SrA (Join to see)
LCpl Mark Lefler - Personally, I hope they do. Government really has no place in marriage. They shouldn't be the brokers of marriage and you really shouldn't have to be licensed for marriage in the first place. We've leashed ourselves in the topic of love in order for the FED to track how much taxes they're owed. Government needs to get out of marriage altogether.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google