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
11
11
0
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?
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?
(11)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Not yet Sgt Jay Jones , rest assured, the requirement of religious authorities to perform such unions will be questioned in the future... give it time.
(1)
(0)
PO3 John Wagner
LCpl Mark Lefler - As Morgan Freeman told Mike Wallace when he asked how to cure the race problem.. "Stop talking about it."
We have reached the point with same sex marriage that the best way to stop having problems is to stop talking about it.
The government took care of its appropriate part a long time ago.
Same sex couples are allowed the same medical insurance rights in the workplace as anyone else.
Government job done.
We have reached the point with same sex marriage that the best way to stop having problems is to stop talking about it.
The government took care of its appropriate part a long time ago.
Same sex couples are allowed the same medical insurance rights in the workplace as anyone else.
Government job done.
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
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.
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.
(10)
(0)
PO3 John Wagner
Got a mouse in your pocket Sir? We? You? My state... about as Red as they get.. doesn't have problems accepting anyone. Not sure if we have Gay Marriage or not but we have plenty of Gays living as couples and raising children.
They are given the same spousal right to workplace insurance as everyone else.
Members of the community like everyone else.
Most of them have little use for LGBT malarkey. Don't like being pigeonholed into advocating someone else's agenda.
IMO it's no different for them than if I were to be placed as in board with everything the NRA is in favor of just because I own a gun..
(This is a poor example but I hope it makes the point... I have no beef with but also no membership in the NRA).
Sir, it appears to me that you attitude is EXTREMELY in line with how the left operates.
ALL or NOTHING! We win you lose, you must accept and agree with our entire platform or you are against us.
Really ignorant and boring attitude to deal with after awhile.
They are given the same spousal right to workplace insurance as everyone else.
Members of the community like everyone else.
Most of them have little use for LGBT malarkey. Don't like being pigeonholed into advocating someone else's agenda.
IMO it's no different for them than if I were to be placed as in board with everything the NRA is in favor of just because I own a gun..
(This is a poor example but I hope it makes the point... I have no beef with but also no membership in the NRA).
Sir, it appears to me that you attitude is EXTREMELY in line with how the left operates.
ALL or NOTHING! We win you lose, you must accept and agree with our entire platform or you are against us.
Really ignorant and boring attitude to deal with after awhile.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
My answer then would be no, they should struggle for what they believe to be right using legal methods.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
There is still some wiggle room on what is the realms of the states and what is the realm of the federal Government. The supreme court does not have complete control over the states there is a shred of 10th amendment still floating out in legal space somewhere.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) - There may be wiggle room in some areas, however in this case where the Supreme Court has rendered a ruling on the issue, I don't believe that to be the case.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Yes, in this specific case there is nothing left but a constitutional amendment or to persuade the general populace enough to have the supreme court reverse it's decision. I also think it's crazy that in Washington I can eat pot laced marijuana, but as long as I don't cross state lines it's not a crime, until urinalysis time that is. (I wonder how long until second hand mota is used in a defense for a failed urinalysis)
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
I don't have a lot of trust in states doing the right thing, looking back at desgregation, it took the federal gov to do that. Mississippi, Louisiana, etc.. would still have it to this day if it wasn't for the federal gov. I think there is a right and a wrong way to do something. I think if these states want to change the decision, the way they're doing about it is not right. Wanting to not issue any marriage license at all I think is childish. People say the president using an executive order is unconstitutional, but when a state goes and does something like whats going on its perfectly fine. I see it as a liberal vs conservative selectively deciding because people don't like the decision.
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
I concur the issue of not issuing arraignment licenses is moot. The states should comply with the decision once the details are worked out within each state, county, etc.
Executive Orders in an off themselves are not unconstitutional since Congress still controls the purse and the SCOTUS has the role of judicial review.
The States have significant responsibilities and have taken issue with what has been termed unfunded mandates - such as Federal government directing states to fund out of their own coffers state portions of Federal programs. Usually over time the Federal outlays for this programs goes down and the state outlays go up.
The constitution enumerated certain responsibilities to the Federal Government and specified a number for the states. The general language provides that responsibilities not specifically listed to the Federal Government would be the realm of the states. There have been many significant court cases over the years from Dred Scott to the present day [there other significant case prior] which helped define the role of the Federal Government and the states.
Executive Orders in an off themselves are not unconstitutional since Congress still controls the purse and the SCOTUS has the role of judicial review.
The States have significant responsibilities and have taken issue with what has been termed unfunded mandates - such as Federal government directing states to fund out of their own coffers state portions of Federal programs. Usually over time the Federal outlays for this programs goes down and the state outlays go up.
The constitution enumerated certain responsibilities to the Federal Government and specified a number for the states. The general language provides that responsibilities not specifically listed to the Federal Government would be the realm of the states. There have been many significant court cases over the years from Dred Scott to the present day [there other significant case prior] which helped define the role of the Federal Government and the states.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
That's an incorrect analogy, own a firearm is a thing, being gay is how a person is and thus deserves equal protection under law.
(0)
(0)
CPL Brian Clouser
LCpl Mark Lefler - Not really the 14 amendment in part states "... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;.." which is what some states are doing. The SCOTUS did the same thing with Roe vs Wage as they did with queer marriages.
All this is really a moot point since most Christians orders and Islam will refuse to preform the marriage which is their protected right.
All this is really a moot point since most Christians orders and Islam will refuse to preform the marriage which is their protected right.
(2)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
No really, its upholding the 14th Amendment, and it's not queer marriage, its marriage. They have no legal barring to refuse and there will be consequences.
(0)
(0)
CPL Brian Clouser
LCpl Mark Lefler - Just like roe vs wage the SCOTUS is making it up as they go along. The defining what marriage is, is not the job of the government. Its just another example of government over reaching. As I have said before, its moot cause most Christians orders and Islam will refuse to preform the marriage which is their protected right. Their legal barring is this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." They can not force them to go against their belief.
Anyhow, it was nice talking to you. This is what made our country, we can discuss different ideas and beliefs without fear.
Anyhow, it was nice talking to you. This is what made our country, we can discuss different ideas and beliefs without fear.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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).
Amendments to the US constitution can be created in two distinct ways, you just need an overwhelming majority to do so (which you should).
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
"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.
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.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google