In order for your fantasy to play out, several decades of case law would need to be thrown out without justification, but I'm getting the sense that you want the entire system of judicial review tossed out, despite how it was clearly the intent of many of the framers, and described clearly in the Federalist papers, nor do you have any alternate interpretation of "all cases arising under this constitution" that somehow excludes review of whether or not an act of congress violates the constitution. Without judicial review, there is nothing besides parliamentary tricks to stop a party with a majority in both houses and with the white house to pass any unconstitutional law it likes. I'm sure you'd be a lot more fond of "political appointees" if they'd struck down Obamacare, wouldn't you?
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
2.) but the fact remains it has not.
The subject is about texas and this law suite and in particular how the case is going to be argued in texas. SInce this is new there as not been any to death discussion.
In the case of Texas the argument can not be used that the banning violates Texas's own state constitution because that doesnt protect equality based on sexuality but it does protect other equality that can be argued that bleed over.
If the article is accurate, in this particular case, the argument is going right to the top, this guy is going to swing for the fences, he is stating that his argument will be this violates specifically the US constitution and he doesnt seem like he is going to use other supportive arguments, just going to let it all ride on the US constitution.
IF this is how it happens that is actually pretty big, actually its HUGE!
because if he chooses to use ONLY that argument (which ill only believe it when i see it) and he wins that will be huge, depending on the wording on the ruling.
If the decision states that a ban does in fact violate the US constitution then precedence is set and can be referred to in other states, of course its not SCOTUS so it doesnt just make it national its still just a texas thing but it can help push the issue to a national scene and get a decision made on its constitutionality based on the US constitution therefore possibly effecting the country in the future instead of just one state.
While there have been other court cases that do in fact mention equal rights, civil rights, human rights and equality, the decisions never directly mention the US constitution or refer directly to the 14th they are vague and IMO on purpose. If this decesion would end up doing that its MAJOR.
But in my opinion again, ill believe it when i see it. My guess is any ruling at this level will NOT directly mention the 14th.
How come you haven't provided the state interest in banning same sex marriage yet?
Last edited by Deuce; 12-01-13 at 07:37 PM.
One of you will end up here next!
One of you will end up here next!
As this comes down to an issue of discrimination, it comes under the protection of the Constitution where the majority may NOT vote on the rights of the minority...such as on segregation, for example.
article 3 doesnt grant them any such power,as stated in the constitution,all powers not directly granted under the constitution are given to the states,so that means the courts granting a right never granted by the constitution are unconstitutional.the states do however have to abode by the amendments of the constitution,as the are the official way to change or add to the absolute law of the land.the courts only hold power to decide if laws or states abide by the constitution,not the power to decide if rights exist not enumerated.
heres section 3
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
as stated already no the people don,i only explained the only legal ways the states could ban ssm,which would be to ban all marriage as recognized by the state.but as stated before yes ssm couples can be denied rights but only if all couples are denied rights.
“You can lead a horse to water, but it is probably crowded with all those people you taught to fish.”