Chief Justice Roberts: "But do not celebrate the Constitution..."

Henry David said:

Isn't that why it is called a "supreme" court? And reference is made in Section III to 'inferior courts that Congress may ordain and establish'?

Click to expand...

Not really. The Constitution did not explicitly set up Judicial Review, and it certainly did not set up Judicial Supremacy, which is the theory that this decision falls under. The Founders envisioned the Judiciary as far and away the weakest of the branches, not the most powerful.

AlbqOwl said:

Actually I think there is a possibility that there is, not that I am optimistic that it could ever seriously catch on. A couple of weeks ago I started a thread in the Constitution Forum re a citizen's proposed amendment to the Constitution that would allow the states and people to take back the power an over reaching authoritarian central government has taken for itself over the decades. The proposal at http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-co...itutional-amendment-restore-power-people.html is almost certainly imperfect and would need some close scrutiny itself, but I could see how that one citizen may really be onto something. I wished there had been more interest in discussing whatever merits are in it.

Click to expand...

And I say that the written law does not make much difference to the government today. I would like to think that once upon a time it DID matter, but not today. So if they already do not obey the written law anyway, what makes you think they are going to obey the new words?

cpwill said:

Not really. The Constitution did not explicitly set up Judicial Review, and it certainly did not set up Judicial Supremacy, which is the theory that this decision falls under. The Founders envisioned the Judiciary as far and away the weakest of the branches, not the most powerful.

Click to expand...

I did not mean to imply that 'supreme' referred in any way to another branch of government, and I do agree with what you say.

But I do agree with Madison's theory, though it seems to have failed.

Henry David said:

And I say that the written law does not make much difference to the government today. I would like to think that once upon a time it DID matter, but not today. So if they already do not obey the written law anyway, what makes you think they are going to obey the new words?

Click to expand...

Because the way the proposed amendment is written, the people would not obey them if they do not. Let's don't derail this find thread with a discussion of that here, though, but I would welcome some thoughtful consideration on that other thread. I think it deserves some consideration.

BrewerBob said:

I know right? What the hell does equal protection under the law have to do with the Constitution?

Click to expand...

Some ANIMALS are more equal then others. The confused are now more equal than those who are now forced to be participants of their confusion.

But I can assure you that more kids will now be home schooled and taken out of school than will now attend because of this ruling. I really think this is a good thing.

Don't get me wrong. I love gay and lesbians because God also does, even as sinners.Thank God for that or we'd all be left in a state of hopeless despair.

Please note it is impossible for some like myself to compartmentalize politics and faith, they are too tightly bound for us. But I hope to present such arguments in a way which is not too upsetting to the faithless.

ps For those who are not readers, the ANIMAL comment is a reference to ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell and not a disparagement of any individual. It was a common reference in a bygone era.

Joke's on our children - This is an old joke, but about to be played out in real life.

A boy sees a pretty girl enter the girls room. Who can question him if he enters behind her claiming to be a lesbian trapped in a boy's body?

cpwill said:

Not really. The Constitution did not explicitly set up Judicial Review, and it certainly did not set up Judicial Supremacy, which is the theory that this decision falls under. The Founders envisioned the Judiciary as far and away the weakest of the branches, not the most powerful.

Click to expand...

Marbury v Madison sowed the seeds of Judicial Tyranny in 1803 I believe. It is now in FULL BLOOM. What is interesting is that the initial use of sole power to interpret the Constitution was to limit it's own jurisdiction which made it palatable. But that power has subsequently been expanded, slowly at first, then at breakneck speed since the Depression.

I'm waiting on the first impeachment of a Supreme Court judge to be declared Unconstitutional to see how the end of that plays out. We have in fact been an oligarchy since 1803 while fooling ourselves into believing we are still a Republic or even foolishly believing we are a democracy which we've never been.

Luftwaffe said:

This, many opponents seem to forget that marriage itself was a recognized right before.

If marriage was recognized as a right, then why wouldn't the equal protections clause of the 14th also protect the right to marriage for gays from state or federal infringement? That's how I see it. Of course, I'm still finishing the PDF (and I'm not even a quarter done with it, a lot of it is still confusing for me as a youngling )

Click to expand...

The equal protection clause in the 14th dealt with maintaining citizenship for African-American slaves given by the federal government even though some states wanted to take those citizenship rights away. The 14th was a federal restriction on state's rights.

One can't read The Constitution concretely. Especially a document over 225 years old. Read the history of the 14th amendment. Read the backstory to the intent of the 14th amendment. By the same token, for example, a student can't demand a grade of A for their coursework no matter how little effort they put forth even though there's that wording YOU CHERISH in the 14th that will, IMO, engender a multitude of 'rights' for citizens.

cpwill said:

Not really. The Constitution did not explicitly set up Judicial Review, and it certainly did not set up Judicial Supremacy, which is the theory that this decision falls under. The Founders envisioned the Judiciary as far and away the weakest of the branches, not the most powerful.

Click to expand...

Yes, but Alex Hamilton, the supreme founder of The Constitution, felt the judiciary should be on an equal footing with the rest of the branches of government. BTW, the founders also wanted the legislative branch to be the most powerful branch in government.

cabse5 said:

Yes, but Alex Hamilton, the supreme founder of The Constitution,

Click to expand...

Full Stop. No, James Madison was the father of our Constitution. Hamilton was among the most pro-activist, pro-central government of the Founders (if not "the"). While he wrote some of the Federalist Papers, and has gotten a bad rap from history (and now lauds from the Arts), he's not Supreme anything.

Felt the judiciary should be on an equal footing with the rest of the branches of government

Click to expand...

Equal footing? Today they have greater footing. They are supreme over whatever they declare themselves to be supreme over, and face no realistic check.

BTW, the founders also wanted the legislative branch to be the most powerful branch in government.

Click to expand...

Yup. One more reason to support Paul Ryan against Hillary/Trump.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

BrewerBob said:

I know right? What the hell does equal protection under the law have to do with the Constitution?

Click to expand...

What does marriage have to do with governmental duties on really any level at all?

MarshallB said:

Some ANIMALS are more equal then others. The confused are now more equal than those who are now forced to be participants of their confusion.

Click to expand...

Which is utterly irrelevant to the issue of SSM

But I can assure you that more kids will now be home schooled and taken out of school than will now attend because of this ruling. I really think this is a good thing.

Click to expand...

I find your assurance rather empty and worthless.

Don't get me wrong. I love gay and lesbians because God also does, even as sinners.Thank God for that or we'd all be left in a state of hopeless despair.

Please note it is impossible for some like myself to compartmentalize politics and faith, they are too tightly bound for us. But I hope to present such arguments in a way which is not too upsetting to the faithless.

ps For those who are not readers, the ANIMAL comment is a reference to ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell and not a disparagement of any individual. It was a common reference in a bygone era.

Joke's on our children - This is an old joke, but about to be played out in real life.

A boy sees a pretty girl enter the girls room. Who can question him if he enters behind her claiming to be a lesbian trapped in a boy's body?

Click to expand...

How is that even remotely relevant to the matter of SSM?

Henrin said:

What does marriage have to do with governmental duties on really any level at all?

Click to expand...

I am all for getting the government out of the marriage game. But until that happens, equal treatment.

cpwill said:

Full Stop. No, James Madison was the father of our Constitution. Hamilton was among the most pro-activist, pro-central government of the Founders (if not "the"). While he wrote some of the Federalist Papers, and has gotten a bad rap from history (and now lauds from the Arts), he's not Supreme anything.



Equal footing? Today they have greater footing. They are supreme over whatever they declare themselves to be supreme over, and face no realistic check.



Yup. One more reason to support Paul Ryan against Hillary/Trump.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Hamilton wrote many more of the Federalist essays to the New York delegation than Madison. I think twice as many. Hamilton was for the preservation of our young federal government. Madison, Jefferson (and Thomas Paine) were for 'republicanism'. If the masses deemed it necessary, the United States could/would unobliged to the new federal government, create mayhem with all its trappings in the style of the French Revolution. That kind of 'republicanism'.

Hamilton was concerned with the vitality of our young government. Madison, Jefferson and Thomas Paine were forever concerned with our young government being estranged from England...Forever allies of France and its new revolution.

You wish to point out the wishes of the founders concerning the 'power' of the branches of federal government. I merely pointed out the founders forever wanted the legislative branch (specifically the Senate, that held seats and voted determinant on who held wealth and land) to have the most power in federal government.

Judicial review wasn't a part of the original constitution. Judicial review legislation was passed in the very early 1800s during Adam's presidency. IMO, it seems more often than not these times, there is some ideological bent to judges' rulings. That ideological bent doesn't have the best interests of an originalist's interpretation of The Constitution in mind.

This is how the 'edicts' of the judiciary can be overturned:

A Constitutional Convention can be called. When the proper percentage of votes from Constitutional Convention voters and states voters pass, the Constitutional Convention's initiative is passed as an amendment into law to become a new part of The Constitution. Or the ideological makeup of the judiciary can take place. Or the issue can be retried in court.

Tanngrisnir said:

Which is utterly irrelevant to the issue of SSM

I find your assurance rather empty and worthless.

How is that even remotely relevant to the matter of SSM?

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with your acronyms. Spell it out occasionally. After 22 pages of posts, it's a lot to expect for a thread to remain pure and not wander into other areas. I believe you are being unreasonable. But then if you are unreasonable, you will disagree. What a conundrum.

MarshallB said:

I'm not familiar with your acronyms. Spell it out occasionally. After 22 pages of posts, it's a lot to expect for a thread to remain pure and not wander into other areas. I believe you are being unreasonable. But then if you are unreasonable, you will disagree. What a conundrum.

Click to expand...

Sigh. Same Sex Marriage. One would think that would be obvious.

cabse5 said:

The equal protection clause in the 14th dealt with maintaining citizenship for African-American slaves given by the federal government even though some states wanted to take those citizenship rights away. The 14th was a federal restriction on state's rights.

One can't read The Constitution concretely. Especially a document over 225 years old. Read the history of the 14th amendment. Read the backstory to the intent of the 14th amendment. By the same token, for example, a student can't demand a grade of A for their coursework no matter how little effort they put forth even though there's that wording YOU CHERISH in the 14th that will, IMO, engender a multitude of 'rights' for citizens.

Click to expand...

That post is over a year old. Since then, I too have taken a dislike to the fourteenth as a whole since it messes with states' rights. I've since been calling for a marriage amendment since I see Obergefell as pretty shoddy legal work.

Put it this way, I'm pro SSM, but I'd rather it be done the RIGHT way, not by 9 guys with robes legislating new stuff because they feel the ninth "allows" them to.

BrewerBob said:

I know right? What the hell does equal protection under the law have to do with the Constitution?

Click to expand...

Well, they hated gay people when that clause was written, so we are duty-bound to hate gay people today. You see, some people were more equal than others when the constitution was drafted, so we need to keep it that way.

/sarc. off





I'll never understand why some people are so convinced that the founders intended that the constitution be forever applied exactly as it was applied immediately after ratification, despite the fact that everything else in the world moved on. It's not like they were all asleep at the wheel when the Court announced (the already accepted view) that it had the power of judicial review. It's not like the founders were unaware that they supported importing the ever-evolving English Common Law into the Supreme Court's function. They talked about it at the convention, for chrissake! All but two founders agreed with it. They knew constitutional interpretation would change over time and intended as much.






I wonder if those posting about how giving gay people the benefit of equal protection of the laws would like to risk running an Op Ed objecting to Loving v. Virginia. After all, white people couldn't marry black people when the due process clause was written, and that dirty tyrannical Supreme Court relied on due process to say a law barring interracial marriage was unconstitutional. DIRTY DIRTY TYRANNY!

So get to it, you brave constitution-lovers who are mad at this tyranny! Write your local paper. Call your local radio station. Post on facebook. Tell the world that you think the Supreme Court should reverse Loving v. Virginia. Tell the world that that law barring interracial marriage is wonderful and constitutional.

You're not gonna do that. I know why, and it has precisely nothing to do with the pretended stand against tyranny in opposing Ogberfell. It's simply that, due to progress, it's easier to take a stand against gay rights than it is against black rights given the state of progress in both positions. So, you're on safer ground saying that you think gay people should have equal rights but also that the Supreme Court had no business so deciding, than you would be saying you think the Supreme Court should go back on Loving v. Virginia.




I guess I didn't turn the sarcasm off. Oh well. I guess I take issue with people claiming that a stand in favor of injustice is actually some kind of principled stand against tyranny.

Why should we maintain the same evil prejudices just because people had them 200 years ago? Maintaining them despite their being wrong isn't a stand against tyranny, it IS tyranny. (Besides, one can dream up a slippery slope argument in favor of or against ANYTHING; they're almost always meaningless, and necessarily so. They're dreamed up.).