Alabama SC orders judges to stop issuing homosexuals "marriage" licenses.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

F

JAMES EVERETT SAID:

“...since a marriage is by definition a contract between a man and a woman.”

Incorrect.

As a fact of law marriage is a contract between two consenting adult partners who are not related – same- or opposite sex, where the doctrine of coverture was long ago abandoned and no longer part of any state's marriage contract law.

Marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman as defined in Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755) edition which is the definition the founders would have considered and has been the definition far beyond that time. Simply because a minority wishes to establish a fiction to meet their desires and has a politically charge organization agree to establish a fiction does not make it truth.

State laws must conform to the Constitution and its case law, and the states are subject to the rulings of Federal courts, where those rulings are binding upon the states as mandated by Article VI.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to afford each citizen who resides in the states equal protection of (equal access to) the law, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law.

The role of the Supreme Court is to determine what the Constitution means, the intent of the Framing Generation, and that of the Framers of the Amendments.

Current 14th Amendment jurisprudence holds that to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law is a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, as determined by a majority of the Federal courts. And the final appellate court of the Federal judiciary – the Supreme Court – will determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit was correct in reversing 6 rulings made by lower Federal courts recognizing the right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the law and access to their states' marriage laws; the final resolution of this issue will be decided in the context of that current 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Everything else is irrelevant and immaterial, having no bearing on the final resolution of the issue whatsoever – including polygamy, bigamy, siblings, religious dogma, procreation, non-existent 'studies,' and dictionary definitions.

First, there is no Constitutional right to marry, as there has never been an amendment stating such, second you are confusing law with definitions, because black and white were denied by law in some States to marry, has nothing to do with the definition of the word marriage. Try again, and good luck !

Have you even read the Bill of Rights? Where did you ever get the idea that an amendment was the only way a right can be recognized? The 9th amendment puts that nonsense to bed immediately, recognizing reserve rights that exist regardless of enumeration.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, dude.

Though you are a wonderful example of the why the founders felt it necessary to put the 9th amendment into the Bill of Rights. The idea of an 'exhaustive list' of rights was anathema to the founders. And so obviously not the case as to go without saying. But some warned that if a Bill of Rights was written, some chucklehead would assume (as you just did) that ONLY those rights existed.

So they wisely put in a 9th amendment;

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

9th Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States

The courts who are delegated the responsibility of interpreting the constitution, and has recognized that the right to marry does exist. You disagree.

Um, so what? You citing yourself isn't a legal authority.

F

JAMES EVERETT SAID:

“...since a marriage is by definition a contract between a man and a woman.”

Incorrect.

As a fact of law marriage is a contract between two consenting adult partners who are not related – same- or opposite sex, where the doctrine of coverture was long ago abandoned and no longer part of any state's marriage contract law.

Marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman as defined in Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755) edition which is the definition the founders would have considered and has been the definition far beyond that time. Simply because a minority wishes to establish a fiction to meet their desires and has a politically charge organization agree to establish a fiction does not make it truth.

State laws must conform to the Constitution and its case law, and the states are subject to the rulings of Federal courts, where those rulings are binding upon the states as mandated by Article VI.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to afford each citizen who resides in the states equal protection of (equal access to) the law, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law.

The role of the Supreme Court is to determine what the Constitution means, the intent of the Framing Generation, and that of the Framers of the Amendments.

Current 14th Amendment jurisprudence holds that to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law is a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, as determined by a majority of the Federal courts. And the final appellate court of the Federal judiciary – the Supreme Court – will determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit was correct in reversing 6 rulings made by lower Federal courts recognizing the right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the law and access to their states' marriage laws; the final resolution of this issue will be decided in the context of that current 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Everything else is irrelevant and immaterial, having no bearing on the final resolution of the issue whatsoever – including polygamy, bigamy, siblings, religious dogma, procreation, non-existent 'studies,' and dictionary definitions.

First, there is no Constitutional right to marry, as there has never been an amendment stating such, second you are confusing law with definitions, because black and white were denied by law in some States to marry, has nothing to do with the definition of the word marriage. Try again, and good luck !

Have you even read the Bill of Rights? Where did you ever get the idea that an amendment was the only way a right can be recognized? The 9th amendment puts that nonsense to bed immediately, recognizing reserve rights that exist regardless of enumeration.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, dude.

Though you are a wonderful example of the why the founders felt it necessary to put the 9th amendment into the Bill of Rights. The idea of an 'exhaustive list' of rights was anathema to the founders. And so obviously not the case as to go without saying. But some warned that if a Bill of Rights was written, some chucklehead would assume (as you just did) that ONLY those rights existed.

So they wisely put in a 9th amendment;

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

9th Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States

The courts who are delegated the responsibility of interpreting the constitution, and has recognized that the right to marry does exist. You disagree.

Um, so what? You citing yourself isn't a legal authority.

There was NO right retained by the people to redefine the definition of marriage.
YOUR SCOTUS has also rendered the opinion that the people of Alabama do not have the RIGHT to post the Ten commandments in their State House based on another fictional jurisdiction just as this one in this intentional misinterpretation of YOUR 14th amendment. Amendment I States that CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW with respect to an establishment of religion. Now can YOU of the SCOTUS show us one law that congress has made with respect to an establishment of religion? If Congress has made NO LAW, one way or the other, then there can be NO VIOLATION OF A NONEXISTENT LAW. "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW " Yet YOUR SCOTUS has rendered an opinion that Alabama is in violation of law for posting the Ten Commandments.
So you see if I disregard YOUR SCOTUS, it is based on not one, not two, not three BS opinions, but many BS opinions all aimed at consolidation of the States, via establishing fictional jurisdiction, that is easily accomplished based on the indoctrination into ignorance via control of the education system. You cannot even explain the differing systems that made up YOUR CONstitution, such is why tyranny has prevailed, and it will be to your own disadvantage. As such BS continues sharia law will likely find its way to replace YOUR current fictional laws, just as it is doing throught Europe, and if or when it does, "Gay marriage" will be of the least of YOUR worries.

It's your Supreme Court, too, agree with it or not; and its rulings are the law of the land, binding on the all the states and all local jurisdictions, as authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

 

[James Everett]

You still have been unable to explain what the federal system is, or how it is in operation today: why? Because you cannot because such doesn't exist. Marriage is not denied to those who meet the criteria of a marriage contract, which is actin tract between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. No man and woman are being denied the equal protection to marry aside from incest. Your 24th argument is a fiction in reality, but then you exist in fiction as I have shown.

The Federal system exists- it is.

Marriage is denied to Americans according to multiple Federal judges.

And the Supreme Court will decide whether they are right.

And no one will care that you don't think any of that exists.

Funny, you say the federal system still exists, yet you cannot define it or what a federal system is or how it operates. Not suprising since you do not even understand what a marriage is. Again, I challenge you to explain the federal system. I will help you with a hint. You may read the "federalist" #39 and 62 and gain some insight, however I doubt you actually care to learn anything because it does not concern left v right.

And still, not the slightest acknowledgement of the 14th amendment, its existence, or its application.

You do realize that summarily ignoring caselaw, constitution and amendment doesn't translate into 'truth', right?

Or are you still schucking your bizarre 'natural citizen v US corporate citizen' nonsense, with a special side of 'capital letters v lower case letters' batshit?

Skylar,
The 14th amendment does NOT apply in the case that you wish it to outside a fiction wherein YOUR SCOTUS is simply pulling an opinion out of a hat, just as a magician, pulls a rabbit out of his hat: It is simply an illusion to which the people easily fall victim to, as a result of their indoctrination into ignorance and acceptance of fictional jurisdiction. I have already shewn that you do not understand YOUR own CONstitutional system as it exists today.
Now lets examine the truth of YOUR 14th amendment....
James Everett cannot marry John Doe, Why, because John Doe is not a woman, which would be necessary to contract a "Marriage" agreement. Now Bob Johnson cannot marry Bill Smith for the same reason that James Everett cannot marry John Doe, therefore neither party is being denied the privilege of contracting a marriage based on the fact that in neither case does such contract rise to the historical, traditional or set legal definition of a Marriage in Alabama. Now if James Everett were allowed to marry John Doe, yet Bob Johnson was denied the privilege of marrying Bill Smith based on race etc, then you may have a violation og YOUR 14th amendment. Yet YOUR 14th amendment mentions nothing about a right to marry, or any other right. YOUR 14th amendment mentions "PRIVILEGE", "IMMUNITIES", "Life". "Liberty", and "Property" and "equal protection of the laws". Now again I refer you to the requirement in Alabama for the couple to meet the requirements necessary to fulfil the, historical, traditional, and set legal definition of a marriage under Alabama law.
Again, YOUR SCOTUS is attempting the equivalent of a Hat Trick, which is an illusion, and you accept this fiction as proper jurisdiction and law. The man, and man have ONLY the right to contract between themselves a civil union that is the equivalent of a marriage in every way outside of the fact that it is NOT BY HISTORICAL, TRADITIONAL, AND SET LEGAL DEFINITION, A MARRIAGE. What is going on here is a minority wishing to attack the Christian family, and the traditional family unit, and a court using such to further its fictional jurisdiction where it has none.

This is the same failed, tedious, and ignorant 'argument' common to most on the ridiculous reactionary right: that the Supreme Court is 'wrong' and 'isn't authorized' to determine what the Constitution means.

Funny, is it not, how I can prove YOU and YOUR SCOTUS to be nothing more than political hacks by shewing you the truth, yet all you offer is your claim that I am somehow associated with YOUR RIGHT. I despise with every fiber of my being, your left right BS and YOUR two party's that perpetuate this divide and conquer strategy. You offer nothing but a finger pointed to tyranny and screaming THERE1 THERE1 There is the AUTHORITY. Just as those who pointed to King George with the same crooked finger.

 

[danielpalos]

It is not a States' rights issue upon appeal to the general government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SKYLAR SAID: “Have you even read the Bill of Rights? Where did you ever get the idea that an amendment was the only way a right can be recognized?”

Obviously JAMES EVERETT has also never read Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, or Article III, Section 3, or Article IV, Section 2.

 

[James Everett]

The Federal system exists- it is.

Marriage is denied to Americans according to multiple Federal judges.

And the Supreme Court will decide whether they are right.

And no one will care that you don't think any of that exists.

Funny, you say the federal system still exists, yet you cannot define it or what a federal system is or how it operates. Not suprising since you do not even understand what a marriage is. Again, I challenge you to explain the federal system. I will help you with a hint. You may read the "federalist" #39 and 62 and gain some insight, however I doubt you actually care to learn anything because it does not concern left v right.

And still, not the slightest acknowledgement of the 14th amendment, its existence, or its application.

You do realize that summarily ignoring caselaw, constitution and amendment doesn't translate into 'truth', right?

Or are you still schucking your bizarre 'natural citizen v US corporate citizen' nonsense, with a special side of 'capital letters v lower case letters' batshit?

Skylar,
The 14th amendment does NOT apply in the case that you wish it to outside a fiction wherein YOUR SCOTUS is simply pulling an opinion out of a hat, just as a magician, pulls a rabbit out of his hat: It is simply an illusion to which the people easily fall victim to, as a result of their indoctrination into ignorance and acceptance of fictional jurisdiction. I have already shewn that you do not understand YOUR own CONstitutional system as it exists today.
Now lets examine the truth of YOUR 14th amendment....
James Everett cannot marry John Doe, Why, because John Doe is not a woman, which would be necessary to contract a "Marriage" agreement. Now Bob Johnson cannot marry Bill Smith for the same reason that James Everett cannot marry John Doe, therefore neither party is being denied the privilege of contracting a marriage based on the fact that in neither case does such contract rise to the historical, traditional or set legal definition of a Marriage in Alabama. Now if James Everett were allowed to marry John Doe, yet Bob Johnson was denied the privilege of marrying Bill Smith based on race etc, then you may have a violation og YOUR 14th amendment. Yet YOUR 14th amendment mentions nothing about a right to marry, or any other right. YOUR 14th amendment mentions "PRIVILEGE", "IMMUNITIES", "Life". "Liberty", and "Property" and "equal protection of the laws". Now again I refer you to the requirement in Alabama for the couple to meet the requirements necessary to fulfil the, historical, traditional, and set legal definition of a marriage under Alabama law.
Again, YOUR SCOTUS is attempting the equivalent of a Hat Trick, which is an illusion, and you accept this fiction as proper jurisdiction and law. The man, and man have ONLY the right to contract between themselves a civil union that is the equivalent of a marriage in every way outside of the fact that it is NOT BY HISTORICAL, TRADITIONAL, AND SET LEGAL DEFINITION, A MARRIAGE. What is going on here is a minority wishing to attack the Christian family, and the traditional family unit, and a court using such to further its fictional jurisdiction where it has none.

This is the same failed, tedious, and ignorant 'argument' common to most on the ridiculous reactionary right: that the Supreme Court is 'wrong' and 'isn't authorized' to determine what the Constitution means.

Funny, is it not, how I can prove YOU and YOUR SCOTUS to be nothing more than political hacks by shewing you the truth, yet all you offer is your claim that I am somehow associated with YOUR RIGHT. I despise with every fiber of my being, your left right BS and YOUR two party's that perpetuate this divide and conquer strategy. You offer nothing but a finger pointed to tyranny and screaming THERE1 THERE1 There is the AUTHORITY. Just as those who pointed to King George with the same crooked finger.

F

Marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman as defined in Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755) edition which is the definition the founders would have considered and has been the definition far beyond that time. Simply because a minority wishes to establish a fiction to meet their desires and has a politically charge organization agree to establish a fiction does not make it truth.

State laws must conform to the Constitution and its case law, and the states are subject to the rulings of Federal courts, where those rulings are binding upon the states as mandated by Article VI.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to afford each citizen who resides in the states equal protection of (equal access to) the law, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law.

The role of the Supreme Court is to determine what the Constitution means, the intent of the Framing Generation, and that of the Framers of the Amendments.

Current 14th Amendment jurisprudence holds that to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law is a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, as determined by a majority of the Federal courts. And the final appellate court of the Federal judiciary – the Supreme Court – will determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit was correct in reversing 6 rulings made by lower Federal courts recognizing the right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the law and access to their states' marriage laws; the final resolution of this issue will be decided in the context of that current 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Everything else is irrelevant and immaterial, having no bearing on the final resolution of the issue whatsoever – including polygamy, bigamy, siblings, religious dogma, procreation, non-existent 'studies,' and dictionary definitions.

First, there is no Constitutional right to marry, as there has never been an amendment stating such, second you are confusing law with definitions, because black and white were denied by law in some States to marry, has nothing to do with the definition of the word marriage. Try again, and good luck !

Have you even read the Bill of Rights? Where did you ever get the idea that an amendment was the only way a right can be recognized? The 9th amendment puts that nonsense to bed immediately, recognizing reserve rights that exist regardless of enumeration.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, dude.

Though you are a wonderful example of the why the founders felt it necessary to put the 9th amendment into the Bill of Rights. The idea of an 'exhaustive list' of rights was anathema to the founders. And so obviously not the case as to go without saying. But some warned that if a Bill of Rights was written, some chucklehead would assume (as you just did) that ONLY those rights existed.

So they wisely put in a 9th amendment;

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

9th Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States

The courts who are delegated the responsibility of interpreting the constitution, and has recognized that the right to marry does exist. You disagree.

Um, so what? You citing yourself isn't a legal authority.

F

Marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman as defined in Johnson's dictionary of the English language (1755) edition which is the definition the founders would have considered and has been the definition far beyond that time. Simply because a minority wishes to establish a fiction to meet their desires and has a politically charge organization agree to establish a fiction does not make it truth.

State laws must conform to the Constitution and its case law, and the states are subject to the rulings of Federal courts, where those rulings are binding upon the states as mandated by Article VI.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to afford each citizen who resides in the states equal protection of (equal access to) the law, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law.

The role of the Supreme Court is to determine what the Constitution means, the intent of the Framing Generation, and that of the Framers of the Amendments.

Current 14th Amendment jurisprudence holds that to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law is a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, as determined by a majority of the Federal courts. And the final appellate court of the Federal judiciary – the Supreme Court – will determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit was correct in reversing 6 rulings made by lower Federal courts recognizing the right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the law and access to their states' marriage laws; the final resolution of this issue will be decided in the context of that current 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Everything else is irrelevant and immaterial, having no bearing on the final resolution of the issue whatsoever – including polygamy, bigamy, siblings, religious dogma, procreation, non-existent 'studies,' and dictionary definitions.

First, there is no Constitutional right to marry, as there has never been an amendment stating such, second you are confusing law with definitions, because black and white were denied by law in some States to marry, has nothing to do with the definition of the word marriage. Try again, and good luck !

Have you even read the Bill of Rights? Where did you ever get the idea that an amendment was the only way a right can be recognized? The 9th amendment puts that nonsense to bed immediately, recognizing reserve rights that exist regardless of enumeration.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, dude.

Though you are a wonderful example of the why the founders felt it necessary to put the 9th amendment into the Bill of Rights. The idea of an 'exhaustive list' of rights was anathema to the founders. And so obviously not the case as to go without saying. But some warned that if a Bill of Rights was written, some chucklehead would assume (as you just did) that ONLY those rights existed.

So they wisely put in a 9th amendment;

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

9th Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States

The courts who are delegated the responsibility of interpreting the constitution, and has recognized that the right to marry does exist. You disagree.

Um, so what? You citing yourself isn't a legal authority.

There was NO right retained by the people to redefine the definition of marriage.
YOUR SCOTUS has also rendered the opinion that the people of Alabama do not have the RIGHT to post the Ten commandments in their State House based on another fictional jurisdiction just as this one in this intentional misinterpretation of YOUR 14th amendment. Amendment I States that CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW with respect to an establishment of religion. Now can YOU of the SCOTUS show us one law that congress has made with respect to an establishment of religion? If Congress has made NO LAW, one way or the other, then there can be NO VIOLATION OF A NONEXISTENT LAW. "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW " Yet YOUR SCOTUS has rendered an opinion that Alabama is in violation of law for posting the Ten Commandments.
So you see if I disregard YOUR SCOTUS, it is based on not one, not two, not three BS opinions, but many BS opinions all aimed at consolidation of the States, via establishing fictional jurisdiction, that is easily accomplished based on the indoctrination into ignorance via control of the education system. You cannot even explain the differing systems that made up YOUR CONstitution, such is why tyranny has prevailed, and it will be to your own disadvantage. As such BS continues sharia law will likely find its way to replace YOUR current fictional laws, just as it is doing throught Europe, and if or when it does, "Gay marriage" will be of the least of YOUR worries.

It's your Supreme Court, too, agree with it or not; and its rulings are the law of the land, binding on the all the states and all local jurisdictions, as authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

Actually, it is NOT my SCOTUS, as I am a Confederate citizen of Tennessee, under 150 years of occupation by your government. Our State government was forced from office via coercion and duress....
Isham (I'-sam) G. Harris, of Memphis, was elected governor of Tennessee in 1857, and again in 1859, both times by large majorities.
On March 12, 1862, Andrew Johnson, whom President Lincoln had appointed Military Governor of Tennessee, arrived and took over for the Union.

Governor Johnson demanded that all of Nashville's city officers and employees take an oath of allegiance tot he Union, when they refused, he arrested them for treason and appointed his own officers in their place.
A convention of Unionist met in Nashville January 9, 1865, drafted amendments to the state constitution, nominated candidates for governor and the legislature, and set February 22 and March 4, 1865 for the people to ratify their actions.

No Confederates or Confederate sympathizers, were allowed to vote.
Such can hardly be called open elections or a republican or democratic act.
William Gannaway Brownlow was appointment to Provisional Governor of Tennessee in 1865 by the conquering Union Army.
The Legislature of 1869, a military legislature acting under threat duress and collusion, called for a vote on holding a constitutional convention, and electing delegated to attend it.
This election, limited to only pro-unionist which was held on December 18, 1869, favored a convention by a very large vote.
The threatening acts of Johnson during his administration as military governor are shown in his actions toward the officials of Nashville. In Lincoln Plan of Reconstruction Charles H. McCarthy observes on page 17, "The mayor and the city council were ordered to take an oath of allegiance to the United States, and on their refusal were imprisoned."
Clearly the convention of 1869 operated under duress.

"Duress any unlawful threat or coercion used by person to induce another to act (or refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would). Subjecting person to improper pressure which overcomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent [Henry-Campbell: Black, Blacks Law Dictionary®, Sixth Edition, West Publishing Co. St. Paul Minnesota, 1990]"

In the election of 1867, Brownlow issued an order that forbade the wives and children of former Confederate soldiers to vote in the election. That tactic allowed Brownlow to reduce voter turnout by as much as 95 percent – ensuring his political machines would carry the election. It had the desired results and returned Brownlow to the Governor’s office where the pattern of corruption continued unchecked.

Such proves that YOUR government has occupied our Confederate States for the past 150 years, therefore, in time when our people have had enough of this tyranny, they will use their legal option to restore the Articles of Confederation using these illegal and unlawful tactics, and expose them before the world. At that time just as the States that were occupied by the former Soviet union, we will be relieved of all of YOUR governments debts, just as those former States occupied by Russia, we will nor be part to YOUR governments international entanglements, and all of the laws that we choose to nullify that have been put in place since the occupation began will be nullified.

 

[James Everett]

SKYLAR SAID: “Have you even read the Bill of Rights? Where did you ever get the idea that an amendment was the only way a right can be recognized?”

Obviously JAMES EVERETT has also never read Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, or Article III, Section 3, or Article IV, Section 2.

Oh, I know your CONstitution well. What you are referring to is rebellion.
Allow me to educate you.....
The Supremacy Clause within the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution does not declare that all laws passed by the general government, The United States, (the States in union collectively) are the supreme law of the land. Here is the entire clause: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Notice the part that reads, “laws of the United States made in pursuance” of the Constitution. This basically says that all laws and treaties must first be constitutional in order for them to be valid and the supreme law of the land, in pursuance thereof, not in violation thereof.
There was no Article within the 1787/1789 U.S. Constitution that makes any reference to secession. The tenth amendment to that constitution states very plainly….
“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.”
So, we see that there was no reference to secession in any Article within the 1787/1789 U.S. Constitution therefore there was no POWER granted to the United States in their collective capacity to prevent a State from seceding; that POWER was reserved by each State INDIVIDUALLY.
There was, nor is an amendment to the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution that makes secession an unlawful or illegal act.
There was, nor is a law that states that secession is an unlawful or illegal act.
I reject the label “Rebel” that has been placed on the Southern Confederate,
I reject the label “Rebelling States” that has been placed on the Southern Confederate States.
The very definition of “Rebellion” is stated clearly in Johnson’s Dictionary of the English language (1755 edition)…..
“ReBc’llion. n, f. [rtbellion, French;
rcbellio, Latin ; from rebel j
Insurrection against lawful authority.”
If there was no article within the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution that makes any reference to secession, nor was there an amendment added that makes secession an unlawful or illegal act, then how could any one of our Southern States or the people thereof be in rebellion to a lawful authority if NO LAW EXISTS that make secession an unlawful or illegal act?
To allow such a fallacy to go unopposed is to allow our adversary’s to control the dialog, granting them free access to a moral ground that they have NO real claim to hold.
In the 1787 CONstitutional debates, the Nationalists quickly laid claim to the label “Federalists” in order to gain favor with the people of the sovereign States, placing the label of “Anti-federalists” on the actual Federalists. In this way the Nationalists gained an advantage based on a fallacy.
Such false labels need to be corrected.
In reality Abraham Lincoln and the people of the North were Rebelling against the lawful authority of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment, therefore they must be forced to bear the yoke of such labels as rebellion, insurrection, and rebels.

Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution gives the The United States, (The States collectively), ownership and control of 10 miles square of Washington DC. It further states that land within the boundaries of a state may only be acquired if they first have the consent of the state legislature. The United States. ( The States collectively, in union) is limited in its acquisition of land to four SPECIFIC purposes, that being…..
“Military forts, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings”= (“federal buildings).
These are the only cases within the United States in which all the powers of government are united in a single government.
Nowhere in the constitution does it grant the federal government the power to own land within a State, or to hold municipal jurisdiction, outside of these four SPECIFICALLY defined purposes.
The United States, (The States collectively, in union) hold ONLY temporary municipal jurisdiction over U.S. territories, through territorial governments.
The Louisiana Purchase is one example of a U.S. Territory. The territory purchased by the United States collectively was owned by the United States, yet when portions of that U.S. Territory reached a number of inhabitants and each formed a territorial government and then established a republican form of government under a constitution, establishing boundaries, and submitting a request to join the union: Once that territory was accepted as a member State within the United States union, that newly formed State then gained all the SOVEREIGNTY and JURISDICTION over the territory within its boundaries as any of the original States.
The SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States), rendered the opinion in Pollard’s Lessee v Hagan, that for the United States, (The States collectively in union) to hold municipal jurisdiction within a State that …….
“Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deeds of cession.”
“Then to Alabama belong the navigable waters, and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States, and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.”

“By the preceding course of reasoning, we have arrived at these general conclusions: first, the shores of navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted by the Constitution to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively. Secondly, the new States have the same rights, sovereignty, and jurisdiction over this subject as the original States.”
“Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits … to maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states … to Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them.”
It must also be understood that each coastal State has jurisdiction and control over water within three miles of its coast, the normal limit for nations.
Once each Southern State LEGALLY, and LAWFULLY seceded from the U.S., each gained all of the sovereign jurisdiction of any State/Nation outside the U.S. hence South Carolina held jurisdiction over the waters within three miles of the South Carolina coast. Fort Sumter, while was a U.S. Fort, hence a U.S. Territory wherein the U.S. did hold legal jurisdiction; The U.S. did NOT hold jurisdiction over the waters that surrounded the Fort, hence South Carolina was acting within its LEGAL and LAWFUL AUTHORITY in the prevention of the U.S. resupplying the Fort. It would be up to the U.S. to negotiate with the Government of South Carolina, and The CSA and reach an agreement in which the U.S. would be allowed to navigate South Carolina waters to resupply the U.S. Fort Sumter. Since the U.S. reached NO such agreement with either South Carolina, or the Confederate States of America, its attempts to resupply Fort Sumter via invasion of the sovereign jurisdiction of South Carolina waters, such an act constituted an act of war.
THE UNITED STATES, (THE STATES IN UNION COLLECTIVELY) DO NOT OWN A STATE, ITS LAND, ITS WATERS, OR THE LAND UNDERNEATH ITS WATERS: EACH STATE IS A SOVEREIGN NATION, AND GAINED SUCH STATUS WHEN IT WAS FORMED INTO A STATE, ONCE A STATE HAS BEEN FORMED FROM A U.S. TERRITORY AND ADMITTED AS A MEMBER STATE WITHIN THE UNION, THE U.S. (THE STATES COLLECTIVELY IN UNION) CEDE ALL MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION THAT IT HELD TO THAT NEWLY FORMED STATE: AND AS THE U.S. (THE STATES IN UNION COLLECTIVELY MAY ONLY OWN LAND UNDER THE PROVISIONS WITHIN THE 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution…..
Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the 1787/1789 U.S. Constitution which gives the The United States, (The States collectively), ownership and control of 10 miles square of Washington DC. It also further states that land within the boundaries of a state may only be acquired if they first have the consent of the state legislature. The United States. ( The States collectively, in union) is limited in its acquisition of land to four SPECIFIC purposes, that being…..
“Military forts, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings”= (“federal buildings).
THE UNITED STATES,(THE STATES IN UNION COLLECTIVELY), COULD NOT, NOR, DOES NOT OWN A SOVEREIGN STATE, OR ITS LAND, HENCE A STATE IN ITS SOVEREIGN CAPACITY, MAY SECEDED FROM THE UNION OF STATES, STILED “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”.

 

[Syriusly]

Funny, you say the federal system still exists, yet you cannot define it or what a federal system is or how it operates. Not suprising since you do not even understand what a marriage is. Again, I challenge you to explain the federal system. I will help you with a hint. You may read the "federalist" #39 and 62 and gain some insight, however I doubt you actually care to learn anything because it does not concern left v right.

And still, not the slightest acknowledgement of the 14th amendment, its existence, or its application.

You do realize that summarily ignoring caselaw, constitution and amendment doesn't translate into 'truth', right?

Or are you still schucking your bizarre 'natural citizen v US corporate citizen' nonsense, with a special side of 'capital letters v lower case letters' batshit?

Skylar,
The 14th amendment does NOT apply in the case that you wish it to outside a fiction wherein YOUR SCOTUS is simply pulling an opinion out of a hat, just as a magician, pulls a rabbit out of his hat: It is simply an illusion to which the people easily fall victim to, as a result of their indoctrination into ignorance and acceptance of fictional jurisdiction. I have already shewn that you do not understand YOUR own CONstitutional system as it exists today.
Now lets examine the truth of YOUR 14th amendment....
James Everett cannot marry John Doe, Why, because John Doe is not a woman, which would be necessary to contract a "Marriage" agreement. Now Bob Johnson cannot marry Bill Smith for the same reason that James Everett cannot marry John Doe, therefore neither party is being denied the privilege of contracting a marriage based on the fact that in neither case does such contract rise to the historical, traditional or set legal definition of a Marriage in Alabama. Now if James Everett were allowed to marry John Doe, yet Bob Johnson was denied the privilege of marrying Bill Smith based on race etc, then you may have a violation og YOUR 14th amendment. Yet YOUR 14th amendment mentions nothing about a right to marry, or any other right. YOUR 14th amendment mentions "PRIVILEGE", "IMMUNITIES", "Life". "Liberty", and "Property" and "equal protection of the laws". Now again I refer you to the requirement in Alabama for the couple to meet the requirements necessary to fulfil the, historical, traditional, and set legal definition of a marriage under Alabama law.
Again, YOUR SCOTUS is attempting the equivalent of a Hat Trick, which is an illusion, and you accept this fiction as proper jurisdiction and law. The man, and man have ONLY the right to contract between themselves a civil union that is the equivalent of a marriage in every way outside of the fact that it is NOT BY HISTORICAL, TRADITIONAL, AND SET LEGAL DEFINITION, A MARRIAGE. What is going on here is a minority wishing to attack the Christian family, and the traditional family unit, and a court using such to further its fictional jurisdiction where it has none.

This is the same failed, tedious, and ignorant 'argument' common to most on the ridiculous reactionary right: that the Supreme Court is 'wrong' and 'isn't authorized' to determine what the Constitution means.

Funny, is it not, how I can prove YOU and YOUR SCOTUS to be nothing more than political hacks by shewing you the truth, yet all you offer is your claim that I am somehow associated with YOUR RIGHT. I despise with every fiber of my being, your left right BS and YOUR two party's that perpetuate this divide and conquer strategy. You offer nothing but a finger pointed to tyranny and screaming THERE1 THERE1 There is the AUTHORITY. Just as those who pointed to King George with the same crooked finger.

F

State laws must conform to the Constitution and its case law, and the states are subject to the rulings of Federal courts, where those rulings are binding upon the states as mandated by Article VI.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to afford each citizen who resides in the states equal protection of (equal access to) the law, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law.

The role of the Supreme Court is to determine what the Constitution means, the intent of the Framing Generation, and that of the Framers of the Amendments.

Current 14th Amendment jurisprudence holds that to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law is a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, as determined by a majority of the Federal courts. And the final appellate court of the Federal judiciary – the Supreme Court – will determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit was correct in reversing 6 rulings made by lower Federal courts recognizing the right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the law and access to their states' marriage laws; the final resolution of this issue will be decided in the context of that current 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Everything else is irrelevant and immaterial, having no bearing on the final resolution of the issue whatsoever – including polygamy, bigamy, siblings, religious dogma, procreation, non-existent 'studies,' and dictionary definitions.

First, there is no Constitutional right to marry, as there has never been an amendment stating such, second you are confusing law with definitions, because black and white were denied by law in some States to marry, has nothing to do with the definition of the word marriage. Try again, and good luck !

Have you even read the Bill of Rights? Where did you ever get the idea that an amendment was the only way a right can be recognized? The 9th amendment puts that nonsense to bed immediately, recognizing reserve rights that exist regardless of enumeration.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, dude.

Though you are a wonderful example of the why the founders felt it necessary to put the 9th amendment into the Bill of Rights. The idea of an 'exhaustive list' of rights was anathema to the founders. And so obviously not the case as to go without saying. But some warned that if a Bill of Rights was written, some chucklehead would assume (as you just did) that ONLY those rights existed.

So they wisely put in a 9th amendment;

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

9th Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States

The courts who are delegated the responsibility of interpreting the constitution, and has recognized that the right to marry does exist. You disagree.

Um, so what? You citing yourself isn't a legal authority.

F

State laws must conform to the Constitution and its case law, and the states are subject to the rulings of Federal courts, where those rulings are binding upon the states as mandated by Article VI.

The 14th Amendment requires the states to afford each citizen who resides in the states equal protection of (equal access to) the law, in this case same-sex couples access to marriage law.

The role of the Supreme Court is to determine what the Constitution means, the intent of the Framing Generation, and that of the Framers of the Amendments.

Current 14th Amendment jurisprudence holds that to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law is a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, as determined by a majority of the Federal courts. And the final appellate court of the Federal judiciary – the Supreme Court – will determine whether the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit was correct in reversing 6 rulings made by lower Federal courts recognizing the right of same-sex couples to equal protection of the law and access to their states' marriage laws; the final resolution of this issue will be decided in the context of that current 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Everything else is irrelevant and immaterial, having no bearing on the final resolution of the issue whatsoever – including polygamy, bigamy, siblings, religious dogma, procreation, non-existent 'studies,' and dictionary definitions.

First, there is no Constitutional right to marry, as there has never been an amendment stating such, second you are confusing law with definitions, because black and white were denied by law in some States to marry, has nothing to do with the definition of the word marriage. Try again, and good luck !

Have you even read the Bill of Rights? Where did you ever get the idea that an amendment was the only way a right can be recognized? The 9th amendment puts that nonsense to bed immediately, recognizing reserve rights that exist regardless of enumeration.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, dude.

Though you are a wonderful example of the why the founders felt it necessary to put the 9th amendment into the Bill of Rights. The idea of an 'exhaustive list' of rights was anathema to the founders. And so obviously not the case as to go without saying. But some warned that if a Bill of Rights was written, some chucklehead would assume (as you just did) that ONLY those rights existed.

So they wisely put in a 9th amendment;

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

9th Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States

The courts who are delegated the responsibility of interpreting the constitution, and has recognized that the right to marry does exist. You disagree.

Um, so what? You citing yourself isn't a legal authority.

There was NO right retained by the people to redefine the definition of marriage.
YOUR SCOTUS has also rendered the opinion that the people of Alabama do not have the RIGHT to post the Ten commandments in their State House based on another fictional jurisdiction just as this one in this intentional misinterpretation of YOUR 14th amendment. Amendment I States that CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW with respect to an establishment of religion. Now can YOU of the SCOTUS show us one law that congress has made with respect to an establishment of religion? If Congress has made NO LAW, one way or the other, then there can be NO VIOLATION OF A NONEXISTENT LAW. "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW " Yet YOUR SCOTUS has rendered an opinion that Alabama is in violation of law for posting the Ten Commandments.
So you see if I disregard YOUR SCOTUS, it is based on not one, not two, not three BS opinions, but many BS opinions all aimed at consolidation of the States, via establishing fictional jurisdiction, that is easily accomplished based on the indoctrination into ignorance via control of the education system. You cannot even explain the differing systems that made up YOUR CONstitution, such is why tyranny has prevailed, and it will be to your own disadvantage. As such BS continues sharia law will likely find its way to replace YOUR current fictional laws, just as it is doing throught Europe, and if or when it does, "Gay marriage" will be of the least of YOUR worries.

It's your Supreme Court, too, agree with it or not; and its rulings are the law of the land, binding on the all the states and all local jurisdictions, as authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

Actually, it is NOT my SCOTUS, as I am a Confederate citizen of Tennessee, under 150 years of occupation by your government.

There is no confederacy. Hasn't been for 150 years.

And you can claim to be a citizen of whatever you want- but you are a citizen of the United States- and subject to all of the laws of the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

The Federal system exists- it is.

Marriage is denied to Americans according to multiple Federal judges.

And the Supreme Court will decide whether they are right.

And no one will care that you don't think any of that exists.

Funny, you say the federal system still exists, yet you cannot define it or what a federal system is or how it operates. Not suprising since you do not even understand what a marriage is. Again, I challenge you to explain the federal system. I will help you with a hint. You may read the "federalist" #39 and 62 and gain some insight, however I doubt you actually care to learn anything because it does not concern left v right.

And still, not the slightest acknowledgement of the 14th amendment, its existence, or its application.

You do realize that summarily ignoring caselaw, constitution and amendment doesn't translate into 'truth', right?

Or are you still schucking your bizarre 'natural citizen v US corporate citizen' nonsense, with a special side of 'capital letters v lower case letters' batshit?

Skylar,
The 14th amendment does NOT apply in the case that you wish it to outside a fiction wherein YOUR SCOTUS is simply pulling an opinion out of a hat, just as a magician, pulls a rabbit out of his hat: It is simply an illusion to which the people easily fall victim to, as a result of their indoctrination into ignorance and acceptance of fictional jurisdiction. I have already shewn that you do not understand YOUR own CONstitutional system as it exists today.
Now lets examine the truth of YOUR 14th amendment....
James Everett cannot marry John Doe, Why, because John Doe is not a woman, which would be necessary to contract a "Marriage" agreement. Now Bob Johnson cannot marry Bill Smith for the same reason that James Everett cannot marry John Doe, therefore neither party is being denied the privilege of contracting a marriage based on the fact that in neither case does such contract rise to the historical, traditional or set legal definition of a Marriage in Alabama. Now if James Everett were allowed to marry John Doe, yet Bob Johnson was denied the privilege of marrying Bill Smith based on race etc, then you may have a violation og YOUR 14th amendment. Yet YOUR 14th amendment mentions nothing about a right to marry, or any other right. YOUR 14th amendment mentions "PRIVILEGE", "IMMUNITIES", "Life". "Liberty", and "Property" and "equal protection of the laws". Now again I refer you to the requirement in Alabama for the couple to meet the requirements necessary to fulfil the, historical, traditional, and set legal definition of a marriage under Alabama law.
Again, YOUR SCOTUS is attempting the equivalent of a Hat Trick, which is an illusion, and you accept this fiction as proper jurisdiction and law. The man, and man have ONLY the right to contract between themselves a civil union that is the equivalent of a marriage in every way outside of the fact that it is NOT BY HISTORICAL, TRADITIONAL, AND SET LEGAL DEFINITION, A MARRIAGE. What is going on here is a minority wishing to attack the Christian family, and the traditional family unit, and a court using such to further its fictional jurisdiction where it has none.

This is the same failed, tedious, and ignorant 'argument' common to most on the ridiculous reactionary right: that the Supreme Court is 'wrong' and 'isn't authorized' to determine what the Constitution means.

Funny, is it not, how I can prove YOU and YOUR SCOTUS to be nothing more than political hacks by shewing you the trutr.

You haven't proven anything. You spout the equivalent of the income tax deniers, just so far apparently you have had the common sense not to go to jail by pretending you are not subject to the laws of the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

CONSERVATIVE65 SAID:

“Yet you oppose other marriages that fit the same concept of equality you say should exist for same sex marriages.”

Wrong.

Those who understand the law understand that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, where to deny them that access violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Marriage contract law isn't written to accommodate three or more persons marrying, or siblings marrying, consequently there are no civil rights 'violations,' one cannot be 'denied access' to a law that doesn't exist.

The mistake you make is to incorrectly perceive that marriage is somehow being 'changed' to accommodate same-sex couples, when in fact nothing is being 'changed.'

For example, when Florida's measure denying same-sex couples access to marriage law was invalidated, and same-sex couples were allowed to marry in accordance with the 14th Amendment, the marriage contract law they began to enter into early last January is the same law opposite-sex couples enter into, unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

You do not understand the law.....
The 14th amendment does NOT apply in the case that you wish it to outside a fiction wherein YOUR SCOTUS is simply pulling an opinion out of a hat, just as a magician, .

Well now you are quoting in all caps....that makes your posts so much truthier......

 

[James Everett]

Funny, you say the federal system still exists, yet you cannot define it or what a federal system is or how it operates. Not suprising since you do not even understand what a marriage is. Again, I challenge you to explain the federal system. I will help you with a hint. You may read the "federalist" #39 and 62 and gain some insight, however I doubt you actually care to learn anything because it does not concern left v right.

And still, not the slightest acknowledgement of the 14th amendment, its existence, or its application.

You do realize that summarily ignoring caselaw, constitution and amendment doesn't translate into 'truth', right?

Or are you still schucking your bizarre 'natural citizen v US corporate citizen' nonsense, with a special side of 'capital letters v lower case letters' batshit?

Skylar,
The 14th amendment does NOT apply in the case that you wish it to outside a fiction wherein YOUR SCOTUS is simply pulling an opinion out of a hat, just as a magician, pulls a rabbit out of his hat: It is simply an illusion to which the people easily fall victim to, as a result of their indoctrination into ignorance and acceptance of fictional jurisdiction. I have already shewn that you do not understand YOUR own CONstitutional system as it exists today.
Now lets examine the truth of YOUR 14th amendment....
James Everett cannot marry John Doe, Why, because John Doe is not a woman, which would be necessary to contract a "Marriage" agreement. Now Bob Johnson cannot marry Bill Smith for the same reason that James Everett cannot marry John Doe, therefore neither party is being denied the privilege of contracting a marriage based on the fact that in neither case does such contract rise to the historical, traditional or set legal definition of a Marriage in Alabama. Now if James Everett were allowed to marry John Doe, yet Bob Johnson was denied the privilege of marrying Bill Smith based on race etc, then you may have a violation og YOUR 14th amendment. Yet YOUR 14th amendment mentions nothing about a right to marry, or any other right. YOUR 14th amendment mentions "PRIVILEGE", "IMMUNITIES", "Life". "Liberty", and "Property" and "equal protection of the laws". Now again I refer you to the requirement in Alabama for the couple to meet the requirements necessary to fulfil the, historical, traditional, and set legal definition of a marriage under Alabama law.
Again, YOUR SCOTUS is attempting the equivalent of a Hat Trick, which is an illusion, and you accept this fiction as proper jurisdiction and law. The man, and man have ONLY the right to contract between themselves a civil union that is the equivalent of a marriage in every way outside of the fact that it is NOT BY HISTORICAL, TRADITIONAL, AND SET LEGAL DEFINITION, A MARRIAGE. What is going on here is a minority wishing to attack the Christian family, and the traditional family unit, and a court using such to further its fictional jurisdiction where it has none.

This is the same failed, tedious, and ignorant 'argument' common to most on the ridiculous reactionary right: that the Supreme Court is 'wrong' and 'isn't authorized' to determine what the Constitution means.

Funny, is it not, how I can prove YOU and YOUR SCOTUS to be nothing more than political hacks by shewing you the trutr.

You haven't proven anything. You spout the equivalent of the income tax deniers, just so far apparently you have had the common sense not to go to jail by pretending you are not subject to the laws of the United States.

I have proven everything that I have posted, backed by citing facts as proof, you have offered nothing but a few regurgitated fallacies to which I have easily given facts to debunk. As for Income Tax deniers, the fact is, they are correct, yet to not pay this tribute results in imprisonment in most cases, not all however. It is a matter Bravery and the burden of proving the truth, some do not have the courage or ability. I am one of those who choose to take a different path through the education of our people and the restoration effort. As for the charge that our Confederacy doesn't exist.....I offer this to you....Our Confederate government was never surrendered, and I charge you to produce such document. If there was no surrender of the government nor a peace treaty concluded, then in legal terms our CSA government was simply forced into a state of exile/dormancy until such time as our people grant it their CONSENT to be restored and used as a tool to be amended back to the founders' intent of a wholly federal system under the Articles of Confederation.
As for the Income tax? You would do well to view Aaron Russo's ..... Freedom to fascism, which may be found on You Tube.
America : Freedom to Fascism - YouTube
▶ 146:41
America Freedom to Fascism - YouTube
America : Freedom to Fascism - YouTube
▶ 146:41
America Freedom to Fascism - YouTube

 

[suplex3000]

Alabama Supreme Court Orders Judges to Stop Gay Marriages - NBC News

YAY! Stand up to judicial tyranny!

Alabama was a Democrat state and it was Democrats who supported Jim Crow laws and slavery. It was a GOP president, Lincoln, who fought against the slavery. Reason I make this point is you can't have it both ways. You can't ignore one part of history while invoking another.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The telling aspect of the 'Supreme Court is wrong' nonsense is those who adhere to that canard never explain who or what exactly is authorized to interpret the meaning of the Founding Document and the intent of its Framers.

Even the most hard-core origionalist, strict constructionist, bare-bones literalist must concede that theirs is also an interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution, an interpretation no more valid than any other.

And then of course there's DC v. Heller...

 

[Syriusly]

And still, not the slightest acknowledgement of the 14th amendment, its existence, or its application.

You do realize that summarily ignoring caselaw, constitution and amendment doesn't translate into 'truth', right?

Or are you still schucking your bizarre 'natural citizen v US corporate citizen' nonsense, with a special side of 'capital letters v lower case letters' batshit?

Skylar,
The 14th amendment does NOT apply in the case that you wish it to outside a fiction wherein YOUR SCOTUS is simply pulling an opinion out of a hat, just as a magician, pulls a rabbit out of his hat: It is simply an illusion to which the people easily fall victim to, as a result of their indoctrination into ignorance and acceptance of fictional jurisdiction. I have already shewn that you do not understand YOUR own CONstitutional system as it exists today.
Now lets examine the truth of YOUR 14th amendment....
James Everett cannot marry John Doe, Why, because John Doe is not a woman, which would be necessary to contract a "Marriage" agreement. Now Bob Johnson cannot marry Bill Smith for the same reason that James Everett cannot marry John Doe, therefore neither party is being denied the privilege of contracting a marriage based on the fact that in neither case does such contract rise to the historical, traditional or set legal definition of a Marriage in Alabama. Now if James Everett were allowed to marry John Doe, yet Bob Johnson was denied the privilege of marrying Bill Smith based on race etc, then you may have a violation og YOUR 14th amendment. Yet YOUR 14th amendment mentions nothing about a right to marry, or any other right. YOUR 14th amendment mentions "PRIVILEGE", "IMMUNITIES", "Life". "Liberty", and "Property" and "equal protection of the laws". Now again I refer you to the requirement in Alabama for the couple to meet the requirements necessary to fulfil the, historical, traditional, and set legal definition of a marriage under Alabama law.
Again, YOUR SCOTUS is attempting the equivalent of a Hat Trick, which is an illusion, and you accept this fiction as proper jurisdiction and law. The man, and man have ONLY the right to contract between themselves a civil union that is the equivalent of a marriage in every way outside of the fact that it is NOT BY HISTORICAL, TRADITIONAL, AND SET LEGAL DEFINITION, A MARRIAGE. What is going on here is a minority wishing to attack the Christian family, and the traditional family unit, and a court using such to further its fictional jurisdiction where it has none.

This is the same failed, tedious, and ignorant 'argument' common to most on the ridiculous reactionary right: that the Supreme Court is 'wrong' and 'isn't authorized' to determine what the Constitution means.

Funny, is it not, how I can prove YOU and YOUR SCOTUS to be nothing more than political hacks by shewing you the trutr.

You haven't proven anything. You spout the equivalent of the income tax deniers, just so far apparently you have had the common sense not to go to jail by pretending you are not subject to the laws of the United States.

then in legal terms our CSA government was simply forced into a state of exile/dormancy until such time as our people grant it their CONSENT

Who is the current President of the Confederacy?

And does one ring rule them all?

 

[James Everett]

Alabama Supreme Court Orders Judges to Stop Gay Marriages - NBC News

YAY! Stand up to judicial tyranny!

Alabama was a Democrat state and it was Democrats who supported Jim Crow laws and slavery. It was a GOP president, Lincoln, who fought against the slavery. Reason I make this point is you can't have it both ways. You can't ignore one part of history while invoking another.

Do you mean like this Jim Crow law in the Northern State of Pennsylvania?
1869: Education [Statute] Black children prohibited from attending Pittsburgh schools.
1956: Adoption [Statute] Petition must state race or color of adopting parents.
Or this eon in Rhode Island?
1872: Miscegenation [State Code] Prohibited intermarriage. Penalty: $1,000 fine, or up to six months' imprisonment.
Or these in West Virginia....
1863: Anti-miscegenation law included in the state constitution. Overturned by Loving v Virginia in 1967.[10]

1872: "White and colored persons shall not be taught in the same school." This point-blank requirement for segregated schools was proclaimed in West Virginia's State Constitution as Article XII Section 8.[11] In a remarkable show of the persistence of such attitudes extending to the highest levels of state government, numerous attempts to remove this from the constitution were defeated in the state legislature until it was finally repealed in November 1994.

1873: Black citizens are prohibited from serving on juries.[12] Overturned by Strauder v West Virginia in 1880.
Or perhaps these in Illinois...
1927: Housing [Municipal Code] Chicago adopted racially restrictive housing covenants beginning in 1927.[4] In 1948
Or maybe these in Indiana....
Enacted seven Jim Crow laws in the areas of education and miscegenation between 1869 and 1952[5] Persons who violated the miscegenation law could be imprisoned between one and ten years. The state barred school segregation in 1877, followed by a law giving equal access to public facilities in 1885.
1869: Education [Statute] Separate schools to be provided for black children. If not a sufficient number of students to organize a separate school, trustees were to find other means of educating black children.
1905: Miscegenation [Statute] Miscegenation prohibited.
Allow me to educate you on LINCOLN from another of my Articles....
Was Lincoln a Great Statesman?
In viewing the definition of a Statesman in Johnson’s dictionary of the English language (1755) edition, A Statesman is defined as…..
1. A politician ; one versed in the arts of
government.
2. One employed in public affairs.
Under this true and simple definition Lincoln could be said to have been a Statesman. However, he was in rebellion to the lawful authority of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment which is worded quite plainly….
“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.”
No power was granted to the States in union collectively to prevent a State from exiting the union individually.
The perpetuity of the union under the Articles of Confederation was not a part of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution.
The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution begins with the wording….”We the people”: in such case we need determine: Was the United States ended with the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and a union of “We the people” a replacement of the “United States”?
If it was a union of States, then we need to examine just what constitutes a “State”. Here we refer again to Johnson’s dictionary of the English language (1755) edition which defines a State as…..
“Mode of government..”
Each State had its own constitution establishing a “Mode of government”.
Therefore if the States were the “United States”, then clearly the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was a product of the State governments, rather than that of, as James Madison stated in his letter to Mr. Everett in August 1830…..

“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed. Nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States, as a single community, in the manner of a consolidated government. It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity; and formed consequently by the same authority which formed the state constitutions.”

Mr. Madison had already explained in the CONstitutional debates #39 and #62 that the 1787 CONstitution was a partially Federal system and a partially national system.
If indeed it excluded the State governments then it was an act of rebellion to the lawful authority of article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which clearly states…..
“Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

Again….
“nor shall ANY ALTERATION AT ANY TIME HEREAFTER BE MADE IN ANY OF THEM; UNLESS SUCH ALTERATION BE AGREED TO IN CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND BE AFTERWARDS CONFIRMED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF EVERY STATE”.

Clearly the State legislatures by LAW would have been required to ratify and changes in the Articles including the replacement of them, thus making the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution a treaty/charter/compact between the State governments, the States.

Madison stumbled in his letter with the statement that….
“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed”.

By the lawful authority of the Articles of Confederation, the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution had to be ratified (formed) by the State legislatures: Again, in this it was a compact/charter/treaty between State governments, NOT a contract between “We the people”.

Now when Lincoln claimed he was trying to “preserve the union”, he was in fact destroying the union of States, and establishing in place of that union of States a single State under a wholly national system wherein the very State governments which made up the United States,were removed from the equation and left without any part in legislation or any participation in the central body. One must consider these question….
If a man beat his wife into submission in order to preserve the marriage after she left him, could that marriage still be considered as such, or was the marriage replaced with a tyranny, and subjugation of the wife?
Would the wife be considered sovereign and independent, or would her freedom be limited not by her own choice, but rather that of her captor?

If Lincoln was attempting to preserve the union of States, then he failed, and utterly destroyed that union, and federalism.
If Lincoln was attempting to end slavery in the U.S. then that was accomplished with the secession of the Southern States, and passage of the13th and 14th amendments which one would think would have passed basically unopposed.
As for the accusation that South Carolina was the aggressor: That is a false assertion. The People of South Carolina had every right to protect the land and Waters surrounding Fort Sumpter within Charleston harbor. which belonged exclusively to the people of South Carolina. The people of South Carolina were within their rights to prevent the invasion of their waters by the U.S. with its attempts to traverse South Carolina waters to resupply the U.S. fort without first establishing a treaty to do such. The land underneath the waters as well as the waters surrounding Fort Sumpter belonged to South Carolina….(See the SCOTUS opinion in….

Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan
44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845)

Which states that the United States never held municipal jurisdiction within a State once a State is formed and admitted to the union: the soil, the shores, the waters, and land beneath the waters belong to the State respectively: Hence all the land and waters that the U.S. would need to traverse to resupply any U.S. Fort, including Fort Sumter without benefit of a treaty to do so constituted an invasion of South Carolina or any Southern State wherein a U.S. fort may exist. Once a State has seceded it is no longer part of the U.S. hence the U.S. as a foreign entity must establish treaties with those States that have seceded. It must also be noted at that time, that each State owned the land and waters three miles out from the low tide mark. Fort Sumter lying within South Carolina’s Charleston Harbor clearly was within that three mile boundary.

Also in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), we find that the U.S. Court stated:

“There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.

“Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.

“[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”

Also in M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held:

“This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”

Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.

The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution was and is obvious. Under the Articles of Confederation, the States retained full and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders. The Congress under the Articles was merely a body which represented and acted as agents of the separate States for external affairs, and had no jurisdiction within the States.

The fact is that Lincoln as a Statesman by definition was also in rebellion to the lawful authority of the CONstitution to which he gave an oath to defend.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Alabama Supreme Court Orders Judges to Stop Gay Marriages - NBC News

YAY! Stand up to judicial tyranny!

Alabama was a Democrat state and it was Democrats who supported Jim Crow laws and slavery. It was a GOP president, Lincoln, who fought against the slavery. Reason I make this point is you can't have it both ways. You can't ignore one part of history while invoking another.

Incorrect.

It was conservatives who fought to retain segregation, and against the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, the same conservatives who later found refuge in the GOP.

 

[Syriusly]

Nice wall of text there.

 

[James Everett]

Alabama Supreme Court Orders Judges to Stop Gay Marriages - NBC News

YAY! Stand up to judicial tyranny!

Alabama was a Democrat state and it was Democrats who supported Jim Crow laws and slavery. It was a GOP president, Lincoln, who fought against the slavery. Reason I make this point is you can't have it both ways. You can't ignore one part of history while invoking another.

Incorrect.

It was conservatives who fought to retain segregation, and against the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, the same conservatives who later found refuge in the GOP.[/QUOTE
You cannot see the forrest for the trees...Again you run to the Repug v demoncrat mindset designed to divide and conquer. Its NOT about the D's and the R's its about Liberty, and the founders' intent. As for opinions.....The truth is there, it is not an opinion but the truth, and all one need do is search for it. Sadly, most of those, and I have debated both sitting and retired CONstitutional lawyers who do not even understand the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutional system. It is amazing how such cannot even explain the two differing systems that make up that CONstitution and how they were meant to function.

 

[James Everett]

Nice wall of text there.

Its only a wall for the ignorant who either cannot understand the truth, or are to lazy to read the truth. Such is why we have lost our Liberty. INDOCTRINATION, palatable to the ignorant than is truth.

 

[Silhouette]

False premise alert: race and lifestyles are not in the same legal category. They're not even close cousins.

 

[Conservative65]

Being married to someone of the opposite gender, that makes me a winner regardless of what a bunch of faggot loving people say. Even if homos marry, they're still losers because they live abnormal lives.

Whatever. Gays and lesbians are rightfully having their marriages recognized as being as legally valid and protected as those of straights. With the public support for gay marriage continuing to surge.

I strongly suspect than in 30 years we'll look back on people like you like we look back today on interracial marriage opponents 30 years ago.

So mob rule by the faggots and their lovers?

Clearly reading comprehension wasn't one of your strengths in school.

Clearly you on consider it mob rule when it comes from a side with which you disagree. Typical. You call opposition to same sex marriage mob rule but are perfectly fine with what you believe being done in the same manner you say is wrong.

I support extending freedoms. You're advocating restricting them. Those are opposites. As for 'mob rule', we're arguing that individual rights should be protected. Which is the exact opposite of mob rule.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Faggots don't want equality. They want acceptance of their perverted, abnormal lifestyle. It won't happen here nor with anyone I can educate on the difference between normal male/female relationships and freaks of nature that make abnormal choices in life. Best believe my kids already know as do the kids of many people I know. We aren't going anywhere despite your best efforts.

Hate takes lots of energy. And works best when the object of your hatred is far away. The reason you're losing this debate is lots of folks know gays and lesbians. And they're just folks. Your description doesn't match the experience of most people.

Given your vitriol contradicted by their experience....most folks are gonna go with their experience.

Get used to the fact that despite homos marrying, you will still be a freak and an abnormal individual.

Says you, citing you. And I genuinely don't care what your personal opinion is. I'm concerned with legal rights.

You're concerned about a personal agenda.

I've got no horse in the race. As gay marriage doesn't effect me. Rights and equal protections do. Which is why I support gay marriage.

I don't personally support close relatives marrying. However, if you support equal rights, you better damn well do it for all situations or any argument you have for the faggots is dismissed much like your simple existence already has.

Do you support mixed race marriage as a legal right?

If you do, you better damn well support the right for incestuous marriage and people marrying goats- because according to your logic- if we recognize equal rights for anybody- then that means of course people must be able to marry their mothers.

You missed the point retard. Those who support same sex marriage and do so because they claim they support equality are the first to oppose other types of marriages. Skylar is one of them.