.
In the case James Obergefell v Theodore E. Wymyslo, M.D, Judge Timothy S. Black wrote:
V. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction (Doc. 53) is hereby GRANTED as applied to these Plaintiffs. Specifically:
1. The Court finds and declares that Article 15, Section 11, of the Ohio Constitution, and Ohio Revised Code Section 3101.01(C), violate rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that same-sex couples married in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is lawful, who seek to have their out-of-state marriage recognized and accepted as legal in Ohio, are denied their fundamental right to marriage recognition without due process of law; and are denied their fundamental right to equal protection of the laws when Ohio does recognize comparable heterosexual marriages from other jurisdictions, even if obtained to circumvent Ohio law.
Of course, the above assertion concerning the 14th Amendment is absolutely without foundation, is not substantiated in the written opinion, and is nothing more than the court using its authority to circumvent the very intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted. The court has indeed engaged in judicial tyranny!
Let us look at the facts. Now what exactly does the 14th Amendment declare?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:
1. Makes All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The amendment then goes on to declare:
2. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. This wording forbids every State from abridging the privileges or immunities which it has adopted under law to citizens of the United States. Note that it does not forbid a State to deny privileges or immunities to persons who may not be "citizens of the United States"!
The amendment then continues with:
3. nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..
This wording applies to any person as opposed to citizens of the United States. It expressly forbids every State to deprive any person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of a States laws.
This section of the Amendment then concludes with:
4. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This wording simply commands that whatever a States laws are, a person within that States jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws. It does not require one State to recognize and enforce another States laws, and especially not its licensing laws, within its jurisdiction as fraudulently asserted by Judge Timothy S. Black. Nor are residents within a particular state denied due process of law if that State refuses to recognize the licensing laws of another State.
The fact is, the wording of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear as referenced above and it is in harmony with the expressed intentions and beliefs which the 39th Congress was attempting to accomplish with the first Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment which was to incorporate the legislative intent of the first Civil Rights into our Constitution. For example, one of the supporters of the 14th Amendment expressed the legislative intent of the 39th Congress as follows:
Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race. ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293
The bottom line is, Judge Timothy S. Black has engaged in judicial tyranny, has violated his oath to support and defend our written Constitution and its documented legislative intent, and for this he deserved to be removed from office and then punished for his willful attempt to circumvent our written Constitution.
JWK
The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutions framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling
In the case James Obergefell v Theodore E. Wymyslo, M.D, Judge Timothy S. Black wrote:
V. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction (Doc. 53) is hereby GRANTED as applied to these Plaintiffs. Specifically:
1. The Court finds and declares that Article 15, Section 11, of the Ohio Constitution, and Ohio Revised Code Section 3101.01(C), violate rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that same-sex couples married in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is lawful, who seek to have their out-of-state marriage recognized and accepted as legal in Ohio, are denied their fundamental right to marriage recognition without due process of law; and are denied their fundamental right to equal protection of the laws when Ohio does recognize comparable heterosexual marriages from other jurisdictions, even if obtained to circumvent Ohio law.
Of course, the above assertion concerning the 14th Amendment is absolutely without foundation, is not substantiated in the written opinion, and is nothing more than the court using its authority to circumvent the very intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted. The court has indeed engaged in judicial tyranny!
Let us look at the facts. Now what exactly does the 14th Amendment declare?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:
1. Makes All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The amendment then goes on to declare:
2. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. This wording forbids every State from abridging the privileges or immunities which it has adopted under law to citizens of the United States. Note that it does not forbid a State to deny privileges or immunities to persons who may not be "citizens of the United States"!
The amendment then continues with:
3. nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..
This wording applies to any person as opposed to citizens of the United States. It expressly forbids every State to deprive any person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of a States laws.
This section of the Amendment then concludes with:
4. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This wording simply commands that whatever a States laws are, a person within that States jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws. It does not require one State to recognize and enforce another States laws, and especially not its licensing laws, within its jurisdiction as fraudulently asserted by Judge Timothy S. Black. Nor are residents within a particular state denied due process of law if that State refuses to recognize the licensing laws of another State.
The fact is, the wording of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear as referenced above and it is in harmony with the expressed intentions and beliefs which the 39th Congress was attempting to accomplish with the first Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment which was to incorporate the legislative intent of the first Civil Rights into our Constitution. For example, one of the supporters of the 14th Amendment expressed the legislative intent of the 39th Congress as follows:
Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race. ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293
The bottom line is, Judge Timothy S. Black has engaged in judicial tyranny, has violated his oath to support and defend our written Constitution and its documented legislative intent, and for this he deserved to be removed from office and then punished for his willful attempt to circumvent our written Constitution.
JWK
The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutions framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling
