Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[thereisnospoon]

this the same roy moore that was removed from office? and then alabama, in all it's inbred glory, re-elected him a decade later?

You think that's bad look up Gov. Fob James. Yes, his name was Fob. He was elected to his first term as democrat and was somewhat progressive, then after skipping 4 years for Wallace's last term he came back as a fire breathing social conservative hypocrite and won. Alabama votes as ignorantly as they breed.

over 30% of Alabama's population is black. About 55% Caucasian.....Explain...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The states may decide where the capitol city is located, decide the boundaries of counties, and decide the speed limits on various roads and highways.

They may not, however, decide whether or not an American citizen will have his civil rights or not, in this case the right to due process and equal protection of the law.

Americans living in the states are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states and local jurisdictions subordinate to that, where one's civil rights are not subject to 'majority rule.'

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ah! Enlightened, progressive Alabama! They told us that slavery and the subsequent Jim Crow laws were matters of "state's rights".

So these southern knuckledraggers have no problem with repression. It's their "right" as a state to be idiots.

"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow!" Said Fascist-in-Chief George Wallace. Today's Alabamian is not that different.

Imagine being so convinced that hatred is the right thing to do that you would wrap yourself in e time worn State's Rights argument.

Do you ever tire of being stupid?
Wallace was a progressive, btw.
Anyway, Judge Moore is correct. States should nullify the federal law, just as COlorado did.

The issue isn't federal law. The issue is federal court rulings. There's no supreme court ruling that says states must outlaw marijuana. So Colorado didn't nullify any such ruling.

Just a minute. Federal law deems marijuana an illegal controlled substance. If one interprets the Constitution in the proper manner, the Supremacy Clause takes precedent. Colorado's as well as the other states legalization of marijuana is in violation of federal law. The administration ( DOJ) simply has not gotten around to enforcing it

In the proper manner....according to who? Surely not the Supreme Court.

The court has found that the State legalizing a substance doesn't mean that a Federal Law is invalid or unenforceable in that State. But instead that Federal law enforcement can still be applied within the State. That's just plain old concurrent jurisdiction.

The USSC has never ruled that Colorado couldn't legalize pot. Only that their legalization had no bearing on Federal law enforcement.

While you may have a different opinion, its essentially irrelevant to any discussion of any likely outcome of actual cases. As your opinion doesn't form any kind of binding precedent.

What the hell are you asking about "proper"?...Proper is an absolute.
"The court has found that the State legalizing a substance doesn't mean that a Federal Law is invalid or unenforceable in that State. But instead that Federal law enforcement can still be applied within the State. That's just plain old concurrent jurisdiction.".....DUH... I just stated that....
READ.....Colorado's as well as the other states legalization of marijuana is in violation of federal law. The administration ( DOJ) simply has not gotten around to enforcing it.
You are arguing just to argue....And you are posting nonsense just to have something to post.
We're done

 

[Skylar]

The states may decide where the capitol city is located, decide the boundaries of counties, and decide the speed limits on various roads and highways.

They may not, however, decide whether or not an American citizen will have his civil rights or not, in this case the right to due process and equal protection of the law.

Americans living in the states are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states and local jurisdictions subordinate to that, where one's civil rights are not subject to 'majority rule.'

Exactly. A State can extend MORE rights to its State citizens than the Federal Government does US Citizens. But it can never extend less.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SKYLAR SAID:

“You can't have it both ways.... “

Exactly.

And no conservative has yet been able to reconcile this inconsistency.

If the courts are authorized to strike down state and local laws that violate the Second Amendment, so too are the courts authorized to strike down laws that violate the 14th Amendment. The people of a given state have no authority whatsoever to deny an American citizen possession of a handgun pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense; likewise the people of a given state have no authority whatsoever to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

 

[Skylar]

What the hell are you asking about "proper"?...Proper is an absolute.

Given that the constitution by its very nature must be interpreted, what is and isn't proper isn't an absolute. But a matter of judgement and interpretation.

With the judiciary in the role of interpreting the constitution. If your conception of 'proper' doesn't match theirs, theirs is relevant to our system of law. Yours remains personal opinion. And thus irrelevant.

"The court has found that the State legalizing a substance doesn't mean that a Federal Law is invalid or unenforceable in that State. But instead that Federal law enforcement can still be applied within the State. That's just plain old concurrent jurisdiction.".....DUH... I just stated that....

Odd, I don't see the word 'concurrent jurisdiction' anywhere in the post I'm replying to. Perhaps you thought it. But you clearly didn't write it.

But as you've taken the 'proper' perspective on the issue, its essentially settled as far as our conversation is concerned.

READ.....Colorado's as well as the other states legalization of marijuana is in violation of federal law. The administration ( DOJ) simply has not gotten around to enforcing it.

The violation of the law...according to who? The DOJ has taken no such position. The USSC certainly hasn't. As they've never ruled that colorado's marijuana laws violate any federal law. So who, pray tell, are you referring to in this assessment?

Your own personal assessment of 'proper'?

You are arguing just to argue....

More accurately, I'm correcting you obvious misconceptions that you have about the law, the courts, and the relationship between the federal and state governments.

When and if you're ready to continue the discussion, I'll be around. If not, have a great evening!

 

[Skylar]

SKYLAR SAID:

“You can't have it both ways.... “

Exactly.

And no conservative has yet been able to reconcile this inconsistency.

Nor could they. Either the federal judiciary lacks the authority to rule on state gay marriage AND state gun restrictions, or it possesses the authority to rule on both.

As the 14th amendment makes ludicriously clear, federal authority exists to prevent states from violating the privileges and immunities of federal (US) citizens. So its both. As history makes equally clear.

 

[OKTexas]

Ah! Enlightened, progressive Alabama! They told us that slavery and the subsequent Jim Crow laws were matters of "state's rights".

So these southern knuckledraggers have no problem with repression. It's their "right" as a state to be idiots.

"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow!" Said Fascist-in-Chief George Wallace. Today's Alabamian is not that different.

Imagine being so convinced that hatred is the right thing to do that you would wrap yourself in e time worn State's Rights argument.

Do you ever tire of being stupid?
Wallace was a progressive, btw.
Anyway, Judge Moore is correct. States should nullify the federal law, just as COlorado did.

Moron.

George Wallace was a racist Conservative of the first order.

Just because he was evil incarnate, you want to label him Progressive because it validates your myopic view of political ideology.

He was a democrat, nuff said.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

It's not subject to a vote Jesusfreak Roy, and never should have been.

Yes. Fortunately the US is NOT a democracy..Otherwise such matter would be subject to a popular vote

 

[thereisnospoon]

The states may decide where the capitol city is located, decide the boundaries of counties, and decide the speed limits on various roads and highways.

They may not, however, decide whether or not an American citizen will have his civil rights or not, in this case the right to due process and equal protection of the law.

Americans living in the states are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states and local jurisdictions subordinate to that, where one's civil rights are not subject to 'majority rule.'

Full faith and credit

 

[thereisnospoon]

I wonder if the National Guard will be called in to escort gay couples to the altar?

A bit extreme, yes?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I wonder if the National Guard will be called in to escort gay couples to the altar?

A bit extreme, yes?

It was a historical reference.

 

[thereisnospoon]

...Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution....."I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama." Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

...annnnnddd FINALLY a state official grows a pair, standing up to sedition and lower courts attempting to defy/overrule Windsor's 56 reiterations that the decision on so-called "gay marriage" belongs in the states until further notice... Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You seem a little confused. What he's saying is that the States have the authority to ignore the USSC itself if the court finds that gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees.

So where does the WIndsor ruling say that the State have the authority to ignore the Supreme Court on issues of constitutional guarantees? I remember something about constitutional guarantees in the Windsor ruling. What was it again.......ah yes!

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

Yeah, that's pretty much the exact opposite of what the Alabama judge is saying.

Roy is a moron, from a moronic state. Just another theocratic Nazi.

Not that I agree or even support this guy's legal viewpoint, but why is it that you libs think you get to label every conservative as a nazi?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I wonder if the National Guard will be called in to escort gay couples to the altar?

A bit extreme, yes?

It was a historical reference.

Gee. Gosh. No, really?

I wonder if the National Guard will be called in to escort gay couples to the altar?

Will the governor stand in the doorway?

Maybe not but by the time the first marriage takes place someone is going to embarrass the entire state with some sort of shenanigans. I see church groups picketing courthouses and harassing any two people of the same sex when they walk in even if they are there for a non-sinful purpose.

I think you are in a straw man manufacturing facility

 

[thereisnospoon]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So when CA decides they want to ban handguns and automatic rifles, you'd be just fine with that right?

Another straw man argument.
BTW, many states( blue) have restrictive gun laws. So your point is moot

 

[thereisnospoon]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So when CA decides they want to ban handguns and automatic rifles, you'd be just fine with that right?

Why not.

No on has to live in CA. If they don't like the laws they can always move or vote those out that make the laws.

The same goes for all States. If you don't like the laws then vote those making them out of office.

Well it's a dandy idea...and is not our current system of government. What I described is unconstitutional...just like bans on gays marrying the partner of their choice.

I guess if you don't like the laws of our country, like the Constitution that says you can't violate my right to equal protection, you can move to a different one.

Your argument is specious.
Had there been a constitutional amendment specific to marriage, you'd have a valid point.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I truly wonder, exactly how long will it be before people here can deal with the fact that this nation is not a democracy? The mob does not rule here. How much more clearly can we state this for you before you attempt to understand you don't get a vote, and you weren't supposed to?

True...However, binding public referendum states such as California and New Jersey are as close to democracy as one can get.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No on has to live in CA. If they don't like the laws they can always move or vote those out that make the laws. The same goes for all States. If you don't like the laws then vote those making them out of office.

Then why even have a Constitution, if no one has to follow it?

Non sequitur

 

[thereisnospoon]

Of course I believe in the Constitution and the right to bear arms. I have guns and know how to use them. I was speaking about laws that the States pass that you don't like. If you don't like those laws then vote out those passing them. He knows perfectly well as do I that the right to bear arms is in the Constitution. Of course some on the left would rather it weren't. They think no one should own a gun for any reason.

Then what about the fact that federal courts have precedence? If it went your way, we'd still have Jim Crow and Gore would have been president in '00. You can't just accept the laws you like. They have to pass Constitutional muster, as set by the USSC.

"You can't just accept the laws you like."...
Ahem...That is the right of every American...We get to decide which laws we deem just. Those we don't we go to the voting place and elect the people who can change the laws we don't like.
Then of course there is civil disobedience. An activity that defined the 1960's

 

[thereisnospoon]

I agree. Let the States decide what they want done in their State and whats considered legal.

So when CA decides they want to ban handguns and automatic rifles, you'd be just fine with that right?

Why not.

No on has to live in CA. If they don't like the laws they can always move or vote those out that make the laws.

The same goes for all States. If you don't like the laws then vote those making them out of office.

Well it's a dandy idea...and is not our current system of government. What I described is unconstitutional...just like bans on gays marrying the partner of their choice.

I guess if you don't like the laws of our country, like the Constitution that says you can't violate my right to equal protection, you can move to a different one.

No on has to live in CA. If they don't like the laws they can always move or vote those out that make the laws. The same goes for all States. If you don't like the laws then vote those making them out of office.

Then why even have a Constitution, if no one has to follow it?

Of course I believe in the Constitution and the right to bear arms. I have guns and know how to use them.

I was speaking about laws that the States pass that you don't like. If you don't like those laws then vote out those passing them.

He knows perfectly well as do I that the right to bear arms is in the Constitution. Of course some on the left would rather it weren't. They think no one should own a gun for any reason.

He didn't say you didn't like the 2nd Amendment, he asked why have a Constitution if the states can just say "fuck you, I do what I want".

The right to marry has been declared a fundamental right and therefore, anti gay marriage bans based solely on animus are being found unconstitutional...just like handgun bans were.

"The right to marry has been declared a fundamental right"
Not correct.
SCOTUS will not rule on the question until April when the Court will hear 4 cases regarding the issue.
Now, you are free to maintain your position. However, let's be clear. The above is your opinion.
Court will rule on same-sex marriage UPDATED SCOTUSblog