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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

But you may not decide who may or may not have his civil rights, and you may not deny citizens equal protection of the law absent a rational basis, objective, documented evidence in support, seeking a proper legislative end.

The issue has nothing to do with a law being 'unjust,' the issue concerns the unjust treatment of gay Americans by denying them access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

 

[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to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.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 if a state decided that say....guns were illegal, you wouldnt have a problem with that?

Seawytch just asked the same question as a means to test the person to whom the question was directed.
She admitted that such a law would be unconstitutional..

 

[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.

Colorado nullified Federal law. Alabama should do the same.

A federal court ruling isn't 'federal law'. Making your post a non sequitur.

No..But a federal ruling expressly demands that any state law be narrowed so as to fit within the Court's decision.

 

[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 if a state decided that say....guns were illegal, you wouldnt have a problem with that?

Illinois and Chicago basically did just that. Libs cheered.
What's yer point?

That the federal courts intervened on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees. If such intervention is 'judicial tyranny', wouldnt that be just as true for overturning gun restrictions as it would be for gay marriage?

Its the exact same process overturning the will of duly elected representatives and state authority in both cases.

A conumdrum

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Colorado nullified Federal law. Alabama should do the same.

A federal court ruling isn't 'federal law'. Making your post a non sequitur.

Of course it is. It is a distinction without a difference.

Of course it isn't. As the entire basis and process of each is wildly different. Federal law is a legislative action based on constitutionally granted powers. Federal court rulings relevant to this discussion are interpretations of the constition itself based on individual rights.

You may equate powers of the government with rights of people, but a rational person never would. And the law certainly doesn't.

Colorado isn't violating any federal court ruling. Nullifying your nullification arguement.

"Federal law is a legislative action based on constitutionally granted powers"...
From where....which cereal box did you get this?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The folks of Alabama were wrong about woemn and the vote as well as civil rights and blacks.

Their education system and home down religion contribute to their primitivism.

Some might call that a racist point of view. Alabama today is nothing like Alabama from the period you described -Geaux

Calling out racism is not racism, whenever it may have occurred. The second sentence is a current and accurate description of Alabama today.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Colorado nullified Federal law. Alabama should do the same.

A federal court ruling isn't 'federal law'. Making your post a non sequitur.

Of course it is. It is a distinction without a difference.

Of course it isn't. As the entire basis and process of each is wildly different. Federal law is a legislative action based on constitutionally granted powers. Federal court rulings relevant to this discussion are interpretations of the constition itself based on individual rights.

You may equate powers of the government with rights of people, but a rational person never would. And the law certainly doesn't.

Colorado isn't violating any federal court ruling. Nullifying your nullification arguement.

"Federal law is a legislative action based on constitutionally granted powers"...
From where....which cereal box did you get this?

Disagree with me first. Then we can discuss your misconceptions regarding cereal.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Colorado nullified Federal law. Alabama should do the same.

A federal court ruling isn't 'federal law'. Making your post a non sequitur.

No..But a federal ruling expressly demands that any state law be narrowed so as to fit within the Court's decision.

And there is no such ruling regarding Colorado's marijuana laws. Making 'nullification' of federal law an invalid term in the context of this discussion.As its the federal court rulings that the chief justice of Alabama insists should be ignored.

 

[Skylar]

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 if a state decided that say....guns were illegal, you wouldnt have a problem with that?

Seawytch just asked the same question as a means to test the person to whom the question was directed.
She admitted that such a law would be unconstitutional..

Of course it would be unconstitutional.....If we acknowledged that the federal judiciary has the authority to overturn state laws that violate the priveledges and immunities of US citizens. If the federal judiciary lacks such powers.......then it would lack the authority to overturn gay marriage bans. Or gun bans.

Geaux4it takes the position that the State should decide, not the federal judiciary. If that position is held consistently, then rights are up to a majority vote. Including gun rights. Or pretty much any other that the State decided to strip from its citizens.

Many conservatives don't think it through that far. The intervention of the federal judiciary protects the rights that conservatives believe the people should have and those that conservatives don't believe the people should have. And it uses the exact same process in both instances.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

No he wasn't....No way. You label Wallace a conservative because he's white and he's a racist. To you that is the essence of conservatism.

Small government and state's rights. That's the nature of Wallace's Conservatism. That and the racism.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Then you belong to a tiny, errant minority.

Article VI of the Constitution clearly establishes the Federal courts to be supreme and their rulings as the supreme law of the land (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)); this is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If it were up to the states to decide civil rights issues then there would be no real need for a Constitution, at least not one of the sort we have.

 

[Geaux4it]

If it were up to the states to decide civil rights issues then there would be no real need for a Constitution, at least not one of the sort we have.

If this was a civil rights issue, you may have a point

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

The court has morphed into a political organization as their decisions reflect those in best politcal interest of the court

ACA and gay marriage are 2 examples

-Geaux

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If it were up to the states to decide civil rights issues then there would be no real need for a Constitution, at least not one of the sort we have.

If this was a civil rights issue, you may have a point

-Geaux

This is a civil rights issue.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The court has morphed into a political organization as their decisions reflect those in best politcal interest of the court

ACA and gay marriage are 2 examples

-Geaux

Nonsense.

You and others on the right didn't complain about Citizens United and the ruling on the Voting Rights Act.

Again, conservatives can't have it both ways.

 

[Geaux4it]

If it were up to the states to decide civil rights issues then there would be no real need for a Constitution, at least not one of the sort we have.

If this was a civil rights issue, you may have a point

-Geaux

This is a civil rights issue.

Again, no it's not- Fundamental rights are those that are deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition. Same sex marriage is not deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions.

-Geaux

 

[WorldWatcher]

If it were up to the states to decide civil rights issues then there would be no real need for a Constitution, at least not one of the sort we have.

If this was a civil rights issue, you may have a point

-Geaux

This is a civil rights issue.

Again, no it's not- Fundamental rights are those that are deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition. Same sex marriage is not deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions.

-Geaux

"Fundamental Right
Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.

Fundamental Right Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute"​

Interracial marriage was barred in most states for much of our history and was still barred in 18 States at the time of the Loving decision - therefore it would not have qualified under your definition.

The Supreme Court in numerous cases has recognized Civil Marriage as a fundamental right, as to whether that right extends to same-sex couples - well for that we will find out in about six months.


>>>>

 

[Geaux4it]

If it were up to the states to decide civil rights issues then there would be no real need for a Constitution, at least not one of the sort we have.

If this was a civil rights issue, you may have a point

-Geaux

This is a civil rights issue.

Again, no it's not- Fundamental rights are those that are deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition. Same sex marriage is not deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions.

-Geaux

"Fundamental Right
Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.

Fundamental Right Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute"​

Interracial marriage was barred in most states for much of our history and was still barred in 18 States at the time of the Loving decision - therefore it would not have qualified under your definition.

The Supreme Court in numerous cases has recognized Civil Marriage as a fundamental right, as to whether that right extends to same-sex couples - well for that we will find out in about six months.


>>>>

key- ruled a fundamental right In the union of a man/woman of mixed race.

-Geaux

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

No he wasn't....No way. You label Wallace a conservative because he's white and he's a racist. To you that is the essence of conservatism.

Small government and state's rights. That's the nature of Wallace's Conservatism. That and the racism.

Small government and states' rights are the nature of the Founders who drafted the Constitution.