What if states don't comply with Supreme Court decisions against it?

[SuperDemocrat]

it is an interesting scenario. What if a state ignored a ruling against it such as the issue on gay marriage? Would the court have any power to force the state to comply with its ruling? It is the uLtimate voluntary authority because a state may not comply if it thinks it decision was way out of line.

 

[Kosh]

The only decision this really affects is the plundering of someone else's Social Security money..

Other than that your premise is flawed and shows that the far left does not understand the Constitution..

 

[JakeStarkey]

The feds have all the power needed to force compliance, up to and incarcerating those officials who refuse and installing officials who will comply.

 

[Kosh]

The feds have all the power needed to force compliance, up to and incarcerating those officials who refuse and installing officials who will comply.

Once again proving the far left does not understand the Constitution..

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The feds have all the power needed to force compliance, up to and incarcerating those officials who refuse and installing officials who will comply.

It would seem kind of undemocratic if the federal government removed elected officials and replaced them with unelected officials. It is pretty obvious that the left embraces dictatorship when democracy is no longer a means to their ends.

 

[Camp]

Precedence for action was established in the 1860's and again in the 1960's.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

 

[Nyvin]

The feds have all the power needed to force compliance, up to and incarcerating those officials who refuse and installing officials who will comply.

It would seem kind of undemocratic if the federal government removed elected officials and replaced them with unelected officials. It is pretty obvious that the left embraces dictatorship when democracy is no longer a means to their ends.

You mean like the Republican state government of Michigan does right now??

Anyway, no they probably wouldn't remove elected officials, that would be kinda extreme. More likely the feds would take the route of denying funding for some service. That's their most commonly used weapon of choice.

 

[The Rabbi]

The feds have all the power needed to force compliance, up to and incarcerating those officials who refuse and installing officials who will comply.

It would seem kind of undemocratic if the federal government removed elected officials and replaced them with unelected officials. It is pretty obvious that the left embraces dictatorship when democracy is no longer a means to their ends.

You mean like the Republican state government of Michigan does right now??

Anyway, no they probably wouldn't remove elected officials, that would be kinda extreme. More likely the feds would take the route of denying funding for some service. That's their most commonly used weapon of choice.

I would tend to agree. Although I believe doing that is illegal, based on a recent Supreme COurt ruling with regard to Medicaid expansion.

 

[martybegan]

The feds have all the power needed to force compliance, up to and incarcerating those officials who refuse and installing officials who will comply.

It would seem kind of undemocratic if the federal government removed elected officials and replaced them with unelected officials. It is pretty obvious that the left embraces dictatorship when democracy is no longer a means to their ends.

You mean like the Republican state government of Michigan does right now??

Anyway, no they probably wouldn't remove elected officials, that would be kinda extreme. More likely the feds would take the route of denying funding for some service. That's their most commonly used weapon of choice.

Could you see a Justice department person escorting a gay couple to a State civil servant, and telling them to either issue a marriage certificate or be arrested?

 

[The Rabbi]

The feds have all the power needed to force compliance, up to and incarcerating those officials who refuse and installing officials who will comply.

It would seem kind of undemocratic if the federal government removed elected officials and replaced them with unelected officials. It is pretty obvious that the left embraces dictatorship when democracy is no longer a means to their ends.

You mean like the Republican state government of Michigan does right now??

Anyway, no they probably wouldn't remove elected officials, that would be kinda extreme. More likely the feds would take the route of denying funding for some service. That's their most commonly used weapon of choice.

Could you see a Justice department person escorting a gay couple to a State civil servant, and telling them to either issue a marriage certificate or be arrested?

Not really. They'd love the photo op though. The feds would simply sanction the officials involved. Could lead to the Second War of Secession though.

 

[martybegan]

The feds have all the power needed to force compliance, up to and incarcerating those officials who refuse and installing officials who will comply.

It would seem kind of undemocratic if the federal government removed elected officials and replaced them with unelected officials. It is pretty obvious that the left embraces dictatorship when democracy is no longer a means to their ends.

You mean like the Republican state government of Michigan does right now??

Anyway, no they probably wouldn't remove elected officials, that would be kinda extreme. More likely the feds would take the route of denying funding for some service. That's their most commonly used weapon of choice.

Could you see a Justice department person escorting a gay couple to a State civil servant, and telling them to either issue a marriage certificate or be arrested?

Not really. They'd love the photo op though. The feds would simply sanction the officials involved. Could lead to the Second War of Secession though.

Define "Sanction."

LBJ had to use the Guard in the 60's. I don't see it going to that point, but the SC if they rule on judicial fiat as the way to go may see some forms of resistance, and it would be up to the Justice Department to enforce their ruling. The problem is the Court needs a law to enforce its ruling, and a I doubt the current congress would write one, so Obama would be forced to write an Executive Order.

 

[Nyvin]

The feds have all the power needed to force compliance, up to and incarcerating those officials who refuse and installing officials who will comply.

It would seem kind of undemocratic if the federal government removed elected officials and replaced them with unelected officials. It is pretty obvious that the left embraces dictatorship when democracy is no longer a means to their ends.

You mean like the Republican state government of Michigan does right now??

Anyway, no they probably wouldn't remove elected officials, that would be kinda extreme. More likely the feds would take the route of denying funding for some service. That's their most commonly used weapon of choice.

I would tend to agree. Although I believe doing that is illegal, based on a recent Supreme COurt ruling with regard to Medicaid expansion.

No, that's quite different. It would be more along lines like these

Getting Uncle Sam to Enforce Your Civil Rights

Although it isn't clear yet how it would play out exactly, but discriminatory behavior generally all follows the same paths. The feds tell them to respect the court order or they lose this and this and this federal funding.

 

[orogenicman]

it is an interesting scenario. What if a state ignored a ruling against it such as the issue on gay marriage? Would the court have any power to force the state to comply with its ruling? It is the uLtimate voluntary authority because a state may not comply if it thinks it decision was way out of line.

There are plenty of ways to force a state to comply; economic sanctions, lawsuits, more lawsuits, the FBI, the U.S. Marshals, National Guard, etc.

 

[JFK_USA]

The only decision this really affects is the plundering of someone else's Social Security money..

Other than that your premise is flawed and shows that the far left does not understand the Constitution..

Supremacy 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."

So states will have to comply

 

[orogenicman]

The feds have all the power needed to force compliance, up to and incarcerating those officials who refuse and installing officials who will comply.

It would seem kind of undemocratic if the federal government removed elected officials and replaced them with unelected officials. It is pretty obvious that the left embraces dictatorship when democracy is no longer a means to their ends.

You mean like the Republican state government of Michigan does right now??

Anyway, no they probably wouldn't remove elected officials, that would be kinda extreme. More likely the feds would take the route of denying funding for some service. That's their most commonly used weapon of choice.

Could you see a Justice department person escorting a gay couple to a State civil servant, and telling them to either issue a marriage certificate or be arrested?

I could see a U.S. Marshal doing that.

 

[Unkotare]

it is an interesting scenario. What if a state ignored a ruling against it such as the issue on gay marriage? Would the court have any power to force the state to comply with its ruling? It is the uLtimate voluntary authority because a state may not comply if it thinks it decision was way out of line.

Nullification was dispensed with a long time ago.

 

[hipeter924]

it is an interesting scenario. What if a state ignored a ruling against it such as the issue on gay marriage? Would the court have any power to force the state to comply with its ruling? It is the uLtimate voluntary authority because a state may not comply if it thinks it decision was way out of line.

The court won't rule heavily either way, if their statements to the press are any indication.

However for hypothetical scenario sake, SCOTUS could require all Federal departments and workers within that state to comply - though not with the same strength as a constitutional amendment or a bill passed by Congress.

Best example of how the state constitutions can be secondary to SCOTUS decisions, the US Constitution and bill of rights is the 'no religious test shall be required to hold public office' part (to paraphrase).

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You don't need to ask "what if" it has happened many times in US history and is also happening now.

California and many other states have ignored the SCOTUS ruling on marijuana and legalized it anyway, nullifiyng the SCTOUS decision.

A state (google it) once protected a freed black slave after the SCOTUS ruled he had to be returned to his former master.

In fact, States have nullified SCOTUS decisions quite often --- and the feds can't do shit about it unless the States nullify an expressly enumerated power of the Federal Government.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

it is an interesting scenario. What if a state ignored a ruling against it such as the issue on gay marriage? Would the court have any power to force the state to comply with its ruling? It is the uLtimate voluntary authority because a state may not comply if it thinks it decision was way out of line.

Nullification was dispensed with a long time ago.

Really, then what's with the States legalizing marijuana contrary to the SCOTUS telling them they can't legalize it?