Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nobody has forced her to believe anything. She is entitled to her own beliefs.....she just can't force her beliefs on othersNo, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.
Sorry, I don't believe you are entitled to get married
OK, great. But the government can force its beliefs on the citizens????????????? WTF is wrong with you?
The only way to settle this would be a national referendum or constitutional amendment, but you libs don't want that because you know you would lose.
WTF is wrong with you is the proper question! What government cabal got together to force its disembodied opinion upon anyone. Your statement is superfluous on it face.
And where in the Constitution is a provision for a national referendum or plebiscite directly from the people? We are guarded by the Constitution from that sort of mob rule. Where the hell do you get these ideas?
Why the U.S. Supreme Court simply can't radify changes to the constitution, or inact a change to the interpretation of the Amendment.
Article V - Amending the Constitution
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
No where are the words Supreme Court mentioned, but Congress is the only branch of Government that is capable.
Look at how our system of government "correctly" handled women's rights AFTER the passage of the 14th amendment, if you need an example.
I don't think you have a very good grasp of what the Constitution says and what it doesn't say. Here are a few references to clear up your immediate misunderstandings.
First, the Federalist #78 authored by Alexander Hamilton in 1787. In that treatise, he explains the purpose of the Supreme Court and the Article III Courts to be established by Congress upon ratification of the Constitution. He went into the reasons why the Courts would be an independent branch of government, why federal judges would have life appointments and the concept of and necessity for JUDICIAL REVIEW, among other things. The latter, judicial review, is the point about which you seem to have absolutely no understanding. You need to read what Hamilton wrote to understand the powers vested in SCOTUS and the Article III Courts.
Second, you need to review the landmark and precedent setting decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) with concentration on what Chief Justice Marshall wrote about judicial review by the Court and its power to interpret law and set legal precedent to change the law to comport with the Constitution.
Thanks for posting the text of Article V, but that really wasn't necessary. The Courts have the power and authority to interpret the law according to Constitutional standards. To claim, imply or infer that a modification of the Law of the Land can ONLY be accomplished through the Article V amendment process is false and you are in error for that assertion!!!!
BTW Amendment XIV was the second of the three post bellum amendments dealing with the issues of that period dealing primarily with the rights of the newly emancipated in the South and dealing primarily with their rights. Amendment XIX dealt with women's suffrage over 50 years later. You might want to put a little more time into studying the Constitution along with those two I mentioned above.
Kim Davis gets arrested for refusing to obey a clearly unconstitutional and immoral Supreme Court ruling. However, no action has been taken against the mayors and city council members of the co-called "sanctuary cities," cities that are openly defying federal law and whose refusal to follow the law has led to the murder of innocent Americans. Why the double standard?
Defying federal law?
do you think that sanctuary cities are complying with federal law?
Do you think that persons committing crimes should go free if they can show someone somewhere else wasn't prosecuted properly?
of course not, but thats exactly what happens in sanctuary cities. You obviously don't understand legal precedent.
I have no problem whatsoever with the cities being held accountable to the law.
Nobody has forced her to believe anything. She is entitled to her own beliefs.....she just can't force her beliefs on others
Sorry, I don't believe you are entitled to get married
OK, great. But the government can force its beliefs on the citizens????????????? WTF is wrong with you?
The only way to settle this would be a national referendum or constitutional amendment, but you libs don't want that because you know you would lose.
WTF is wrong with you is the proper question! What government cabal got together to force its disembodied opinion upon anyone. Your statement is superfluous on it face.
And where in the Constitution is a provision for a national referendum or plebiscite directly from the people? We are guarded by the Constitution from that sort of mob rule. Where the hell do you get these ideas?
Why the U.S. Supreme Court simply can't radify changes to the constitution, or inact a change to the interpretation of the Amendment.
Article V - Amending the Constitution
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
No where are the words Supreme Court mentioned, but Congress is the only branch of Government that is capable.
Look at how our system of government "correctly" handled women's rights AFTER the passage of the 14th amendment, if you need an example.
I don't think you have a very good grasp of what the Constitution says and what it doesn't say. Here are a few references to clear up your immediate misunderstandings.
First, the Federalist #78 authored by Alexander Hamilton in 1787. In that treatise, he explains the purpose of the Supreme Court and the Article III Courts to be established by Congress upon ratification of the Constitution. He went into the reasons why the Courts would be an independent branch of government, why federal judges would have life appointments and the concept of and necessity for JUDICIAL REVIEW, among other things. The latter, judicial review, is the point about which you seem to have absolutely no understanding. You need to read what Hamilton wrote to understand the powers vested in SCOTUS and the Article III Courts.
Second, you need to review the landmark and precedent setting decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) with concentration on what Chief Justice Marshall wrote about judicial review by the Court and its power to interpret law and set legal precedent to change the law to comport with the Constitution.
Thanks for posting the text of Article V, but that really wasn't necessary. The Courts have the power and authority to interpret the law according to Constitutional standards. To claim, imply or infer that a modification of the Law of the Land can ONLY be accomplished through the Article V amendment process is false and you are in error for that assertion!!!!
BTW Amendment XIV was the second of the three post bellum amendments dealing with the issues of that period dealing primarily with the rights of the newly emancipated in the South and dealing primarily with their rights. Amendment XIX dealt with women's suffrage over 50 years later. You might want to put a little more time into studying the Constitution along with those two I mentioned above.
Yes the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law within the context to which it was written. However, the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees. This is why the preamble of the Constitution begins with the words "we the people", and why our founding fathers had instituted such power to them saying "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Our government shall always be subjected to, and dictated by, the power of the people... never the other way around. Constitutionally the people have the ultimate authority over their respective government.
OK so what happened in California where the feds have over rode the state in concerns of there anti-gay marriage law that the state had held up there ? What was the name of it again ? Prop 8 or something like that ?Why Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses is legally different from a ‘sanctuary city’s’ refusal to cooperate with federal immigration law
Many commentators have sought to draw an equivalence between Rowan County, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses, in defiance of a federal court order, and the decision of so-called “sanctuary cities” to refuse to enforce federal immigration laws. Yet as a legal matter, the questions presented by the two scenarios are quite distinct. Put directly, Kim Davis is acting in defiance of applicable federal law; sanctuary cities are not — and we can again cite Justice Scalia to explain the difference.
So-called sanctuary cities are jurisdictions in which local officials have decided that they will not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Put another way, they are jurisdictions in which local officials are refusing to implement a federal program. The decision to become a sanctuary city may be regrettable, unwise, or worse, but it is perfectly legal and entirely consistent with our constitutional structure.
The Constitution establishes that federal law is supreme. But it is also well-established that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local governments to implement federal law. What this means is that the federal government is free to enforce federal law, including immigration law, whether state or local officials like it or not. At the same time the federal government cannot dictate that state and local officials enforce that law on the federal government’s behalf.
One of the cases establishing this principle is Printz v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that state and local law enforcement officials are not obligated to perform federally mandated background checks before individuals could purchase guns. The federal government could impose such a requirement if it wished, the Court held, but it could not force state and local officials to do the dirty work. If the federal government wanted state and local law enforcement to implement such a federal law, it would have to make it worth their while, such as by providing financial inducements or some other incentive. As the Printz opinion concluded:
The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. (Scalia)
Yeah? So they're guilty until proven innocent?Your second paragraph is total horseshit. If a person is asked to prove that he or she is a citizen and can't do that then its the duty of ICE or INS to detain them until they either prove citizenship or are deported. There is no court appearence required, no judge, no jury. Either you prove citizenship or you don't. There is no gray area here.
OK, great. But the government can force its beliefs on the citizens????????????? WTF is wrong with you?
The only way to settle this would be a national referendum or constitutional amendment, but you libs don't want that because you know you would lose.
WTF is wrong with you is the proper question! What government cabal got together to force its disembodied opinion upon anyone. Your statement is superfluous on it face.
And where in the Constitution is a provision for a national referendum or plebiscite directly from the people? We are guarded by the Constitution from that sort of mob rule. Where the hell do you get these ideas?
Why the U.S. Supreme Court simply can't radify changes to the constitution, or inact a change to the interpretation of the Amendment.
Article V - Amending the Constitution
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
No where are the words Supreme Court mentioned, but Congress is the only branch of Government that is capable.
Look at how our system of government "correctly" handled women's rights AFTER the passage of the 14th amendment, if you need an example.
I don't think you have a very good grasp of what the Constitution says and what it doesn't say. Here are a few references to clear up your immediate misunderstandings.
First, the Federalist #78 authored by Alexander Hamilton in 1787. In that treatise, he explains the purpose of the Supreme Court and the Article III Courts to be established by Congress upon ratification of the Constitution. He went into the reasons why the Courts would be an independent branch of government, why federal judges would have life appointments and the concept of and necessity for JUDICIAL REVIEW, among other things. The latter, judicial review, is the point about which you seem to have absolutely no understanding. You need to read what Hamilton wrote to understand the powers vested in SCOTUS and the Article III Courts.
Second, you need to review the landmark and precedent setting decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) with concentration on what Chief Justice Marshall wrote about judicial review by the Court and its power to interpret law and set legal precedent to change the law to comport with the Constitution.
Thanks for posting the text of Article V, but that really wasn't necessary. The Courts have the power and authority to interpret the law according to Constitutional standards. To claim, imply or infer that a modification of the Law of the Land can ONLY be accomplished through the Article V amendment process is false and you are in error for that assertion!!!!
BTW Amendment XIV was the second of the three post bellum amendments dealing with the issues of that period dealing primarily with the rights of the newly emancipated in the South and dealing primarily with their rights. Amendment XIX dealt with women's suffrage over 50 years later. You might want to put a little more time into studying the Constitution along with those two I mentioned above.
Yes the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law within the context to which it was written. However, the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees. This is why the preamble of the Constitution begins with the words "we the people", and why our founding fathers had instituted such power to them saying "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Our government shall always be subjected to, and dictated by, the power of the people... never the other way around. Constitutionally the people have the ultimate authority over their respective government.
I gave you those sources and you didn't avail yourself of their knowledge and wisdom. I'll be more direct this time around!
First, judicial review is a distinct power of the Article III and Supreme Courts. When a decision is made by the Supremes, or even lower Federal Courts unless reviewed, which alters a law or interprets a portion of the Constitution including an Amendment to that Contract, it establishes a precedent and becomes the Law of the Land. The Amendment process of Article V has nothing at all to do with the process of judicial review by the Courts!
Second, ratification is part of the adoption process of a proposed amendment to the Constitution; nothing more and nothing less. What you write about "...the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees." is rubbish, and further displays your lack of comprehension of the constructs of Constitutional powers established by the Framers!
Third, the preamble to the Constitution is an introductory statement only, and has no legal standing in law!
Fourth, yes, We the People have the authority to direct our government, but only under the authority of the people THROUGH their elected representatives. That is the way our DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN FORM of governance was established by the authors of the Great Contract!!!! No Tea Party dogma is going to change that FACT! Now go learn the truth instead of listening to and accepting error from the unwashed!
Nobody has forced her to believe anything. She is entitled to her own beliefs.....she just can't force her beliefs on othersNo, the question is can a representative of the government force her religious beliefs on the community?It's about the right to follow after ones own conscience. In both instances it comes into question whether a government can force an opposing set of beliefs that is contrary to that individual one's own conscience. Can you be forced to accept or to follow a set of beliefs tha stand contrary to your own. Does a person have he right to follow after ones own conscience without have another's view forced upon them.
No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.
Sorry, I don't believe you are entitled to get married
OK, great. But the government can force its beliefs on the citizens????????????? WTF is wrong with you?
The only way to settle this would be a national referendum or constitutional amendment, but you libs don't want that because you know you would lose.
WTF is wrong with you is the proper question! What government cabal got together to force its disembodied opinion upon anyone. Your statement is superfluous on it face.
And where in the Constitution is a provision for a national referendum or plebiscite directly from the people? We are guarded by the Constitution from that sort of mob rule. Where the hell do you get these ideas?
WTF is wrong with you is the proper question! What government cabal got together to force its disembodied opinion upon anyone. Your statement is superfluous on it face.
And where in the Constitution is a provision for a national referendum or plebiscite directly from the people? We are guarded by the Constitution from that sort of mob rule. Where the hell do you get these ideas?
Why the U.S. Supreme Court simply can't radify changes to the constitution, or inact a change to the interpretation of the Amendment.
Article V - Amending the Constitution
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
No where are the words Supreme Court mentioned, but Congress is the only branch of Government that is capable.
Look at how our system of government "correctly" handled women's rights AFTER the passage of the 14th amendment, if you need an example.
I don't think you have a very good grasp of what the Constitution says and what it doesn't say. Here are a few references to clear up your immediate misunderstandings.
First, the Federalist #78 authored by Alexander Hamilton in 1787. In that treatise, he explains the purpose of the Supreme Court and the Article III Courts to be established by Congress upon ratification of the Constitution. He went into the reasons why the Courts would be an independent branch of government, why federal judges would have life appointments and the concept of and necessity for JUDICIAL REVIEW, among other things. The latter, judicial review, is the point about which you seem to have absolutely no understanding. You need to read what Hamilton wrote to understand the powers vested in SCOTUS and the Article III Courts.
Second, you need to review the landmark and precedent setting decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) with concentration on what Chief Justice Marshall wrote about judicial review by the Court and its power to interpret law and set legal precedent to change the law to comport with the Constitution.
Thanks for posting the text of Article V, but that really wasn't necessary. The Courts have the power and authority to interpret the law according to Constitutional standards. To claim, imply or infer that a modification of the Law of the Land can ONLY be accomplished through the Article V amendment process is false and you are in error for that assertion!!!!
BTW Amendment XIV was the second of the three post bellum amendments dealing with the issues of that period dealing primarily with the rights of the newly emancipated in the South and dealing primarily with their rights. Amendment XIX dealt with women's suffrage over 50 years later. You might want to put a little more time into studying the Constitution along with those two I mentioned above.
Yes the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law within the context to which it was written. However, the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees. This is why the preamble of the Constitution begins with the words "we the people", and why our founding fathers had instituted such power to them saying "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Our government shall always be subjected to, and dictated by, the power of the people... never the other way around. Constitutionally the people have the ultimate authority over their respective government.
I gave you those sources and you didn't avail yourself of their knowledge and wisdom. I'll be more direct this time around!
First, judicial review is a distinct power of the Article III and Supreme Courts. When a decision is made by the Supremes, or even lower Federal Courts unless reviewed, which alters a law or interprets a portion of the Constitution including an Amendment to that Contract, it establishes a precedent and becomes the Law of the Land. The Amendment process of Article V has nothing at all to do with the process of judicial review by the Courts!
Second, ratification is part of the adoption process of a proposed amendment to the Constitution; nothing more and nothing less. What you write about "...the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees." is rubbish, and further displays your lack of comprehension of the constructs of Constitutional powers established by the Framers!
Third, the preamble to the Constitution is an introductory statement only, and has no legal standing in law!
Fourth, yes, We the People have the authority to direct our government, but only under the authority of the people THROUGH their elected representatives. That is the way our DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN FORM of governance was established by the authors of the Great Contract!!!! No Tea Party dogma is going to change that FACT! Now go learn the truth instead of listening to and accepting error from the unwashed!
If judical appointees could have the power to interpret an amendment beyond the intent to which it was written (the equal rights clause of the 14th amendment for example) the court would have given women the equal right to vote. However, "equality", as many are so often led to believe with regard to the 14th, didn't quite work out that way with the COURTS, now did it? What process did women have to use to find their "equality" and equal right to vote? They went under the process of Article V in the Constitution of the United States, it was specifically put there for a reason to involve the "people" in the process of amending their own Constitution.
History shows that the women's suffrage movement had to go through the amendment process of Article V, which required 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the legislature from the states. Which coincidently puts it back into the hands of "We the people" to decide, according to what is written in our Constitution by the Founders under a REPUBLIC form of government.
The Supreme Court was never given the written power to [on its own] change legislation, this is why we have three specific SEPERATE and equal branches of Givernment. If you feel the Supreme Court does, then show me which section under article III gives Justices the specific right to rewrite, vote, pass, and sign new legislation into law. Each branch was never given the written authority under the Constitution to do the job of the other. The fact you feel we should simply "pick and choose" which parts of our Constitution to follow, and call those written documents I provided of our Founders rubbish, is telling.
Why the U.S. Supreme Court simply can't radify changes to the constitution, or inact a change to the interpretation of the Amendment.
Article V - Amending the Constitution
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
No where are the words Supreme Court mentioned, but Congress is the only branch of Government that is capable.
Look at how our system of government "correctly" handled women's rights AFTER the passage of the 14th amendment, if you need an example.
I don't think you have a very good grasp of what the Constitution says and what it doesn't say. Here are a few references to clear up your immediate misunderstandings.
First, the Federalist #78 authored by Alexander Hamilton in 1787. In that treatise, he explains the purpose of the Supreme Court and the Article III Courts to be established by Congress upon ratification of the Constitution. He went into the reasons why the Courts would be an independent branch of government, why federal judges would have life appointments and the concept of and necessity for JUDICIAL REVIEW, among other things. The latter, judicial review, is the point about which you seem to have absolutely no understanding. You need to read what Hamilton wrote to understand the powers vested in SCOTUS and the Article III Courts.
Second, you need to review the landmark and precedent setting decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) with concentration on what Chief Justice Marshall wrote about judicial review by the Court and its power to interpret law and set legal precedent to change the law to comport with the Constitution.
Thanks for posting the text of Article V, but that really wasn't necessary. The Courts have the power and authority to interpret the law according to Constitutional standards. To claim, imply or infer that a modification of the Law of the Land can ONLY be accomplished through the Article V amendment process is false and you are in error for that assertion!!!!
BTW Amendment XIV was the second of the three post bellum amendments dealing with the issues of that period dealing primarily with the rights of the newly emancipated in the South and dealing primarily with their rights. Amendment XIX dealt with women's suffrage over 50 years later. You might want to put a little more time into studying the Constitution along with those two I mentioned above.
Yes the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law within the context to which it was written. However, the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees. This is why the preamble of the Constitution begins with the words "we the people", and why our founding fathers had instituted such power to them saying "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Our government shall always be subjected to, and dictated by, the power of the people... never the other way around. Constitutionally the people have the ultimate authority over their respective government.
I gave you those sources and you didn't avail yourself of their knowledge and wisdom. I'll be more direct this time around!
First, judicial review is a distinct power of the Article III and Supreme Courts. When a decision is made by the Supremes, or even lower Federal Courts unless reviewed, which alters a law or interprets a portion of the Constitution including an Amendment to that Contract, it establishes a precedent and becomes the Law of the Land. The Amendment process of Article V has nothing at all to do with the process of judicial review by the Courts!
Second, ratification is part of the adoption process of a proposed amendment to the Constitution; nothing more and nothing less. What you write about "...the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees." is rubbish, and further displays your lack of comprehension of the constructs of Constitutional powers established by the Framers!
Third, the preamble to the Constitution is an introductory statement only, and has no legal standing in law!
Fourth, yes, We the People have the authority to direct our government, but only under the authority of the people THROUGH their elected representatives. That is the way our DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN FORM of governance was established by the authors of the Great Contract!!!! No Tea Party dogma is going to change that FACT! Now go learn the truth instead of listening to and accepting error from the unwashed!
If judical appointees could have the power to interpret an amendment beyond the intent to which it was written (the equal rights clause of the 14th amendment for example) the court would have given women the equal right to vote. However, "equality", as many are so often led to believe with regard to the 14th, didn't quite work out that way with the COURTS, now did it? What process did women have to use to find their "equality" and equal right to vote? They went under the process of Article V in the Constitution of the United States, it was specifically put there for a reason to involve the "people" in the process of amending their own Constitution.
History shows that the women's suffrage movement had to go through the amendment process of Article V, which required 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the legislature from the states. Which coincidently puts it back into the hands of "We the people" to decide, according to what is written in our Constitution by the Founders under a REPUBLIC form of government.
The Supreme Court was never given the written power to [on its own] change legislation, this is why we have three specific SEPERATE and equal branches of Givernment. If you feel the Supreme Court does, then show me which section under article III gives Justices the specific right to rewrite, vote, pass, and sign new legislation into law. Each branch was never given the written authority under the Constitution to do the job of the other. The fact you feel we should simply "pick and choose" which parts of our Constitution to follow, and call those written documents I provided of our Founders rubbish, is telling.
That the court in the 19th century ruled against giving women the vote does not in any way prove that it didn't have the power to do so.
I don't think you have a very good grasp of what the Constitution says and what it doesn't say. Here are a few references to clear up your immediate misunderstandings.
First, the Federalist #78 authored by Alexander Hamilton in 1787. In that treatise, he explains the purpose of the Supreme Court and the Article III Courts to be established by Congress upon ratification of the Constitution. He went into the reasons why the Courts would be an independent branch of government, why federal judges would have life appointments and the concept of and necessity for JUDICIAL REVIEW, among other things. The latter, judicial review, is the point about which you seem to have absolutely no understanding. You need to read what Hamilton wrote to understand the powers vested in SCOTUS and the Article III Courts.
Second, you need to review the landmark and precedent setting decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) with concentration on what Chief Justice Marshall wrote about judicial review by the Court and its power to interpret law and set legal precedent to change the law to comport with the Constitution.
Thanks for posting the text of Article V, but that really wasn't necessary. The Courts have the power and authority to interpret the law according to Constitutional standards. To claim, imply or infer that a modification of the Law of the Land can ONLY be accomplished through the Article V amendment process is false and you are in error for that assertion!!!!
BTW Amendment XIV was the second of the three post bellum amendments dealing with the issues of that period dealing primarily with the rights of the newly emancipated in the South and dealing primarily with their rights. Amendment XIX dealt with women's suffrage over 50 years later. You might want to put a little more time into studying the Constitution along with those two I mentioned above.
Yes the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law within the context to which it was written. However, the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees. This is why the preamble of the Constitution begins with the words "we the people", and why our founding fathers had instituted such power to them saying "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Our government shall always be subjected to, and dictated by, the power of the people... never the other way around. Constitutionally the people have the ultimate authority over their respective government.
I gave you those sources and you didn't avail yourself of their knowledge and wisdom. I'll be more direct this time around!
First, judicial review is a distinct power of the Article III and Supreme Courts. When a decision is made by the Supremes, or even lower Federal Courts unless reviewed, which alters a law or interprets a portion of the Constitution including an Amendment to that Contract, it establishes a precedent and becomes the Law of the Land. The Amendment process of Article V has nothing at all to do with the process of judicial review by the Courts!
Second, ratification is part of the adoption process of a proposed amendment to the Constitution; nothing more and nothing less. What you write about "...the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees." is rubbish, and further displays your lack of comprehension of the constructs of Constitutional powers established by the Framers!
Third, the preamble to the Constitution is an introductory statement only, and has no legal standing in law!
Fourth, yes, We the People have the authority to direct our government, but only under the authority of the people THROUGH their elected representatives. That is the way our DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN FORM of governance was established by the authors of the Great Contract!!!! No Tea Party dogma is going to change that FACT! Now go learn the truth instead of listening to and accepting error from the unwashed!
If judical appointees could have the power to interpret an amendment beyond the intent to which it was written (the equal rights clause of the 14th amendment for example) the court would have given women the equal right to vote. However, "equality", as many are so often led to believe with regard to the 14th, didn't quite work out that way with the COURTS, now did it? What process did women have to use to find their "equality" and equal right to vote? They went under the process of Article V in the Constitution of the United States, it was specifically put there for a reason to involve the "people" in the process of amending their own Constitution.
History shows that the women's suffrage movement had to go through the amendment process of Article V, which required 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the legislature from the states. Which coincidently puts it back into the hands of "We the people" to decide, according to what is written in our Constitution by the Founders under a REPUBLIC form of government.
The Supreme Court was never given the written power to [on its own] change legislation, this is why we have three specific SEPERATE and equal branches of Givernment. If you feel the Supreme Court does, then show me which section under article III gives Justices the specific right to rewrite, vote, pass, and sign new legislation into law. Each branch was never given the written authority under the Constitution to do the job of the other. The fact you feel we should simply "pick and choose" which parts of our Constitution to follow, and call those written documents I provided of our Founders rubbish, is telling.
That the court in the 19th century ruled against giving women the vote does not in any way prove that it didn't have the power to do so.
Voting was never actually a "right."
Do you know that?
U.S. Constitution is not explicit on the right to vote, Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan says
Personally, I would rather 2% of the country vote IF it was only 2% of the country that are educated about the issues. That was the main reason it was never a RIGHT for ALL citizens cause of the fear that people would be forced to vote or the ignorant would be manipulated.
Why Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses is legally different from a ‘sanctuary city’s’ refusal to cooperate with federal immigration law
Many commentators have sought to draw an equivalence between Rowan County, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses, in defiance of a federal court order, and the decision of so-called “sanctuary cities” to refuse to enforce federal immigration laws. Yet as a legal matter, the questions presented by the two scenarios are quite distinct. Put directly, Kim Davis is acting in defiance of applicable federal law; sanctuary cities are not — and we can again cite Justice Scalia to explain the difference.
So-called sanctuary cities are jurisdictions in which local officials have decided that they will not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Put another way, they are jurisdictions in which local officials are refusing to implement a federal program. The decision to become a sanctuary city may be regrettable, unwise, or worse, but it is perfectly legal and entirely consistent with our constitutional structure.
The Constitution establishes that federal law is supreme. But it is also well-established that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local governments to implement federal law. What this means is that the federal government is free to enforce federal law, including immigration law, whether state or local officials like it or not. At the same time the federal government cannot dictate that state and local officials enforce that law on the federal government’s behalf.
One of the cases establishing this principle is Printz v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that state and local law enforcement officials are not obligated to perform federally mandated background checks before individuals could purchase guns. The federal government could impose such a requirement if it wished, the Court held, but it could not force state and local officials to do the dirty work. If the federal government wanted state and local law enforcement to implement such a federal law, it would have to make it worth their while, such as by providing financial inducements or some other incentive. As the Printz opinion concluded:
The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. (Scalia)
Yes the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law within the context to which it was written. However, the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees. This is why the preamble of the Constitution begins with the words "we the people", and why our founding fathers had instituted such power to them saying "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Our government shall always be subjected to, and dictated by, the power of the people... never the other way around. Constitutionally the people have the ultimate authority over their respective government.
I gave you those sources and you didn't avail yourself of their knowledge and wisdom. I'll be more direct this time around!
First, judicial review is a distinct power of the Article III and Supreme Courts. When a decision is made by the Supremes, or even lower Federal Courts unless reviewed, which alters a law or interprets a portion of the Constitution including an Amendment to that Contract, it establishes a precedent and becomes the Law of the Land. The Amendment process of Article V has nothing at all to do with the process of judicial review by the Courts!
Second, ratification is part of the adoption process of a proposed amendment to the Constitution; nothing more and nothing less. What you write about "...the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees." is rubbish, and further displays your lack of comprehension of the constructs of Constitutional powers established by the Framers!
Third, the preamble to the Constitution is an introductory statement only, and has no legal standing in law!
Fourth, yes, We the People have the authority to direct our government, but only under the authority of the people THROUGH their elected representatives. That is the way our DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN FORM of governance was established by the authors of the Great Contract!!!! No Tea Party dogma is going to change that FACT! Now go learn the truth instead of listening to and accepting error from the unwashed!
If judical appointees could have the power to interpret an amendment beyond the intent to which it was written (the equal rights clause of the 14th amendment for example) the court would have given women the equal right to vote. However, "equality", as many are so often led to believe with regard to the 14th, didn't quite work out that way with the COURTS, now did it? What process did women have to use to find their "equality" and equal right to vote? They went under the process of Article V in the Constitution of the United States, it was specifically put there for a reason to involve the "people" in the process of amending their own Constitution.
History shows that the women's suffrage movement had to go through the amendment process of Article V, which required 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the legislature from the states. Which coincidently puts it back into the hands of "We the people" to decide, according to what is written in our Constitution by the Founders under a REPUBLIC form of government.
The Supreme Court was never given the written power to [on its own] change legislation, this is why we have three specific SEPERATE and equal branches of Givernment. If you feel the Supreme Court does, then show me which section under article III gives Justices the specific right to rewrite, vote, pass, and sign new legislation into law. Each branch was never given the written authority under the Constitution to do the job of the other. The fact you feel we should simply "pick and choose" which parts of our Constitution to follow, and call those written documents I provided of our Founders rubbish, is telling.
That the court in the 19th century ruled against giving women the vote does not in any way prove that it didn't have the power to do so.
Voting was never actually a "right."
Do you know that?
U.S. Constitution is not explicit on the right to vote, Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan says
Personally, I would rather 2% of the country vote IF it was only 2% of the country that are educated about the issues. That was the main reason it was never a RIGHT for ALL citizens cause of the fear that people would be forced to vote or the ignorant would be manipulated.
Wrong. The 14th Amendment explicitly states that voting is a right, but limits that right explicitly to males:
"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
Why the U.S. Supreme Court simply can't radify changes to the constitution, or inact a change to the interpretation of the Amendment.
Article V - Amending the Constitution
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
No where are the words Supreme Court mentioned, but Congress is the only branch of Government that is capable.
Look at how our system of government "correctly" handled women's rights AFTER the passage of the 14th amendment, if you need an example.
I don't think you have a very good grasp of what the Constitution says and what it doesn't say. Here are a few references to clear up your immediate misunderstandings.
First, the Federalist #78 authored by Alexander Hamilton in 1787. In that treatise, he explains the purpose of the Supreme Court and the Article III Courts to be established by Congress upon ratification of the Constitution. He went into the reasons why the Courts would be an independent branch of government, why federal judges would have life appointments and the concept of and necessity for JUDICIAL REVIEW, among other things. The latter, judicial review, is the point about which you seem to have absolutely no understanding. You need to read what Hamilton wrote to understand the powers vested in SCOTUS and the Article III Courts.
Second, you need to review the landmark and precedent setting decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) with concentration on what Chief Justice Marshall wrote about judicial review by the Court and its power to interpret law and set legal precedent to change the law to comport with the Constitution.
Thanks for posting the text of Article V, but that really wasn't necessary. The Courts have the power and authority to interpret the law according to Constitutional standards. To claim, imply or infer that a modification of the Law of the Land can ONLY be accomplished through the Article V amendment process is false and you are in error for that assertion!!!!
BTW Amendment XIV was the second of the three post bellum amendments dealing with the issues of that period dealing primarily with the rights of the newly emancipated in the South and dealing primarily with their rights. Amendment XIX dealt with women's suffrage over 50 years later. You might want to put a little more time into studying the Constitution along with those two I mentioned above.
Yes the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law within the context to which it was written. However, the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees. This is why the preamble of the Constitution begins with the words "we the people", and why our founding fathers had instituted such power to them saying "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Our government shall always be subjected to, and dictated by, the power of the people... never the other way around. Constitutionally the people have the ultimate authority over their respective government.
I gave you those sources and you didn't avail yourself of their knowledge and wisdom. I'll be more direct this time around!
First, judicial review is a distinct power of the Article III and Supreme Courts. When a decision is made by the Supremes, or even lower Federal Courts unless reviewed, which alters a law or interprets a portion of the Constitution including an Amendment to that Contract, it establishes a precedent and becomes the Law of the Land. The Amendment process of Article V has nothing at all to do with the process of judicial review by the Courts!
Second, ratification is part of the adoption process of a proposed amendment to the Constitution; nothing more and nothing less. What you write about "...the purpose of Article V is to place ratification and changes to the Constitution and maintain that power within the hands of "we the people" and not a select few of judicial appointees." is rubbish, and further displays your lack of comprehension of the constructs of Constitutional powers established by the Framers!
Third, the preamble to the Constitution is an introductory statement only, and has no legal standing in law!
Fourth, yes, We the People have the authority to direct our government, but only under the authority of the people THROUGH their elected representatives. That is the way our DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN FORM of governance was established by the authors of the Great Contract!!!! No Tea Party dogma is going to change that FACT! Now go learn the truth instead of listening to and accepting error from the unwashed!
If judical appointees could have the power to interpret an amendment beyond the intent to which it was written (the equal rights clause of the 14th amendment for example) the court would have given women the equal right to vote. However, "equality", as many are so often led to believe with regard to the 14th, didn't quite work out that way with the COURTS, now did it? What process did women have to use to find their "equality" and equal right to vote? They went under the process of Article V in the Constitution of the United States, it was specifically put there for a reason to involve the "people" in the process of amending their own Constitution.
History shows that the women's suffrage movement had to go through the amendment process of Article V, which required 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the legislature from the states. Which coincidently puts it back into the hands of "We the people" to decide, according to what is written in our Constitution by the Founders under a REPUBLIC form of government.
The Supreme Court was never given the written power to [on its own] change legislation, this is why we have three specific SEPERATE and equal branches of Givernment. If you feel the Supreme Court does, then show me which section under article III gives Justices the specific right to rewrite, vote, pass, and sign new legislation into law. Each branch was never given the written authority under the Constitution to do the job of the other. The fact you feel we should simply "pick and choose" which parts of our Constitution to follow, and call those written documents I provided of our Founders rubbish, is telling.
That the court in the 19th century ruled against giving women the vote does not in any way prove that it didn't have the power to do so.
Why Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses is legally different from a ‘sanctuary city’s’ refusal to cooperate with federal immigration law
Many commentators have sought to draw an equivalence between Rowan County, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses, in defiance of a federal court order, and the decision of so-called “sanctuary cities” to refuse to enforce federal immigration laws. Yet as a legal matter, the questions presented by the two scenarios are quite distinct. Put directly, Kim Davis is acting in defiance of applicable federal law; sanctuary cities are not — and we can again cite Justice Scalia to explain the difference.
So-called sanctuary cities are jurisdictions in which local officials have decided that they will not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Put another way, they are jurisdictions in which local officials are refusing to implement a federal program. The decision to become a sanctuary city may be regrettable, unwise, or worse, but it is perfectly legal and entirely consistent with our constitutional structure.
The Constitution establishes that federal law is supreme. But it is also well-established that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local governments to implement federal law. What this means is that the federal government is free to enforce federal law, including immigration law, whether state or local officials like it or not. At the same time the federal government cannot dictate that state and local officials enforce that law on the federal government’s behalf.
One of the cases establishing this principle is Printz v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that state and local law enforcement officials are not obligated to perform federally mandated background checks before individuals could purchase guns. The federal government could impose such a requirement if it wished, the Court held, but it could not force state and local officials to do the dirty work. If the federal government wanted state and local law enforcement to implement such a federal law, it would have to make it worth their while, such as by providing financial inducements or some other incentive. As the Printz opinion concluded:
The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. (Scalia)
If that were really true, then it would be equivocal to say local officials can decide that they will not cooperate with federal ACA enforcement, gay marriage license, or any other law on a Federal level. Are we sure we want to be going down that path of open interpretation?
So what is to stop then, a Federal Government from simply withholding Federal Funding to any state who's officials within their jurisdictional boundaries don't comply with Federal Law? With all these executive orders being so easily dispensed to enact new "legislative" executive decisions, we seemed to have opened a Pandora's box of opportunities for the next Commander-in-Chief to follow. This is what happens when the views towards our nation's roles, responsibility, and authority begins to unravel for this nation.
But it strongly implies it can be denied or abridged in which case the number of electors is likewise reduced. What was that code for, blacks?Wrong. The 14th Amendment explicitly states that voting is a right, but limits that right explicitly to males:
Why Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses is legally different from a ‘sanctuary city’s’ refusal to cooperate with federal immigration law
Many commentators have sought to draw an equivalence between Rowan County, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses, in defiance of a federal court order, and the decision of so-called “sanctuary cities” to refuse to enforce federal immigration laws. Yet as a legal matter, the questions presented by the two scenarios are quite distinct. Put directly, Kim Davis is acting in defiance of applicable federal law; sanctuary cities are not — and we can again cite Justice Scalia to explain the difference.
So-called sanctuary cities are jurisdictions in which local officials have decided that they will not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Put another way, they are jurisdictions in which local officials are refusing to implement a federal program. The decision to become a sanctuary city may be regrettable, unwise, or worse, but it is perfectly legal and entirely consistent with our constitutional structure.
The Constitution establishes that federal law is supreme. But it is also well-established that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local governments to implement federal law. What this means is that the federal government is free to enforce federal law, including immigration law, whether state or local officials like it or not. At the same time the federal government cannot dictate that state and local officials enforce that law on the federal government’s behalf.
One of the cases establishing this principle is Printz v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that state and local law enforcement officials are not obligated to perform federally mandated background checks before individuals could purchase guns. The federal government could impose such a requirement if it wished, the Court held, but it could not force state and local officials to do the dirty work. If the federal government wanted state and local law enforcement to implement such a federal law, it would have to make it worth their while, such as by providing financial inducements or some other incentive. As the Printz opinion concluded:
The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. (Scalia)
If that were really true, then it would be equivocal to say local officials can decide that they will not cooperate with federal ACA enforcement, gay marriage license, or any other law on a Federal level. Are we sure we want to be going down that path of open interpretation?
So what is to stop then, a Federal Government from simply withholding Federal Funding to any state who's officials within their jurisdictional boundaries don't comply with Federal Law? With all these executive orders being so easily dispensed to enact new "legislative" executive decisions, we seemed to have opened a Pandora's box of opportunities for the next Commander-in-Chief to follow. This is what happens when the views towards our nation's roles, responsibility, and authority begins to unravel for this nation.
Which is essence is their actual intent. They have utterly dismantled the constitution and it has been going on for a long time now. They ignore certain aspects, then they use certain aspects. They give authority to entities that have never had the authority. They guise it with this notion that they are sticking up for minorities or people's rights. Knowing if any politician resists them in any way, they can be labeled as racists.
That is the actual reality of what we are seeing. The left hate the country. The politicians hate the constitution. This has been the case since the country's inception. It was always suppose to limit power. This greatly and has greatly frustrated those that are VOTED into office. Thomas Jefferson hated his "role as president" and he came to despise his presidency so much that he had it left off of his tombstone.
The simple fact is more power has been given to different entities that were never suppose to have it in the first place. So much so that it has become an utter joke.
Why Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses is legally different from a ‘sanctuary city’s’ refusal to cooperate with federal immigration law
Many commentators have sought to draw an equivalence between Rowan County, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses, in defiance of a federal court order, and the decision of so-called “sanctuary cities” to refuse to enforce federal immigration laws. Yet as a legal matter, the questions presented by the two scenarios are quite distinct. Put directly, Kim Davis is acting in defiance of applicable federal law; sanctuary cities are not — and we can again cite Justice Scalia to explain the difference.
So-called sanctuary cities are jurisdictions in which local officials have decided that they will not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Put another way, they are jurisdictions in which local officials are refusing to implement a federal program. The decision to become a sanctuary city may be regrettable, unwise, or worse, but it is perfectly legal and entirely consistent with our constitutional structure.
The Constitution establishes that federal law is supreme. But it is also well-established that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local governments to implement federal law. What this means is that the federal government is free to enforce federal law, including immigration law, whether state or local officials like it or not. At the same time the federal government cannot dictate that state and local officials enforce that law on the federal government’s behalf.
One of the cases establishing this principle is Printz v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that state and local law enforcement officials are not obligated to perform federally mandated background checks before individuals could purchase guns. The federal government could impose such a requirement if it wished, the Court held, but it could not force state and local officials to do the dirty work. If the federal government wanted state and local law enforcement to implement such a federal law, it would have to make it worth their while, such as by providing financial inducements or some other incentive. As the Printz opinion concluded:
The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. (Scalia)
If that were really true, then it would be equivocal to say local officials can decide that they will not cooperate with federal ACA enforcement, gay marriage license, or any other law on a Federal level. Are we sure we want to be going down that path of open interpretation?
So what is to stop then, a Federal Government from simply withholding Federal Funding to any state who's officials within their jurisdictional boundaries don't comply with Federal Law? With all these executive orders being so easily dispensed to enact new "legislative" executive decisions, we seemed to have opened a Pandora's box of opportunities for the next Commander-in-Chief to follow. This is what happens when the views towards our nation's roles, responsibility, and authority begins to unravel for this nation.
Which is essence is their actual intent. They have utterly dismantled the constitution and it has been going on for a long time now. They ignore certain aspects, then they use certain aspects. They give authority to entities that have never had the authority. They guise it with this notion that they are sticking up for minorities or people's rights. Knowing if any politician resists them in any way, they can be labeled as racists.
That is the actual reality of what we are seeing. The left hate the country. The politicians hate the constitution. This has been the case since the country's inception. It was always suppose to limit power. This greatly and has greatly frustrated those that are VOTED into office. Thomas Jefferson hated his "role as president" and he came to despise his presidency so much that he had it left off of his tombstone.
The simple fact is more power has been given to different entities that were never suppose to have it in the first place. So much so that it has become an utter joke.
That's because it has become more about changing the shape and face of government, than follow what the framers had purposes for this nation to be. If you can manipulate to the point that it becomes easier to transform it into your perception of government, you can use the courts to inact new legislation faster and much easier than the constitutional process itself.
Nobody has forced her to believe anything. She is entitled to her own beliefs.....she just can't force her beliefs on othersNo, the question is can a representative of the government force her religious beliefs on the community?It's about the right to follow after ones own conscience. In both instances it comes into question whether a government can force an opposing set of beliefs that is contrary to that individual one's own conscience. Can you be forced to accept or to follow a set of beliefs tha stand contrary to your own. Does a person have he right to follow after ones own conscience without have another's view forced upon them.
No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.
Sorry, I don't believe you are entitled to get married
OK, great. But the government can force its beliefs on the citizens????????????? WTF is wrong with you?
The only way to settle this would be a national referendum or constitutional amendment, but you libs don't want that because you know you would lose.
WTF is wrong with you is the proper question! What government cabal got together to force its disembodied opinion upon anyone. Your statement is superfluous on it face.
And where in the Constitution is a provision for a national referendum or plebiscite directly from the people? We are guarded by the Constitution from that sort of mob rule. Where the hell do you get these ideas?
Why Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses is legally different from a ‘sanctuary city’s’ refusal to cooperate with federal immigration law
Many commentators have sought to draw an equivalence between Rowan County, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses, in defiance of a federal court order, and the decision of so-called “sanctuary cities” to refuse to enforce federal immigration laws. Yet as a legal matter, the questions presented by the two scenarios are quite distinct. Put directly, Kim Davis is acting in defiance of applicable federal law; sanctuary cities are not — and we can again cite Justice Scalia to explain the difference.
So-called sanctuary cities are jurisdictions in which local officials have decided that they will not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Put another way, they are jurisdictions in which local officials are refusing to implement a federal program. The decision to become a sanctuary city may be regrettable, unwise, or worse, but it is perfectly legal and entirely consistent with our constitutional structure.
The Constitution establishes that federal law is supreme. But it is also well-established that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local governments to implement federal law. What this means is that the federal government is free to enforce federal law, including immigration law, whether state or local officials like it or not. At the same time the federal government cannot dictate that state and local officials enforce that law on the federal government’s behalf.
One of the cases establishing this principle is Printz v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that state and local law enforcement officials are not obligated to perform federally mandated background checks before individuals could purchase guns. The federal government could impose such a requirement if it wished, the Court held, but it could not force state and local officials to do the dirty work. If the federal government wanted state and local law enforcement to implement such a federal law, it would have to make it worth their while, such as by providing financial inducements or some other incentive. As the Printz opinion concluded:
The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. (Scalia)
If that were really true, then it would be equivocal to say local officials can decide that they will not cooperate with federal ACA enforcement, gay marriage license, or any other law on a Federal level. Are we sure we want to be going down that path of open interpretation?
So what is to stop then, a Federal Government from simply withholding Federal Funding to any state who's officials within their jurisdictional boundaries don't comply with Federal Law? With all these executive orders being so easily dispensed to enact new "legislative" executive decisions, we seemed to have opened a Pandora's box of opportunities for the next Commander-in-Chief to follow. This is what happens when the views towards our nation's roles, responsibility, and authority begins to unravel for this nation.
Which is essence is their actual intent. They have utterly dismantled the constitution and it has been going on for a long time now. They ignore certain aspects, then they use certain aspects. They give authority to entities that have never had the authority. They guise it with this notion that they are sticking up for minorities or people's rights. Knowing if any politician resists them in any way, they can be labeled as racists.
That is the actual reality of what we are seeing. The left hate the country. The politicians hate the constitution. This has been the case since the country's inception. It was always suppose to limit power. This greatly and has greatly frustrated those that are VOTED into office. Thomas Jefferson hated his "role as president" and he came to despise his presidency so much that he had it left off of his tombstone.
The simple fact is more power has been given to different entities that were never suppose to have it in the first place. So much so that it has become an utter joke.
That's because it has become more about changing the shape and face of government, than follow what the framers had purposed for this nation to be. If you can manipulate to the point that it becomes easier to transform it into your perception of government, you can use the courts to inact new legislation faster and much easier than the constitutional process itself.
