Quote: (10-07-2014 08:30 AM)Seth_Rose Wrote:
Everyone here seems to "get it".
My two main gripes with this are:
1.) It isn't being done democratically. The courts shouldn't have such sweeping powers to say fuck you to numerous states where voters have gone through the process of instituting a ban on gay marriage. People in the deep south will refuse to recognize gay marriage, and the whole LGBT lifestyle in general for years to come.
Although, I do suppose you could make the argument that the Supreme Court used its powers to end segregation in schools and a ban on interracial marriages...
2.) Where does it end? The floodgates are now open as to who can marry who, or should I say 'what'.
Why shouldn't polygamy be legal now? Or incestual marriage?
Also, I hate to sidetrack the thread but when I clicked on the source it brought me to USAToday. The headline article was this:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi.../16826065/
'Sexual Harrassment Rampant in Restaurants' while showing a picture of a Hooters Waitress...
Your quite right especially on the first point.
Legally the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over any of this, or for that matter most of what it has been ruling on for the past few centuries.
From the Constitution:
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed."
Following the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
I become clear that the powers to decide the legality belong SOLELY to the respective States.
We are always told that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review but that isn't true, at least not de jure power. The Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803.
One of the greatest blows that this country ever suffered was when people become convinced that the Constitution is supposed to be a "living document" that changes with the time,
As Jefferson said ""Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution.
Let us not make it a blank paper by construction."
In having a "living constitution" you in fact create a dead one, as the State can simply trot out a kangaroo court and say "oh well, times have changed, this is what it means now."
We are in the twilight of the Empire, in the words of John Brown, "that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away, but with blood.”
Though I hope I am wrong.