[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

AI is exhausting the power grid. Tech firms are seeking a miracle solution.

Rare Van Halen Leicestershire, Donnington Park August 18, 1984 Valerie Bertinelli Cameo

If you need a Good Opening for black, use this.

"Arrogant Hunter Biden has never been held accountable — until now"

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion

Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men

Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK.

South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel

Today I turned 50!

San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee

Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas

Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport!

Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park

Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next'

Will it ever end?

Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar?

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version

There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Back PRIORS AND PRECEDENT Same-Sex Marriage Gets Its Big Day At The Supreme Court
Source: FiveThirtyEight
URL Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ ... -big-day-at-the-supreme-court/
Published: Apr 28, 2015
Author: Oliver Roeder
Post Date: 2015-04-29 12:33:58 by Jameson
Keywords: SCOTUS, Marraige, 538
Views: 23094
Comments: 119

The question of whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage will finally have its day in court this week. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear two and a half hours of oral argument in a quartet of cases on this subject. If the court reverses lower court rulings that upheld bans on same-sex marriage, it could mean that every state would have to honor such marriages performed in other states, and could require every state to permit them. A decision is expected this summer, most likely in late June. In this edition of Priors and Precedent, we’ll dig into some data and two sources of predictions for this landmark case. First, some background.

The Case

The petitioners are 12 couples and two widowers from states that bar same-sex marriage. A recent profile by NPR dubbed them “‘accidental activists,’ meaning they filed lawsuits not to further a cause but because of the way the bans affected their lives.”

The challenge to the bans, known as Obergefell v. Hodges, is actually four cases rolled into one.1 The court consolidated them and limited its consideration to these two questions:

Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

The first is called the “marriage” question, the second the “recognition” question. The court will hear 90 minutes of argument on the former and an hour of argument on the latter. Civics refresher: The 14th Amendment guarantees certain rights under its “due process” and “equal protection” clauses.

If the answer to the first question is “yes,” then the answer to the second is irrelevant, of course.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-43) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#44. To: Liberator (#36)

What if one sued you for "speaking to my "husband disrespectfully"?

I could care less. Anyone can draw legal suit against anyone in America, at any time. Figuratively speaking, you better show just reason or the matter is thrown out and I don't have to lift a finger.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-04-30   20:02:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: buckeroo (#43)

Care to reason why societal norms have drifted in this respect?

Liberals/Socialists/Democrats?

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   21:22:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: nolu chan, sneakypete (#41)

Because cows and shetland ponies are not recognized as people.

Why not sneakypete and that chimpanzee that I read about the other day. It is recognized as a human I believe.

I mean Pete thinks we came from monkeys anyway. Maybe they can have kids.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-30   21:25:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: CZ82 (#38)

John Gotti can marry his hit man.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-30   21:27:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: nolu chan (#40)

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment

And the 14th truthfully wasn't ratified legally.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-30   21:28:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: nolu chan (#45)

Liberals/Socialists/Democrats?

nope.

Way back in the good ol' days of yesteryear, the family unit was held supreme for the purpose of survival; restraints were placed on sexual conduct were imposed to ensure the survival of societies, no matter the size. Homosexuality was abhorred as the act of homosexuality did not contribute to the family or society for and about survival skills as in farm work based on the need to have increasing family members or progeny. On the other hand, having all the wives you wanted (polygamy) was another way to ensure progeny for the farm and required work to perpetuate the family unit.

The reasons of "yesteryear families" doesn't cut it within modern Uber-suburbia families. Perpetuating the family unit today or the farm unit is simply a minor vestige of mankind's history.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-04-30   21:44:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: redleghunter, nolu chan, liberator, GarySpFc, A K A Stone, CZ82 (#22)

Well you may not care but the souless minions of liberal marxism do care.

Again, I don't care. Now, don't think it is an apathetic remarck. I am saying the norms of society are changing and I have no need to cling to some historical social norm.

Also, I have no need to jump on a bandwagon making changes. I am resilient to change, is all.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-04-30   22:08:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Jameson (#16)

In reality, other people's marital status has no impact on the lives of anyone.

I tend to agree ... but honestly I really don't give a flying consideration other than this forum is preoccupied with queers.

Yukon must have got around a lot, 'eh?

buckeroo  posted on  2015-04-30   22:12:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: A K A Stone (#46)

I mean Pete thinks we came from monkeys anyway.

What's this "we" stuff,monkey? You pregnant?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-04-30   22:16:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: buckeroo, Gatlin (#51)

Yukon must have got around a lot, 'eh?

Just ask Gatlin.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   1:08:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: A K A Stone (#48)

The 14th truthfully wasn't ratified legally.

Wouldn't surprise me. But maybe Satan himself ratified it; That's good enough for all the narcissists, anarchists and Democrats. The 14A killed America, and it's not done burying us.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   1:12:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: nolu chan, Liberator, CZ82 (#37)

That sounds rational but the law gets in the way. The age to get legally married goes as low as 13. If opposite-sex marriage is permitted at 13, age does not seem a legal barrier to man-boy marriage if same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

Oh boy looks like nolu has stumbled onto something here. Ping.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   1:38:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: A K A Stone (#48)

And the 14th truthfully wasn't ratified legally.

I would agree with you. But its ratification was certified by the Executive Branch and that action is not subject to any judicial review. If you had a truckload of proof, there would be no place to deliver it.

See my post on another thread here for two books on the ratification of the 14th. It's a disgrace, but they got away with it.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01   1:42:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: CZ82 (#38)

Why not one man and one cow or one woman (a car creeper) and one shetland pony??

Be careful. Seeing some of the responses here you might get an answer like "it depends on what the Shetland pony looks like."

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   1:44:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: buckeroo (#49)

Perpetuating the family unit today or the farm unit is simply a minor vestige of mankind's history.

The family unit? You mean baby mama and the kids?

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01   1:47:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: redleghunter, CZ82 (#57)

Be careful. Seeing some of the responses here you might get an answer like "it depends on what the Shetland pony looks like."

Remember, there was a crazy New York Supreme Court judge who found that two chimps have personhood and granted a writ of habeas corpus. I'm fairly certain she will be overturned, and for clarity note that in New York, the "Supreme" court is the lower Trial court, and the ultimate court is the New York Court of Appeals.

If that were actually law, it would seem chimps would arguably have a right to marry another person.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01   1:53:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: redleghunter (#55)

I actually find one state, with parental consent, permits marriage at age 12.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01   2:00:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: buckeroo, liberator, CZ82 (#50)

Again, I don't care. Now, don't think it is an apathetic remarck. I am saying the norms of society are changing and I have no need to cling to some historical social norm.

Also, I have no need to jump on a bandwagon making changes. I am resilient to change, is all.

I wonder if the Roman emperor Valens thought the same before the Goths sacked him.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   2:08:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: redleghunter (#57)

one woman (a car creeper) and one shetland pony??

That all came from a porno I seen when I was a teen at a bachelor party called "Pony Express". LOL...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-05-01   6:49:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: redleghunter, Liberator, buckeroo (#61) (Edited)

I wonder if the Roman emperor Valens thought the same before the Goths sacked him.

You would think bucky can see that the idiots seem to be taking over in many places of authority and that the homos are in that crowd in large numbers. (Homos make up %10 of the total population in DC and how many of them run in the political circle)?

Wonder how he'll feel in the future if he's to be "sacked" (bent over the kitchen table) at some wacked out homo marriage ceremony/ritual?? (Where's Meguro when you need him he could comment on that)... :)

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-05-01   7:00:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: redleghunter, Liberator (#55) (Edited)

If opposite-sex marriage is permitted at 13, age does not seem a legal barrier to man-boy marriage if same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

That does seem to be the ultimate goal and has been for quite sometime, the pervs have to make themselves look respectable.

Rules for Leftards: 47). It doesn’t make any difference that I lack morality, integrity and honesty; I’ve convinced myself that I’m still a good person...

(And you had better believe it too or you'll end up in a FEMA camp, can't have the religious disbelievers running loose spreading the truth ya know).

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-05-01   7:08:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, Liberator (#41)

Shhhh, PETA will try to string you up if they hear that.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-05-01   7:14:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: misterwhite (#42)

Tearing apart the fabric of society to please people who should be in a looney bin to start with.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-05-01   7:16:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: redleghunter (#22)

Second, on 'who cares'?...Well you may not care but the souless minions of liberal marxism do care. They are taking advantage of those who don't care or disinterested to change our laws and constitution. That is why on every issue one must take a stand or someone else will take one for you.

Excellent point.

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-05-01   7:42:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: nolu chan (#40)

States don't have to honor the gun laws of other states (eg., concealed carry). And that's a right that IS protected by it's own amendment.

They don't have to honor the medical marijuana laws of other states.

So why should they honor other states' marriage laws which have been a state-decided issue for hundreds of years?

Finding a hidden constitutional right for gay marriage and forcing it on every state will result in perpetual civil unrest similar to the 40-year-old abortion decision.

Nationwide gay marriage will require a constitutional amendment and there are nowhere near enough votes to pass one. Which should tell you something right there.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-05-01   9:54:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: CZ82 (#66)

"Tearing apart the fabric of society to please people who should be in a looney bin to start with."

Homosexuality should be treated like any other sexual disorder -- and there are many (see: List of paraphilias).

There is no rationale for elevating one over the others and calling it "an acceptable, alternative choice".

misterwhite  posted on  2015-05-01   10:09:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: nolu chan, CZ82, liberator (#59)

Remember, there was a crazy New York Supreme Court judge who found that two chimps have personhood and granted a writ of habeas corpus. I'm fairly certain she will be overturned, and for clarity note that in New York, the "Supreme" court is the lower Trial court, and the ultimate court is the New York Court of Appeals.

I would like to know what law school that clown went to. Probably the school of fun arts:

Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Clown College

Knew this weird Signal officer in the Army who did weekend gigs as a clown. He would drive his 'clown' car to work with his advertisement panel and all. Thought ok, he wants to make a few more bucks.

Well he took command of a training battery a few months later, I was invited. I looked at his bio in the program and he had listed a BA in Fun Arts from the college listed above. Amazing.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   11:17:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: redleghunter (#70)

Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Clown College

Knew this weird Signal officer in the Army who did weekend gigs as a clown. He would drive his 'clown' car to work with his advertisement panel and all. Thought ok, he wants to make a few more bucks.

Well he took command of a training battery a few months later, I was invited. I looked at his bio in the program and he had listed a BA in Fun Arts from the college listed above. Amazing.

ROFL...

(A BA in "Fun Arts" no less...from Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Clown College

Now THAT is sad.

:-)

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   12:15:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: redleghunter, nolu chan, CZ82 (#55)

That sounds rational but the law gets in the way. The age to get legally married goes as low as 13. If opposite-sex marriage is permitted at 13, age does not seem a legal barrier to man-boy marriage if same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

Oh boy looks like nolu has stumbled onto something here. Ping.

Wooooah, Nellie!

Leave it to Chan to un-turn EVERY stone. This one should be Headline News.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   12:18:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone, tpaine (#56)

See my post on another thread here for two books on the ratification of the 14th. It's a disgrace, but they got away with it.

Hmmm...I had no idea, nor had given any thought to the genesis of the 14th and grounds and background for ratification. "Disgraceful," Chan?? Sounds like someone or some people had a motive....and KNEW the 14th would wind up THE monkey wrench in the Constitutional cog.

Thanks to Stone for bringing it up the (il)legitimacy, and thanks to Chan for his weighing in and link.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   12:24:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: CZ82, misterwhite, Jameson, redleghunter (#38)

Why not one man and one cow or one woman (a car creeper) and one shetland pony??

That is where this is all heading no matter how much the homos and APA protest or deny it, all they know is how to lie.

Target: HIT. Dead center.

Oh BTW why is it that less than 1% of homos are getting married to start with? (So that means all this hubub over fag marriage is for 100,000 people or so who want to feel good about themselves even though they shouldn't). There are already 36 states who are being forced to accept this bullschitt so why aren't they running en masse to those states to get hitched? (HINT, HINT Homosexuality isn't about love)...

Excellent analysis.

This is NOT about "love" OR "freedom" OR "tolerance"...It is about destroying the foundation of our nation, our culture, our society. Our God. It's purely Alinsky (whose book was dedicated "TO Satan."

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   12:29:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: Liberator (#71)

Now THAT is sad.

What's sad is that some of his drill sergeant NCOs cut some corners in a basic trainee live fire exercise and two Soldiers died. He was not on site when it happened and was relieved of command and discharged from the Army.

It wasn't difficult training and the NCOs just got complacent because they do it 'all the time.' They cut corners on a check list and the CPT is responsible for checking their live fire prep did not catch the screw up.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   12:43:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: nolu chan, CZ82, misterwhite, Jameson, redleghunter, rlk, A K A Stone (#41)

Cows and shetland ponies are not recognized as people.

Strangely, neither are fetuses or 8-month old preborn according to SCOTUS

But I digress -- aren't sexual relations and "marriage" becoming loosely based more "consent" rather than age, gender, or...species?

Since all it takes is one single insane, subversive judge (as in the farcical Chimpanzee case) to re-interpret either "person-hood" OR "consent" as legit mitigating issues, the language, society's "norms" (and laws) are completely at the whim of an insane judiciary. This same insane judiciary often defers to the insane American Psychiatric Association as *its* moral/legal arbiter.

And we wonder how we've gotten to this point?? In the immoral words of Coach Vince Lombardi (prowling the sidelines, witnessing absolute chaos), "WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE??!?)

The judiciary should now be considered subversive Trojan Horse activists with axes to grind with their own clinical psychological problems. They are a dangerous liability America can no longer afford.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   12:49:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: nolu chan, aka stone, liberators, y'all are (#56)

: A K A Stone (#48) --- And the 14th truthfully wasn't ratified legally.

I would agree with you. But its ratification was certified by the Executive Branch and that action is not subject to any judicial review. If you had a truckload of proof, there would be no place to deliver it. See my post on another thread here for two books on the ratification of the 14th. It's a disgrace, but they got away with it. --- nolu chan

Hmmm...I had no idea, nor had given any thought to the genesis of the 14th and grounds and background for ratification. "Disgraceful," Chan?? Sounds like someone or some people had a motive.... liberator

The 'motive' for passing the 14th is well documented in the congressional record by those who wrote and passed it. --- The southern states that had just lost the war, were infringing upon the rights of their citizens, and ignoring the constitution of the USA to do so.

tpaine  posted on  2015-05-01   12:49:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: redleghunter (#75)

What's sad is that some of his drill sergeant NCOs cut some corners in a basic trainee live fire exercise and two Soldiers died. He was not on site when it happened and was relieved of command and discharged from the Army.

The Clown (a Capt??) was relieved of duty? Or his DIs? Unreal.

A few less drills on learning how to be a professional clown, and more concerted effort in learning how to be a professional who *saves* lives (wait -- damage done %$#@!)

Professional clowns are scary for good reason. This jackwagon desperately needs a psych eval in any case. His sloppiness and blase attitude was adopted by osmosis by his DIs.

It wasn't difficult training and the NCOs just got complacent because they do it 'all the time.' They cut corners on a check list and the CPT is responsible for checking their live fire prep did not catch the screw up.

Inexcusable sloppiness with devastating results.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   12:59:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: All (#0)

If all the justices vote the way they are most likely to, the algorithm foresees a 7-2 reversal on both questions. The crowd foresees 5-4 and 6-3 reversals on the marriage and recognition questions, respectively. Either set of outcomes would be a triumph for same-sex marriage proponents.

So we've all weighed in with our respective opinions on the two questions before the court............

If the analysis by FiveThirtyEight is correct, and the SCOTUS overturns the lower courts..........

What will you do?

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-05-01   13:22:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: tpaine, nolu chan, A K A Stone (#77)

The 'motive' for passing the 14th is well documented in the congressional record by those who wrote and passed it. --- The southern states that had just lost the war, were infringing upon the rights of their citizens, and ignoring the constitution of the USA to do so.

You may be right about a Southern governance that was indeed infringing upon the civil/constitutional right of their respective citizenry. Slavery was wrong. But by the same token, slavery could also be found in Northern States. How many Irishmen were deprived of due process abd shot during NY riots for rejecting being sacrificed as cannon fodder? How many slaves existed in the North? Who was the north to invade Southern sovereign borders?

"Honest" Lincoln ignored the USCON by infringing on State and personal sovereignty and creating a grand cluster#@&! The promise and agreement that first lured southern states into the Union were violated, as were the spirit and letter of their respective state agreements. Ironically, suddenly these southern States found themselves to be the "slaves" of the the whims a stronger, oppressive federal gubmint.

The 14th Amendment was apparently authored by libertarian anarchists and secular humanists (subject to minimal legal scrutiny and editing) who cared not a whit about opening the door to Pandora's Box.

Q: Would Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Livingstone and the the signers of the BoR and original USCON have endorsed the 14th as written?

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   13:22:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: Jameson, tpaine, nolu chan, redleghunter, A K A Stone, ALL (#79) (Edited)

If the analysis by FiveThirtyEight is correct, and the SCOTUS overturns the lower courts..........

What will you do?

We'll note how the majority consent and authority of the citizenry is again being usurped by a few subversive judges, emboldened and coerced by social media -- then the rest of us will watch the predictable insanity unfold:

In certain parts of the country the rule WILL be social chaos, judicial fascism, public school fast-tracked coercion of the homofascist agenda, and the harassment of churches and clergy. Unimpeded "Hate Crime" and "Hate Speech" crusaders -- shielded by taxpayer funded armed LE "bodyguards" -- will be out in force on social media, in front of Christian businesses, and squatting during Sunday churches services. BLOWBACK will ensue.

Bottom Line:

The terms “due process” and “equal protection” as per the 14th Amendment are not only LIES but DAMNED LIES. The 14A is a bad joke. "Hate Speech" and "Hate Crimes," "Affirmative Action," and "Quotas" ALL clearly confer UN-EQUAL Il-legal "protection and opportunity" under supposed constitutional law.* (*Based on creed, color, gender, religion, sexual preference, etc.)

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   13:41:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: misterwhite (#68)

So why should they [states] honor other states' marriage laws which have been a state-decided issue for hundreds of years?

I think it has something to do with that Constitution supreme law of the land thingee.

Art 4, Sec 1:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=245

1 Stat. 122, First Congress, Sess. II, Ch, 11, 12, 1790

Chap. XI.—An Act to prescribe the mode in which the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings in each Stae, shall be authenticated so as to take effect in every other State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto: That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States, as they have by law or usage in the courts of the state from whence the said records are or shall be taken.(a)

Approved, May 26, 1790.

_____

(a) Art. 4, sec. 1, Constitution of the United States.—The decisions of the courts of the United States upon this statute, and on the introduction in evidence of the "acts, records, and judicial proceedings," have been:

Under the fourth article and 1st section of the constitution of the United States, and the act of 26th May, 1790, if a judgment has the effect of record evidence in the courts of the State from which it is taken, it has the same effect in the courts of every other State; and the plea of all debet is not a good plea to an action brought upon such judgment in a court of another State. Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 483; 2 Cond. Rep. 578. See Leland v. Wilkinson, 6 Peters, 317. United States v. Johns, 4 Dall. 412. Ferguson v. Harwood, 7 Cranch, 408; 2 Cond. Rep. 548. Drummond's adm'rs v. Magruder's trustees, 9 Cranch, 122; 3 Cond. Rep. 303.

Under the act of May 26, 1790, prescribing the mode in which the public records each State shall be authenticated, so as to take effect in every other State, copies of the legislative acts of the several States, authenticated by having the seal of the State affixed thereto, are conclusive evidence of such acts in every other State. No other formality is required, than the annexation of the seal, and in the absence of all contrary proof, it must be presumed to have been done by an officer having the custody thereof, and competent authority to do the act. United States v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 393; 6 Cond. Rep. 363.

The record of a judgment in one State is conclusive in another, although it appears that the suit in which it was rendered was commenced by an attachment of property, the defendant having afterwards appeared and taken defence. Mayhew v. Thatcher, 6 Wheat. 129; 5 Cond. Rep. 34.

In an action upon a judgment, in another State, the defendant cannot plead any fact in bar which contradicts the record on which the suit is brought. Field v. Gibbs, Peters' C.C.R. 155. See Green v. Sarmiento, Peters' C.C.R. 74. Blount v. Darrah, 4 Wash. C.C.R. 657. Turner v. Waddington, 3 Wash. C.C.R. 126.

- - - - -

28 U.S.C. 1738C says they need not do so when it concerns same-sex marriage. Of course, this is under legal challenge as it appears to be a Statute that unconstitutionally purports to carve out an exception to a the constitutional full faith and credit provision. Congress has authority to pass laws only pursuant to the Constitution.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-28/part-v/chapter-115/section-1738c/

EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTARY - 28 U.S.C. § 1738C (2012)

§1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

(Added Pub. L. 104–199, §2(a), Sept. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2419.)

- - - - -

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-28/part-v/chapter-115/section-1738/

EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTARY - 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (2012)

§ 1738. State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit

The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.

The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.

Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 947.)

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-28/part-v/chapter-115/section-1738a/

EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTARY - 28 U.S.C. § 1738A (2012)

§ 1738A. Full faith and credit given to child custody determinations

(a) The appropriate authorities of every State shall enforce according to its terms, and shall not modify except as provided in subsections (f), (g), and (h) of this section, any custody determination or visitation determination made consistently with the provisions of this section by a court of another State.

[snip]

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-28/part-v/chapter-115/section-1738b/

EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTARY - 28 U.S.C. § 1738B (2012)

§ 1738B. Full faith and credit for child support orders

(a) General Rule.—The appropriate authorities of each State—

(1) shall enforce according to its terms a child support order made consistently with this section by a court of another State; and

(2) shall not seek or make a modification of such an order except in accordance with subsections (e), (f), and (i).

[snip]

- - - - -

Full faith and credit clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) which provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. There are exceptions to this, a major one being that a state need not recognize a divorce decree of a state where neither spouse was a legal resident. Doctrine means that a state must accord the judgment of a court of another state the same credit that is is entitled to in the courts of that state. Morphet v. Morphet, 263 Or. 311, 502 P.2d 255, 260. A judgment or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken. Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Min. & Mill Co., 243 U.S. 93, 37 S.Ct. 344, 61 L.Ed. 610. See also Comity, Fauntleroy doctrine.

- - - - -

Fauntleroy Doctrine. In Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641, 52 L.Ed. 1039, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state must give full faith and credit to a judgment of a sister state if such state had jurisdiction to render it even though the judgment is based on an original cause of action which is illegal in the state in which enforcement is sought.

- - - - -

Comity. Courtest; complaisance; respect; a willingness to grant a privilege, not as a matter of right, but out of deference and good will. Recognition that one sov ereignty allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial act of aother sovereignty, having due regard to rights of its own citizens. Nowell v. Nowell, Tex.Civ.App., 408 S.W.2d 550, 553. In general, principle of "comity" is that courts of one state or jurisdiction will give effect to laws and judicial decisions of another state or jurisdiction, not as a matter of obligation but out of deference and mutual respect. Brown v. Babbitt Ford, Inc., 117 Ariz. 192, 571 P.2d 689, 695. See also Full faith and credit clause.

- - - - -

Public acts are those which have a public authority, and which have been made before public officers, are authorized by a public seal, have been made public by the authority of a magistrate, or which have been extracted and been properly authenticated from public records.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01   14:15:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: nolu chan (#82)

"Art 4, Sec 1:"

You should read your own posts sometime (but hey, who has that kind of time?). In your post #40 lies the answer:

"And the reason in part that the Court's decisions have said that is that otherwise, each State would be able to essentially legislate for every other State."

In other words, if Article IV, Section 1 applied to state laws, then those laws would have to apply in every state.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-05-01   14:33:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: Liberator, A K A Stone, tpaine (#73)

Hmmm...I had no idea, nor had given any thought to the genesis of the 14th and grounds and background for ratification. "Disgraceful," Chan?? Sounds like someone or some people had a motive....and KNEW the 14th would wind up THE monkey wrench in the Constitutional cog.

The 14th fundamentally changed the form of government.

The below tongue in cheek review of the passage of the 14th Amendment is over ten years old and I have no idea who wrote it so I cannot give credit. My original source is a dead link. I can see that on FR, I posted it to tpaine in 2003.

Anyway, the passage went something like this:

Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment

The fourteenth amendment to the constitution has arguably the most sweeping and important. It is the due process of law amendment that has caused so many to our legal system. But, few know the story of the fourteenth and how the egg of "due process" was hatched.

At the Civil War's end Lincoln granted amnesty to nearly all and "with malice towards none", all the southern states were soon functioning again in a legal and proper manner. Because the war was over his emancipation proclamation was effectively ended and so the need of the thirteenth amendment to abolish slavery. There were 36 states in the union and the necessary 3/4 to pass the constitutional amendment was accomplished easily when 10 of the southern states voted for ratification.

Then came the 39th congress in December of 1865. Article 1 of the constitution states that a majority of the either house can deny the seat to any member of its respective house of congress. The Senators and Representatives of the 25 northern states voted to deny seats to the newly elected congressmen from 11 southern states. This meant that the seated congress had 182 of a possible 240 representatives, and only 50 of the rightful 72 senators. There were 36 recognized states in the union. (Keep in mind that in the 38th congress the southern representatives were allowed to vote and have their state votes count in passage of the 13th amendment).

In the beginning of the 39th congress came resolution #48 which sponsored the fourteenth amendment. The amendment was especially important to northern liberals as it's privileges and immunities clause would sweep power from states and hand it to the federal government. The sponsors of the amendment needed a two-thirds majority of each house to submit the amendment to the states for ratification, and remember, the house is short 58 representatives from the southern states and senate 22 senators as well! The constitution states amendments need the vote of "two-thirds of both houses". Does this mean of the seated members or the available seats? Well, it depends on who is counting the votes. At the time there were 33 senators in favor of the resolution #48 which was, 23 short of 2/3rds of the full compliment and 1 short of being 2/3rds of the 50 seated members. Either way you count it, passage is doomed.

NO PROBLEM. Senator John Stockton of New Jersey was elected by a plurality and not a majority vote and was seated to the senate, he was against the fourteenth. A plurality was all that was needed by New Jersey law, and other states as well, however, Stockton's seat was taken from him (after being seated) by the senate majority because he had not received a majority vote and the 33 affirmative voting senators comprised a two-thirds majority of the remaining 49 seated senators. In the house there were 120 of the 182-seated members in favor of the amendment, 2 short of the necessary two-thirds.

NO PROBLEM. Because 30 members abstained, their numbers were not recognized at all, meaning only 152 votes were recognized and 120 is well over two-thirds of the number that voted yes or no. I remind you that the full house compliment was 240 members and that 120 is 1/2 of 240 not 2/3.

Hang on, we are only half way there but it gets better.

Now the amendment must be passed by three-fourths of the states and Nebraska has been admitted meaning 28 states must ratify the 14th amendment. By March, 1867 10 states said no and 17 said yes. California then took no action on the amendment, which was the same as a no vote, meaning there could be at most 26 yes votes when all the states were counted. Then, Oregon which had voted yes with the help of two legislative members later held not to be duly elected changed its vote to no when those two state representatives were replaced by two legitimate representatives, sure doom?

NO PROBLEM. The US Congress recognized the first Oregon vote and discarded the second even though two members of the Oregon state government were not legally able to vote and replaced by the state of Oregon, remember Senator Stockton of New Jersey? The US Congress unseated him (a no vote) because it questioned his validity as a Senator, but recognized the yes votes of State representative held to be illegitimate.

Now the 39th congress passes the Reconstruction Act that placed military occupation on 10 of the 11 southern states and denied the congressional seats to those states until they passed the 14th amendment. Many northern states began to have second thoughts about the manner and validity of these federal moves, after all, what can be done to one state can later be done to yours. California now took a stand and voted no on the 14th. Maryland, Ohio and New Jersey who first voted yes, changed to no. 16 of the 37 states now said no and 3/4ths or 28 were needed to win approval and there was at most only a possible 21 yes votes when all the remaining states voted.

NO PROBLEM. 6 of the southern states that originally voted against the amendment had their legislative bodies forcibly removed by the military occupation resulting from the Reconstruction Act and changed into yes votes. Recall that the 13th amendment was passed by the 38th congress with the original and proper representatives from the southern states. Those congressmen were recognized when voting yes to 13 but thrown out when voting no on 14. Now, what to do about those states that voted yes and then changed to no?

NO PROBLEM. The congressional leaders simply recognized the original yes votes and ignored the no votes, claiming the yeses were already resolved. In other words, the states that voted no and then forced to vote yes had their new votes recognized, those who voted yes then no did not. When all states had voted, congress and Secretary of State William H Seward recognized 28 affirmative votes for ratification.

This is how the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and made a part of our constitution on July 9, 1868. The Fourteenth is known as our "due process" and "equal protection of the law" amendment.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01   14:46:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (85 - 119) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com