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

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".

"Enter Harris, Stage Lef"t

Official describes the moment a Butler officer confronted the Trump shooter

Jesse Watters: Don’t buy this excuse from the Secret Service

Video shows Trump shooter crawling into position while folks point him out to law enforcement

Eyewitness believes there was a 'noticeable' difference in security at Trump's rally

Trump Assassination Attempt

We screamed for 3 minutes at police and Secret Service. They couldn’t see him, so they did nothing. EYEWITNESS SPEAKS OUT — I SAW THE ASSASSIN CRAWLING ACROSS THE ROOF.

Video showing the Trump Rally shooter dead on the rooftop

Court Just Nailed Hillary in $6 Million FEC Violation Case, 45x Bigger Than Trump's $130k So-Called Violation

2024 Republican Platform Drops Gun-Rights Promises

Why will Kamala Harris resign from her occupancy of the Office of Vice President of the USA? Scroll down for records/details

Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden’s Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal to Protect Biden Family Before Joe’s Exit

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

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


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: 24336
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

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 73.

#28. To: Jameson (#0) (Edited)

"Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?"

What part of the 14th amendment requires this?

"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 14th amendment?? Why isn't this covered under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution -- "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-30   11:13:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: misterwhite (#28)

What part of the 14th amendment requires this?

The 14th amendment?? Why isn't this covered under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution -- "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

Yeah, I have no idea. You'll have to take up these questions with an attorney.

(even then, I'll bet that there will be multiple opinions)

Jameson  posted on  2015-04-30   11:16:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Jameson, misterwhite (#30)

[misterwhite] What part of the 14th amendment requires this?

The 14th amendment?? Why isn't this covered under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution -- "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is argued on behalf of the right to enter into same-sex marriage. Article 4 is said to apply to require all states to recognize an existing same-sex marriage, even where it would not be legal to enter into according to the laws of said state.

At 1-4:

ORAL ARGUMENT OF MARY L. BONAUTO

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS ON QUESTION 1

MS. BONAUTO: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:

The intimate and committed relationships of samesex couples, just like those of heterosexual couples, provide mutual support and are the foundation of family life in our society. If a legal commitment, responsibility and protection that is marriage is off limits to gay people as a class, the stain of unworthiness that follows on individuals and families contravenes the basic constitutional commitment to equal dignity.

Indeed, the abiding purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment is to preclude relegating classes of persons to secondtier status.

- - - - -

At 1-31

GENERAL VERRILLI: It is different, I agree.

And I and it leads to the second thing I think that the that the Lawrence catalyzed for our society, was it put gay and lesbian couples, gay and lesbian people, in a position for the first time in our history to be able to lay claim to the abiding promise of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that was just impossible when they were marginalized and ostracized.

- - - - -

At 1-40

GENERAL VERRILLI:

But what these gay and lesbian couples are doing is laying claim to the promise of the Fourteenth Amendment now.

And it is emphatically the duty of this Court, in this case, as it was in Lawrence, to decide what the Fourteenth Amendment requires.

And what I would suggest is that in a world in which gay and lesbian couples live openly as our neighbors, they raise their children side by side with the rest of us, they contribute fully as members of the community, that it is simply untenable untenable to suggest that they can be denied the right of equal participation in an institution of marriage, or that they can be required to wait until the majority decides that it is ready to treat gay and lesbian people as equals.

Gay and lesbian people are equal.They deserve the equal protection of the laws, and they deserve it now. Thank you.

- - - - -

At 2-26

ORAL ARGUMENT OF JOSEPH F. WHALEN

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS ON QUESTION 2

MR. WHALEN: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:

The Fourteenth Amendment does not require States with traditional marriage laws to recognize marriages from other States between two persons of the same sex.

JUSTICE SCALIA: What about Article IV? I'm so glad to be able to quote a portion of the Constitution that actually seems to be relevant. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State." Now, why doesn't that apply?

MR. WHALEN: Your Honor, this Court's cases have made clear that the Court draws a distinction between judgments between States and the laws of each State. 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.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Public acts? It would include the act of marrying people, I assume.

MR. WHALEN: My understanding of this Court's decisions as the reference in the Constitution to public acts is that each State's laws.

JUSTICE SCALIA: So there there's nothing in the Constitution that requires a State to acknowledge even those marriages in other States that that are the same.

MR. WHALEN: That's essentially correct, Your Honor.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Really?

- - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   19:32:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   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   Untrace   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   Untrace   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   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 73.

#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   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 73.

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