johnwk
10-08-2014, 06:49 AM
SEE: 9th Circuit strikes down same-sex marriage bans in Nevada and Idaho (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/07/9th-circuit-strikes-down-same-sex-marriage-bans-in-nevada-and-idaho/)
October 7 at 4:32 PM
”The 9th Circuit Court ruled Tuesday that bans on marriage for same-sex couples in Idaho and Nevada were unconstitutional.
The ruling stated that the defendants’ argument that bans on marriage for same-sex couples promotes “the welfare of children, by encouraging good parenting in stable opposite sex families,” had no evidence of to support it.
Because defendants have failed to demonstrate that these laws further any legitimate purpose, they unjustifiably discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause,” the ruling states.”
So, once again the court fails to demonstrate the 14th Amendment was adopted to forbid the various State Governments from making distinctions based upon sex when issuing a state marriage license, and the court goes on to assume legislative power by second guessing the wisdom of legislation which is not the court’s function! In ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the Supreme Court notes: …..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.
In fact, the 14th Amendment was intentionally adopted to forbid states from making distinctions based upon race, color or former condition of slavery, a very narrow area. It was never intended to forbid the various State Governments from making distinctions in law based upon sex, and especially not intended to do so with regard to issuing a state marriage license!
The very meaning and intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted is summarized as follows:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=334)
There is a much bigger picture involved with these homosexual “marriage” cases and it involves a despotic assumption of power not granted to the court! What is at stake is allowing our judicial branch of government to assume and exercise legislative power and then impose its personal whims and fancies upon the people of the United States without their consent being obtained under our Constitution’s amendment process.
The justice in this case ought to be remove from the bench and severely punished for judicial tyranny– no punishment left off the table!
Why do so many feel it is ok when our judges and Justices take it upon themselves to impose their will upon the people of the United States and ignore the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted? Why is there little support in defending the rule of law written into our Constitution and so many who embrace judicial tyranny which our judicial system seems to find more comfortable engaging in as each day passes? Were we not warned about submitting to tyranny and despotism?
”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.”__THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787
JWK
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
October 7 at 4:32 PM
”The 9th Circuit Court ruled Tuesday that bans on marriage for same-sex couples in Idaho and Nevada were unconstitutional.
The ruling stated that the defendants’ argument that bans on marriage for same-sex couples promotes “the welfare of children, by encouraging good parenting in stable opposite sex families,” had no evidence of to support it.
Because defendants have failed to demonstrate that these laws further any legitimate purpose, they unjustifiably discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause,” the ruling states.”
So, once again the court fails to demonstrate the 14th Amendment was adopted to forbid the various State Governments from making distinctions based upon sex when issuing a state marriage license, and the court goes on to assume legislative power by second guessing the wisdom of legislation which is not the court’s function! In ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the Supreme Court notes: …..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.
In fact, the 14th Amendment was intentionally adopted to forbid states from making distinctions based upon race, color or former condition of slavery, a very narrow area. It was never intended to forbid the various State Governments from making distinctions in law based upon sex, and especially not intended to do so with regard to issuing a state marriage license!
The very meaning and intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted is summarized as follows:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=334)
There is a much bigger picture involved with these homosexual “marriage” cases and it involves a despotic assumption of power not granted to the court! What is at stake is allowing our judicial branch of government to assume and exercise legislative power and then impose its personal whims and fancies upon the people of the United States without their consent being obtained under our Constitution’s amendment process.
The justice in this case ought to be remove from the bench and severely punished for judicial tyranny– no punishment left off the table!
Why do so many feel it is ok when our judges and Justices take it upon themselves to impose their will upon the people of the United States and ignore the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted? Why is there little support in defending the rule of law written into our Constitution and so many who embrace judicial tyranny which our judicial system seems to find more comfortable engaging in as each day passes? Were we not warned about submitting to tyranny and despotism?
”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.”__THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787
JWK
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47