Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 42

Thread: Courts Not Even Pretending Constitution Matters Anymore

  1. #1

    Courts Not Even Pretending Constitution Matters Anymore

    From Judge Roberts:

    "Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening . Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."


    This is almost a confession coming from one of the guy who has been the deciding vote on the legality of Obamacare twice now. The courts don't even pretend to care about constitutionality anymore. Whatever government wills is law, especially if expressed by an oligarch in black robes.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Whatever government wills is law, especially if expressed by an oligarch in black robes.
    Who was given that power by...the constitution.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Who was given that power by...the constitution.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    I got pushed into the corner, and came to the conclusion that I cannot hold the document in any esteem anymore.

    Every outrage and tyranny we suffer under is all legal beagle and "constitutional".

    “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    From Judge Roberts:
    ....Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage.
    Is that true?

    Doesn't it merely order every state to treat same-sex "marriages" the same way it does marriages between one man and one woman?

    In other words, couldn't states just cease to license any marriages at all?

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Is that true?

    Doesn't it merely order every state to treat same-sex "marriages" the same way it does marriages between one man and one woman?

    In other words, couldn't states just cease to license any marriages at all?
    lol, Roberts can't even figure out what the SC decision does?

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Is that true?

    Doesn't it merely order every state to treat same-sex "marriages" the same way it does marriages between one man and one woman?

    In other words, couldn't states just cease to license any marriages at all?
    That would be the way to freedom.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I got pushed into the corner, and came to the conclusion that I cannot hold the document in any esteem anymore.

    Every outrage and tyranny we suffer under is all legal beagle and "constitutional".

    “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
    Yep- same here- glad I am waking up.

    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, then the nation expects what never was and never will be."
    -Thomas Jefferson-
    There is no spoon.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post

    “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”



  12. #10
    Andrew Jackson figured it out. The SCOTUS can make any ruling they want, but they can't enforce it.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  13. #11
    Well then we should stop complying with the 16th amendment since they don't abide by any other ones.
    "One thing my years in Washington taught me is that most politicians are followers, not leaders. Therefore we should not waste time and resources trying to educate politicians. Politicians will not support individual liberty and limited government unless and until they are forced to do so by the people," says Ron Paul."

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I got pushed into the corner, and came to the conclusion that I cannot hold the document in any esteem anymore.

    Every outrage and tyranny we suffer under is all legal beagle and "constitutional".

    “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
    I think Spooner was right in that the Constitution is powerless to prevent our government. After all, it is inanimate paper. That doesn't mean it is flawed. It means the people have abandoned it. It isn't it's unfitness to exist, it is the abandonment of the people of doing their number one duty of defending their liberty. The Constitution, all said and done, was a noble attempt. But it has proved a failed one.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Is that true?

    Doesn't it merely order every state to treat same-sex "marriages" the same way it does marriages between one man and one woman?

    In other words, couldn't states just cease to license any marriages at all?
    The movement for this has begun.


    Truth In Media recently reported on Alabama Senate Bill 377, a legislative proposal aimed at solving an internal dispute over same-sex marriage. On May 19, the bill, which would end marriage licensing in the state and replace it with a contract process, passed the Alabama Senate with 22 voting in favor and 3 voting in opposition.

    In January of this year, a federal court legalized same-sex marriage in Alabama, temporarily allowing some couples to marry before the Alabama Supreme Court issued an injunction, halting the practice. During the period of time in which same-sex marriages were allowed in the state, some local probate judges were refusing to sign off on same-sex licenses, effectively nullifying some couples’ right to marry.

    In an effort to resolve the issue in advance of a potential future in which same-sex marriages may be declared legal once again, Senate Bill 377 would remove the requirement that couples obtain a license from a probate judge and replace it instead with a contract process requiring only a signature by a notary public, clergy member, or attorney. The bill would only allow two adult parties to join in marriage and would prohibit currently-married people from marrying a second time.

    According to the Tenth Amendment Center’s blog, bill sponsor State Senator Greg Albritton (R-Range) said, “When you invite the state into those matters of personal or religious import, it creates difficulties… Early twentieth century, if you go back and look and try to find marriage licenses for your grandparents or great grandparents, you won’t find it. What you will find instead is where people have come in and recorded when a marriage has occurred.” Senator Albritton wants to abandon the state’s recent experiment in marriage licensing and instead return to the older system where couples choose who they want to marry without government approval.

    The Tenth Amendment Center’s Michael Boldin said in support of the bill, “Licenses are used as a way to stop people from doing things… My personal relationship should not be subject to government permission.”

    “The intent or motives behind this bill are a moot point. By removing the state from the equation, no one can force another to accept their marriage, nor can they force another to reject that person’s own beliefs regarding an institution older than government,” wrote Shane Trejo for the Tenth Amendment Center.

    Now that Senate Bill 377 has passed through the Alabama Senate, it moves on to the state’s House Judiciary Committee, where it will seek approval for a full vote before the Alabama House of Representatives.


    http://truthinmedia.com/alabama-sena...age-licensing/

  16. #14
    our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.
    TRANSLATION:



    In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?


    -1984
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  17. #15
    I find it funny how people use the inanimate object excuse when it comes to gun safety and how it's the persons fault yet somehow they expect the constitution to save them. Strange. The constitution is an inanimate object and is powerless, as we've witness more than enough in just the last week or so not to mention the last one hundred years. The constitution is worthless without a resistance behind it. Thomas Jefferson was right.
    Dishonest money makes for dishonest people.

    Andrew Napolitano, John Stossel. FOX News Liberty Infiltrators.


    Quote Originally Posted by Inkblots View Post
    Dr. Paul is living rent-free in the minds of the neocons, and for a fiscal conservative, free rent is always a good thing
    NOBP ≠ ABO

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Is that true?

    Doesn't it merely order every state to treat same-sex "marriages" the same way it does marriages between one man and one woman?

    In other words, couldn't states just cease to license any marriages at all?
    I'm sure the Supreme Court would find that to be unconstitutional. They would probably say that every person is entitled to receive a piece of paper from the government.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I got pushed into the corner, and came to the conclusion that I cannot hold the document in any esteem anymore.

    Every outrage and tyranny we suffer under is all legal beagle and "constitutional".

    “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.
    Someone +rep my brother AF, plz.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    I think Spooner was right in that the Constitution is powerless to prevent our government. After all, it is inanimate paper. That doesn't mean it is flawed. It means the people have abandoned it. It isn't it's unfitness to exist, it is the abandonment of the people of doing their number one duty of defending their liberty. The Constitution, all said and done, was a noble attempt. But it has proved a failed one.
    One of the primary issues that the Anti Feds had with the 1787 constitution was that it assumed that vigilant people would always be on the lookout to defend their liberty.

    They were opposed to aristocracy and rule by elites, which we have now.

    The federalists foresaw a dimwitted public, ready to toss their liberty on the ashheap, in order to stay "safe", or be hip and trendy with whatever new values came down the pike, which we have now.

    And the document failed to take either of those outcomes into question.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    I think Spooner was right in that the Constitution is powerless to prevent our government. After all, it is inanimate paper. That doesn't mean it is flawed. It means the people have abandoned it. It isn't it's unfitness to exist, it is the abandonment of the people of doing their number one duty of defending their liberty. The Constitution, all said and done, was a noble attempt. But it has proved a failed one.
    One of the primary issues that the Anti Feds had with the 1787 constitution was that it assumed that vigilant people would always be on the lookout to defend their liberty.

    They were opposed to aristocracy and rule by elites, which we have now.

    The federalists foresaw a dimwitted public, ready to toss their liberty on the ashheap, in order to stay "safe", or be hip and trendy with whatever new values came down the pike, which we have now.

    And the document failed to take either of those outcomes into question.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by roho76 View Post
    I find it funny how people use the inanimate object excuse when it comes to gun safety and how it's the persons fault yet somehow they expect the constitution to save them. Strange. The constitution is an inanimate object and is powerless, as we've witness more than enough in just the last week or so not to mention the last one hundred years. The constitution is worthless without a resistance behind it. Thomas Jefferson was right.
    “[W]hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” — Thomas Jefferson

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I got pushed into the corner, and came to the conclusion that I cannot hold the document in any esteem anymore.

    Every outrage and tyranny we suffer under is all legal beagle and "constitutional".

    “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
    Bull$#@!. What they are doing is not constitutional at all. But, you knew that. The problem has always been that the American people are not doing their side of the job, which is to demand that it is followed.

    But, what you said is a nice cop out though.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    One of the primary issues that the Anti Feds had with the 1787 constitution was that it assumed that vigilant people would always be on the lookout to defend their liberty.

    They were opposed to aristocracy and rule by elites, which we have now.

    The federalists foresaw a dimwitted public, ready to toss their liberty on the ashheap, in order to stay "safe", or be hip and trendy with whatever new values came down the pike, which we have now.

    And the document failed to take either of those outcomes into question.
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Bull$#@!. What they are doing is not constitutional at all. But, you knew that. The problem has always been that the American people are not doing their side of the job, which is to demand that it is followed.
    You're both saying the same thing.

    I suppose the answer is humans can't see why they shouldn't be evil until they suffer evil. Or, as Will Rogers said, you can only get as much liberty as you give.

    Which makes me think of another Will Rogers quote--We will never have true civilization until we have learned to recognize the rights of others."

    Can that be done this side of the Kingdom of God and the Judgement Day?
    Last edited by acptulsa; 06-27-2015 at 08:42 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I got pushed into the corner, and came to the conclusion that I cannot hold the document in any esteem anymore.

    Every outrage and tyranny we suffer under is all legal beagle and "constitutional".

    “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
    I kinda hate the Lysander Spooner quote, and I think this one by Sam Adams is a more correct understanding of where the problem lies.
    “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” - Samuel Adams
    "The journalist is one who separates the wheat from the chaff, and then prints the chaff." - Adlai Stevenson

    “I tell you that virtue does not come from money: but from virtue comes money and all other good things to man, both to the individual and to the state.” - Socrates

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Original_Intent View Post
    I kinda hate the Lysander Spooner quote, and I think this one by Sam Adams is a more correct understanding of where the problem lies.
    It's all make believe, folks!

    All we can look forward to is technology disrupting even the government industry. Soon roads will be anachronisms, schools will be replaced by digital learning, etc. Think about it: once self driving cars exist, there's literally no possibility for cops to have speed traps. There goes a major source of fines and 98% of policing. DUIs will be an impossibility because you won't need to operate the vehicle! So, there goes the tyrannical traffic stops.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    One of the primary issues that the Anti Feds had with the 1787 constitution was that it assumed that vigilant people would always be on the lookout to defend their liberty.

    They were opposed to aristocracy and rule by elites, which we have now.

    The federalists foresaw a dimwitted public, ready to toss their liberty on the ashheap, in order to stay "safe", or be hip and trendy with whatever new values came down the pike, which we have now.

    And the document failed to take either of those outcomes into question.
    yes! it was the "DOCUMENT" that failed us!

    mere parchment should NEVER be depended upon.

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  30. #26
    Some people just need to get OVER IT. Straights don't have a monopoly on marriage and should not be given "special rights." Besides, government didn't get involved in marriage until the early 1900s because of the growing WELFARE state. How do you hand out the stolen money to the living partner??? You needed a piece of paper.

    If two consulting adults want to get married, let them. It's their life and no government or Constitution or law should say otherwise.
    If Rand does not win the Republican nomination, he should buck the controlled two party system and run as an Independent for President in 2016 and give Americans a real option to vote for.

    We are all born libertarians then something goes really wrong. Despite this truth, most people are still libertarians yet not know it.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    I think Spooner was right in that the Constitution is powerless to prevent our government. After all, it is inanimate paper. That doesn't mean it is flawed. It means the people have abandoned it. It isn't it's unfitness to exist, it is the abandonment of the people of doing their number one duty of defending their liberty. The Constitution, all said and done, was a noble attempt. But it has proved a failed one.
    Well, relative to nearly every form of government before or after, it has done pretty well for itself.

    Having said that, Spooner one of my all-time favorites and his general point is entirely true.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Gaddafi Duck View Post
    It's all make believe, folks!

    All we can look forward to is technology disrupting even the government industry. Soon roads will be anachronisms, schools will be replaced by digital learning, etc. Think about it: once self driving cars exist, there's literally no possibility for cops to have speed traps. There goes a major source of fines and 98% of policing. DUIs will be an impossibility because you won't need to operate the vehicle! So, there goes the tyrannical traffic stops.
    I have a theory that they'll still have DUI laws, even with self-driving cares, much like some localities are trying to ban those e-cigarettes. Government never shrinks easily. I fully expect DUI check-points to exist once every car is self-driving, and for the driver to be held responsible if he's drunk and his car wrecks itself.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Bull$#@!. What they are doing is not constitutional at all. But, you knew that. The problem has always been that the American people are not doing their side of the job, which is to demand that it is followed.

    But, what you said is a nice cop out though.
    Of course it is.

    The constitutionally appointed judges, given their power by the constitution, have ruled this week that Obamacare subsidies and gay marriage are constitutional.

    There is nothing in the constitution about the people doing much of anything.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by KingNothing View Post
    I have a theory that they'll still have DUI laws, even with self-driving cares, much like some localities are trying to ban those e-cigarettes. Government never shrinks easily. I fully expect DUI check-points to exist once every car is self-driving, and for the driver to be held responsible if he's drunk and his car wrecks itself.
    Not a theory, this is fact, count on it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Time Magazine cover asks if the Constitution Still Matters
    By bobbyw24 in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 168
    Last Post: 12-31-2012, 12:55 PM
  2. RNC Rule 11: They are not even pretending to obey it anymore
    By lib3rtarian in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-10-2012, 07:30 PM
  3. Judge Napolitano : The Constitution and Freedom, The Courts!
    By qwerty in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-15-2010, 01:20 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-24-2007, 07:01 AM
  5. Does the Constitution Mean Anything Anymore?
    By Bradley in DC in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-11-2007, 05:45 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •