Supreme Court declares bans on gay marriage unconstitutional.

[jeremy1375]

^

SCOTUS didn't do anything that Congress couldn't undo if the people demanded it. Congress has the power to write legislation as well as amend the Constitution, if they have the backing of the people. The system of check and balances is still in effect. The country just has enough people in favor of same sex marriage that it is unlikely.

And it was the due process clause that gave SCOTUS the power to do what they did...

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

^

SCOTUS didn't do anything that Congress couldn't undo if the people demanded it. Congress has the power to write legislation as well as amend the Constitution, if they have the backing of the people. The system of check and balances is still in effect. The country just has enough people in favor of same sex marriage that it is unlikely.

And it was the due process clause that gave SCOTUS the power to do what they did...

You need to brush up on your Separation of Powers. The SCOTUS doesn't have the power to do what it did.

http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

A judicial activist is a judge who interprets the Constitution to mean what it would have said if he, instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it."
Sam Ervin
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
Samuel Adams
"Day by day, case by case, the court is busy redesigning a Constitution for a nation I do not recognize."
Justice Antonin Scalia

[tpunx99GSX]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
Samuel Adams

Could be said of every religion interpreting their holy book.

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

Could be said of every religion interpreting their holy book.

It could be said about 6 of 9 justices who couldn't understand the plain language and meaning of four (4) words when it came to Obamacare, "through a state exchange" or the definition of marriage as being "between a man and a woman".

You've got to get past the "good intent/feelings" of what is going on and look at the bigger picture outside of your LGBT world. Everything starts with some kind of "precedent" which then opens the door for more b.s. down the road.

Whether or not you believe in gay marriage is a small part of what happened. But what you should really be upset about is the fact the SCOTUS (and the President for that matter) are over stepping their bounds as laid out by the Constitution. And that's what really matters.

[Kracka]

Originally Posted by Kracka

Let's please refrain from name calling before Scheides blows up this section...again.

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

No you TOOL.

This thread is about to need some cooling off time.

[Kracka]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

You've got to get past the "good intent/feelings" of what is going on and look at the bigger picture outside of your LGBT world. Everything starts with some kind of "precedent" which then opens the door for more b.s. down the road.

Agreed fully with this statement.

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

You need to brush up on your Separation of Powers. The SCOTUS doesn't have the power to do what it did.

http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

A judicial activist is a judge who interprets the Constitution to mean what it would have said if he, instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it."
Sam Ervin
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
Samuel Adams
"Day by day, case by case, the court is busy redesigning a Constitution for a nation I do not recognize."
Justice Antonin Scalia

What is your logical argument for what they have done wrong?

I see you posted a website, but it wasn't written by a lawyer, it was written by a guy who describes himself as "Joe Citizen".

"If this web site seems less than scholarly, it's because I am not a Constitutional Scholar. I hold no law degrees nor can I offer any qualifications whatever which would serve to prove me competent to hold forth on issues of constitutional law. I'm just Joe Citizen with a copy of the Constitution and the ability to read and comprehend plain English."

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

What is your logical argument for what they have done wrong?

I see you posted a website, but it wasn't written by a lawyer, it was written by a guy who describes himself as "Joe Citizen".

"If this web site seems less than scholarly, it's because I am not a Constitutional Scholar. I hold no law degrees nor can I offer any qualifications whatever which would serve to prove me competent to hold forth on issues of constitutional law. I'm just Joe Citizen with a copy of the Constitution and the ability to read and comprehend plain English."

Who said you have to be a "Constitutional Scholar" to understand something in plain English?

Prove him wrong if you believe the author to be so,.....

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

Who said you have to be a "Constitutional Scholar" to understand something in plain English?

Prove him wrong if you believe the author to be so,.....

Three Critical Questions
Here are three questions to ask yourself:

Does the Constitution empower the Supreme Court to judge the constitutionality of federal laws and regulations, and uphold or strike them down as the court sees fit?

The court has the final say in all cases that come before it.

Does the Constitution prohibit the states from determining the constitutionality of federal laws and regulations, and uphold or strike them down as they see fit?

The states have no say in federal law.

What does the Constitution have to say about the powers not delegated to the United States federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States?

They are delegated to the states. In this case, the court ruled on a matter that it concluded was under the authority of amendments 5 and 15 of the Constitution which deal with due process. Due process acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.