It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tenn. judge refuses to grant straight couple a divorce because … gay marriage

page: 7
22
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog




Amazing how so much power has been delivered to the SCOTUS over the past 6-7 years.

The SCOTUS has always had the power to interpret the Constitution and how it applies to law.
That's their job.


And where ,pray tell , does marriage come in to the Constitution ? And bet ya didnt know it is left up to each state to define marriage and the rights thereof . FAIL (you are slipping here lately Phage)


Actually that is YOUR second fail. SCOTUS has already ruled on marriages in the past.
Loving v. Virginia

Again, may I suggest a history book?


And , your point ? If they have , does it make it Constitutional , no. What it does mean is certain special interest groups whine and cry enough.......




posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog




Amazing how so much power has been delivered to the SCOTUS over the past 6-7 years.

The SCOTUS has always had the power to interpret the Constitution and how it applies to law.
That's their job.


And where ,pray tell , does marriage come in to the Constitution ? And bet ya didnt know it is left up to each state to define marriage and the rights thereof . FAIL (you are slipping here lately Phage)


Actually that is YOUR second fail. SCOTUS has already ruled on marriages in the past.
Loving v. Virginia

Again, may I suggest a history book?


And , your point ? If they have , does it make it Constitutional , no. What it does mean is certain special interest groups whine and cry enough.......


Special interest groups?

Like the Fundy Christians who want to deny everyone having the same rights?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

The SCOTUS has always had the power to interpret the Constitution and how it applies to law.
That's their job.



Yes the executive branch has always enforced the laws that the legislative branch "Congress" makes.
It is the responsibility of the Judicial branch "supreme courts and lower courts" to interpret the law.

Someone needs to learn the responsibilities of the different branches of government... kids.usa.gov...


edit on 8-9-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Gothmog
Amazing how so much power has been delivered to the SCOTUS over the past 6-7 years. Obama delivering on hs promise of "fundamentally changing this country and the world"( for the greater good of the party)...Sound familiar ?
He has learned well from the 12 Rules of Alinsky.


The SCOTUS has had that power since 1803. You may want to go pick up a history book there buddy.

What power do you speak of they gained in 1803 ?


Judicial review in the United States


Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States: In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax".[2] The Court engaged in the process of judicial review by examining the plaintiff's claim that the carriage tax was unconstitutional. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison[3] was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority for judicial review to strike down a law as unconstitutional. At the end of his opinion in this decision,[4] Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as instructed in Article Six of the Constitution


Ok, so I was a bit off. They confirmed the power in 1796, but used it to rule a law as unconstitutional in 1803. Close, but my gist is the same. SCOTUS doing what it did with gay marriage laws isn't some new authority granted to the Supreme Court like Conservatives are trying to pretend it is. They've had that authority for a LONG time; though I see it only becomes a problem when a ruling goes in a direction you disagree with.

I think the Citizens United ruling was pretty boneheaded and probably one of the worst rulings the SCOTUS has ever made (next to Plessy V. Ferguson or the Dred Scott Decision), but I'm not going to try to strip them of their powers they've had since our founding fathers founded the country. That's stupid.
edit on 9-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

What? Judicial review certainly IS Constitutional. Do you not understand how our government works or something?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Um... You DO know that "evaluates" and "interprets" is the same thing here right? Your post doesn't make any sense and hasn't proved Phage wrong. In fact, it confirmed what he said.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
And dealt with which laws under the Constitution . Please review that document again. That is to oversee Congress and the President of the US...



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

What? Your point doesn't make any sense. Are you trying to say that the Constitution only outlines the duties of the President and Congress? Because if you are, you are wrong. If you are meaning anything else then you need to elaborate better.

Article III Section 2


The Text

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—[between a State and Citizens of another State;-]8 between citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States [and between a State, or the Citizens thereof;—and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.]9

...



The Meaning

The federal courts will decide arguments over how to interpret the Constitution, all laws passed by Congress, and our nation’s rights and responsibilities in agreements with other nations. In addition, federal courts can hear disputes that may arise between states, between citizens of different states, and between states and the federal government.

edit on 9-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join