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.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The fact that we recognize heterosexual marriage and grant benefits based on marriage, contradicts with the 14th amendment because it doesn't treat all citizens of the United States as equals
...
Cut the federal government out of the equation (As it was intended to be) and let the people of the states decide the outcome for themselves.
The idea of putting this anywhere the federal government is intrinsically against the Constitution itself. It will be another terrible day for freedom if the government has any final say in this whatsoever
As for the "benefits" of being married, all of that can be taken care of with wills, joint ownership, and living trusts.
Originally posted by ZiggyMojo
reply to post by Hopechest
Did you even read the whole post? The Supreme Court was granted the power of judicial review through a landmark case called Marbury v Madison.
THEY GRANTED THEMSELVES THE POWER TO DEEM WHAT IS AND ISN'T CONSTITUTIONAL WITHOUT THE SAY OF THE STATES.
Marbury v. Madison was the case that established judicial review of the decisions of the executive and legislative branches. Marbury sued Madison (the then Secretary of State) to deliver his commission for a position that now is little more than a common pleas judge, possibly even less so. The case made its way to the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice (Marshall, who was the Secretary of State prior to Madison and belonged to the ousted party - the same as Marbury and therefore had to be very careful about what he said) ruled that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court and other judicial courts the authority to determine if actions by the other branches are constitutional.
There were no "checks or balances" in place here.
Given that it was the people and the states which established the Constitution, it is the states who should settle issues of constitutionality.
The Constitution is a set of rules made by the states as to how the government should act.
The Constitution is very clear; any power to review laws to see if they are constitutional belongs to the states and to the people.
Marbury V. Madison happened prior to the first civil war and it played no role in stopping it.
Additionally there is no CHECK or BALANCE for the Supreme court as there are for both the Executive and Legislative branches.
Justices essentially serve for a lifetime and the people of the United States have VERY LITTLE say in who is appointed.
We're essentially weighing the most controversial issues between 9 people and hoping they'll make a decision that is representative of close to 315,000,000 people.
Originally posted by Hopechest
As I've stated, what do you do when two or more states have differing opinions on what's constitutional? Just leave the issue resolved? That's not possible.
Originally posted by Hopechest
The Constitution is very clear; any power to review laws to see if they are constitutional belongs to the states and to the people.
I would love for you to show me where it states this in the Constitution.
Originally posted by Hopechest
Marbury V. Madison happened prior to the first civil war and it played no role in stopping it.
Nope it didn't because the southern states would not have followed any Supreme Court decision in the first place. Its rather important to note that if they had, the Court was extremely sympathetic to the Southern cause at that time. However, the South did not want to deal with Lincoln.
Originally posted by Hopechest
Additionally there is no CHECK or BALANCE for the Supreme court as there are for both the Executive and Legislative branches.
Yes there are checks on the Court. The Congress could pass a new law or amend the Constitution and they also have the ability to impeach any of the Court members. Not sure how you do not consider that a check.
Originally posted by Hopechest
Justices essentially serve for a lifetime and the people of the United States have VERY LITTLE say in who is appointed.
The Senate confirms them and is made up of representatives chosen by the people. The Constitution, as you said earlier, was written by the people and the States and they laid out the ground rules for how the Supreme Court Justices are elected. Not sure how you think the people have no say in this, they made up the rules.
Originally posted by Hopechest
The Supreme Court actually has a long history of siding with the majority. This is why they reverse their own decisions at times, because it is reflective of the population. They have done this on a number of issues, specifically in regards to commerce and civil rights.