The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: thundley4 on January 16, 2015, 06:48:22 PM
-
CK_John (7,347 posts) Fri Jan 16, 2015, 05:04 PM
The Supremes are ready to jolt society (IMO) by accepting the first of two social issues.
The Supremes are ready to jolt society (IMO) by accepting the first of two social issues.
The first issue is gay marriage and the second is Colorado pot law.
Looking at the time alloted and questions to be discussed, I believe that they will rule that the state can enact same sex marriage but is not required to. Also, states that do not allow same sex marriage are not required to recognize any marriage from other states.
This could reduce gay marriage from 38 states to a handful and be an issue in 2016 elections.
Time and Questions:
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
A total of ninety minutes is allotted for oral argument on Question 1. A total of one hour is allotted for oral argument on Question 2.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026094968
markpkessinger (5,620 posts)
3. Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution (a/k/a the "full faith and credit clause") states:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
Seems to me that should cover it.
Yep. That covers. Every state must accept the most lenient CCW and gun ownership laws allowed by any state.
-
That certainly would seem to make a valid argument against any state law contradicted by another and would create a monumental headache in many areas.
-
There is, however, an contrary line of law which runs counter to the 'Full faith and credit' argument, which is that domestic relations law classically rules that a marriage is valid and recognized as such if it was valid in the place celebrated (I.e., where it was performed); however, that rule does NOT require the recognition of marriages deemed to be against public policy in the gaining jurisdiction, such as additional polygamous marriages beyond the first legal marriage, no matter how legal it might have been in the place where it was performed.
There is room for the court to go either way on this one.
-
Why is it conservatives get blamed for "pushing" social issues when it is very clear LIBERALS PUSH social issues vis-Ã -vis gay marriage, pot. :shrug:
-
There is, however, an contrary line of law which runs counter to the 'Full faith and credit' argument, which is that domestic relations law classically rules that a marriage is valid and recognized as such if it was valid in the place celebrated (I.e., where it was performed); however, that rule does NOT require the recognition of marriages deemed to be against public policy in the gaining jurisdiction, such as additional polygamous marriages beyond the first legal marriage, no matter how legal it might have been in the place where it was performed.
There is room for the court to go either way on this one.
There shouldn't be room for it to go either way. Your interpretation is correct. If the SC was actually following the Constitution, they would leave marriage to the states. However, either Kennedy or Roberts will side with the liberals and disregard precedent.
-
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9nbgb066V1qebvfho1_500.jpg)
<<<<<<<<-----Doesn't understand this shit.
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026094968
Yep. That covers. Every state must accept the most lenient CCW and gun ownership laws allowed by any state.
YES! Vermont and Alaska. Constitutional carry.
-
Judicial Activism could turn on Progressive Socialist Far Left & Left like a pit bull in these matters... :popcorn:
-
<<<<<<<<-----Doesn't understand this shit.
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff68/kayaktn/21925-banner-the-supremes_zps886512ec.jpg)
I'm lost too.
-
YES! Vermont and Alaska. Constitutional carry.
That was my thought. If the USSC rules that every state must honor a gay marriage performed in another state, then someone from one of those states need to sue for the right to carry their weapon to any other state.
-
It wouldn't really work that way, none of the CCW states I can think of award the permit to individuals by judicial order that might fit that 'Full faith and credit' argument, and I expect the constitutional carry states and most of the CCW ones limit the application of their rule to their own jurisdiction.
-
It wouldn't really work that way, none of the CCW states I can think of award the permit to individuals by judicial order that might fit that 'Full faith and credit' argument, and I expect the constitutional carry states and most of the CCW ones limit the application of their rule to their own jurisdiction.
Marriage laws are often worded the same way though. If I recall, the minister, clerk or whatever usually ends with "by the power vested in me by the state of ?????" .
-
Marriage laws are often worded the same way though. If I recall, the minister, clerk or whatever usually ends with "by the power vested in me by the state of ?????" .
Marriages are a permanent change of legal status, that can only be changed by further action in court or death, not moving out of the jurisdiction. Carry laws just aren't like that.
-
Marriages are a permanent change of legal status, that can only be changed by further action in court or death, not moving out of the jurisdiction. Carry laws just aren't like that.
Given the way this court has interpreted ObamaCare in the past, I think the can let anything go these days.
-
Marriages are a permanent change of legal status, that can only be changed by further action in court or death, not moving out of the jurisdiction. Carry laws just aren't like that.
This may be a bad analogy but doesn`t it kind of boil down to what is the value of a dollar bill?
It is a meaningless piece of paper unless universally recognized as a tender instrument (a problem the Articles of Confederation had).
At some point marriage was assumed to be a Federal declaration whether legitimately so or not and so entwined into the tax code it will never be removed as such.
However I don`t see any reason any litigant cannot sue to apply the same standard,States rights be damned,for their own pet issue.
The courts at that point will simply close their eyes and declare what they think is the most comfortable and acceptable solution regardless of actual logic.
-
This may be a bad analogy but doesn`t it kind of boil down to what is the value of a dollar bill?
It is a meaningless piece of paper unless universally recognized as a tender instrument (a problem the Articles of Confederation had).
At some point marriage was assumed to be a Federal declaration whether legitimately so or not and so entwined into the tax code it will never be removed as such.
However I don`t see any reason any litigant cannot sue to apply the same standard,States rights be damned,for their own pet issue.
The courts at that point will simply close their eyes and declare what they think is the most comfortable and acceptable solution regardless of actual logic.
The law of status is an unusual battlefield these days, in our modern egalitarian society little remains of it, but once it was critically important in deciding exactly what laws governed an individual - Slave? Commoner? Nobility? Peer of the Realm? Clergy? Married, single, widow/widower? Birth order? Different sets of rights and obligations applied to each. There is not much of it left now, but some of the surviving categories that still matter are marriage, minority, and military service.
The real Federal question for the court was correctly identified by some of the DUmmies, which is the issue of whether a state must give the 'Full faith and credit' required by the Constitution to marriages performed in another state, even though such marriages are prohibited as morally repugnant in the state at issue. There is a very long record of the Supreme Court leaving the entire field of domestic relations to the states, but this case is not really about gay marriage as such, it is about what lawyers call 'conflict of laws' issues and the limits, if any, of the the full faith and credit clause.
Currency doesn't raise the same issue, since it is issued by the Federal government, not the states. I believe the Feds appropriated that role entirely to themselves long ago, but it's never been an area of interest to me, so I can't point to exactly where or when without doing a bunch of research on something I don't actually care about.
The Supreme Court generally tries to avoid deciding cases on 'What if' arguments, sometimes limiting the scope of their decisions if necessary to avoid the glaringly obvious horrible consequences if a particular decision if broadly applied could be used to bootstrap a whole lot of things that go way beyond the scope of the actual case they're deciding. But, there are some self-evident what-if scenarios that could arise from this, including how polyamorous or even adult incestuous (Not as impossible as you might think, there was some serious move in Austria to legalize them last year, as I recall) if any one state goes moonbat enough to legalize them.