Supreme Court Power of Judicial Review - Unconstitutional

Where is murder mentioned? Can we at least have our govt protect us from murderers even though it isn't mentioned?

 

What a dodge.

Seriously do you have no intellectual integrity at all?

Whether or not the 14th Amendment was properly ratified or not, and whether or not it 'bastardized' the intent of the Constitution is IRRELEVANT to the discussion of what the role of the Supreme Court is.

Focus if you can.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I will post it for the third time

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.

This is just as clear as the 2nd Amendment- more so in many ways.

Once again- do you believe that States can ignore the U.S. Constitution when they want to- regarding guns or race or voting etc?

And if not- what branch of the U.S. Government would prevent them from doing so?

- - - Updated - - -

Bingo! We have a winner.....and he was in Russia which of course means JQ was a dirty commie too!

- - - Updated - - -

Oh so many things not mentioned in the Constitution.

Lets start with the Air Force.

 

and yet it was still ratified

- - - Updated - - -

this is called a strawman.

- - - Updated - - -

yay!!! what do I win?

 

Good question. Murder is not mentioned because it is a State issue same as marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

Marriage is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution because it is a State issue. The Air Force comes under the Navy.

 

air force comes under the Navy???????????

lolol!!!!! prove it.

 

the 14th amendments equal protection clause precludes discrimination based on race, religion and gender. Virginia was discriminating based on race, which is why they lost in court.

 

The phrase, "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" is referring to laws passed in the individual states. It is not referring to the first Ten Amendments or any other part of the Federal Constitution.

So, the answer is , 'yes', a state is within its legal rights to outlaw marriage between two different races as long as it doesn't violate its own State Constitution. A couple also has the right to move to another state.

Let me ask you a question. Does the Constitution give the Federal Government the power to regulate or ban state regulations on the use of certain types of fireworks?

 

the 14th amendment specifically protects US citizens. if a state violates a citizens rights, as Virginia did regarding marriage, that state is in violation of the US constitution.

 

That of which you post is called an "entitlement." Back when progressives created such programs they could not call them "Rights" because they were not. Rights are free to exercise, and not subject to the granting of permission. i.e. a license or government "approval." Many actively participate in "entitlements" no one has a right to receive... any questions?

 

Yea, and I supposed professional football referees can decided a field goal is worth 7 points too, right? That is YOUR argument!

 

The 14th Amendment only protects a citizen's right to life, liberty and property (without due process). It also gurantees to each citizen equal protection "under the law". In other words, if Virginia has a law that protects a Virginian's right to sell his home, all Virginians regardless of color, may sell their own home.

The 14th Amendment does not prohibit States from making laws that are simply discriminatory nor does it hold the States responsible to the prohibitions to Federal Congress in the first Ten Amendments.

 

Yes, this is the way I understand the original intent as well. States compete with each other. May the best State win.

 

Don't I have a right to freely exercise my religion, assemble, speak, express myself, associate? But not pertaining to marriage? That's weird.

 

And my right to marry doesn't involve a state govt, or any other govt official. I don't need them at my wedding; I don't need them anywhere in my life except to check a box on paperwork that says I'm married. Denials of "privileges" can and do violate people's rights.

 

I am not certain about marriage in 1790 but I'm pretty sure it was between a man, woman, and their God. I don't think governments at any level sanctioned marriage until after the Civil War.

 

No govt official or law should have the right to tell someone who they can or cannot marry. I can't believe after all this time people STILL don't realize how ridiculous it sounds to have govt agents deciding marriages.

 

nope. I suggest reading the decision..........http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1

 

The U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court.

While not perfect- the Constitution and the Supreme Court have protected us better so far than any proposed alternative.

 

People weren't getting married back then? Huh? I don't get what you guys are even trying to say. It sounds like you are trying to justify an oppressive govt to rule over my every decision.

 

The Air Force will be surprised to hear that.

And the Air Force is not described in the Constitution anywhere.

 

So you say.

I disagree.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees.

This is the crux of the OP.

You apparently believe that States can abuse their citizens without restriction and that Americans are not protected from abuse by the state- for example gun confiscation- I disagree.

When there is a disagreement between what a State can or can't do- do Americans have any recourse against a State other than running away?

 

Oh contrair. You need a government official to give you a license to get married, and to give the one that marries you PERMISSION to marry you "legally."

Why do some argue with FACTS is beyond me. The world is round and the Earth goes AROUND the sun...

 

and marriage is a right. sorry.

 

No what I am saying is that you are telling us that that a field goal is worth 20 points, while the referees, the players, the fans and the owners all say a field goal is worth 3 points.

You can believe whatever you want, but everyone else disagrees with you- in the case of Obama that would be the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

You however, have the right to march in front of the Superbowl with your sign declaring that a field goal is really worth 20 points.

 

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's not unConstutional. The argument is between whether you want the Federal Government telling you what your rights are or the State Governments.

The Federal Government has recently suspended the right of habeas corpus. That means the President of the United States can have you arrested anytime without a warrent and detain you for as long as he wants without trial. He can even torture you for information. The only way to stop this from happening to you is to leave the country and become the citizen of another.

If a State Government becomes abusive, you can simply move to another state and still be an American citizen. So which would you rather have more power, the Feds or the States?