Supreme Court Power of Judicial Review - Unconstitutional

I do not understand how Virginia was violating the U.S. Constitution by passing a law restricting interracial marriage any more than Utah allowing multiple wives. What clause were they violating? And why does government sanction marriage anyway?

 

Where does it say that they can tell Virginia what laws to pass in their State?

 

why government sanctions marriage is another topic. Virginia was violating the 14th amendment by discriminating against couples based on race.

- - - Updated - - -

the supremacy clause and the 14th amendment.

 

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. Consitution 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?

 

You are making stuff up to feign legitimacy for a dishonest "point." Nothing says someone born in the US is a "natural born citizen" as understood by the Founders. History suggests someone like Obama, someone allegedly born in the US to a foreign citizen parent very well MAY NOT be a "natural born citizen." The Founders put that clause in the Constitution as a requirement to be President to guard against candidates who have spilt national loyalties. Obama did not grow up in this country in his formative years BECAUSE his father was not an American citizen. Again the Founders tried to safeguard us from Progressives, or people LIKE Obama way back in 1789!

 

Ever had someone tell you that you couldn't marry someone?

 

Anything that needs a license is by definition a privilege. A main reason for the Fourteenth Amendment was because newly freed slaves were being murdered, and the police would refuse to investigate. Newly freed slaves had just as much RIGHT not to be murdered as a white person! There is no "protection" in getting married. Please explain how "equal protection" is being denied by denying a privilege...?

 

oh, so you think its ok if a State bans marriage between Christians and Jews?

you cool with that huh?

 

I'd like to know how the SCOTUS fundamentally changed our nation in Marbury. I was under the impression that the SCOTUS didn't even use this power until a Civil War was brewing. Didn't they overturn like 1 law in 1857, and that's it? We already tried the States pass whatever laws they want strategy. It didn't work out too well. What, are we now ignoring 650,000 people who died to settle that conflict? It would be nothing new; I'm used to my fellow Americans ignoring our dead.

 

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.

A white man could marry a white woman, but a white man who married a black woman could be arrested.

That is not equal protection under the laws.

Not really any different than allowing white men to have drivers licences but not women or black men.

Equal protection under the law- a pretty cool and important concept.

 

The 14th amendment was never properly ratified, and it bastardized the original intent of the Constitution. My argument is that the original intent of the U.S. Constitution was a freer society for free people. Let's don't take this off on a race or slavery war. I have black family members and I am adamantly opposed to slavery and wish the founders had abolished slavery in 1787. I understand why they couldn't but I also don't believe that 330 million people being ruled by 9 members of the Supreme Court is a wise choice either.

Shall not be questioned? Cui Bono? What happened to America by the alleged 14 Amendment?

 

so, should the Constitution be able to ban a state from allowing slavery?

Brother Jonathan apparently thinks not.

 

It you are willing to do a little homework, it is all explained here: The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

 

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?

 

At this time, I need those 9 justices. My local and state govts have a far greater potential to oppress me, or otherwise impact my life, than do those 9.

 

I am thinking since he thinks that the 14th Amendment is invalid that any descendent of a slave is not an American citizen either.

 

nothing I posted was made up. it is current US law.

the 14th amendment does as well as US v wong kim ark, which was cited in Ankeny v Daniels.

history suggests that a black man could never be president. and Obama wasn't allegedly born in the US. it has been proven beyond any and all doubt that he was.

Obama spent 5 years of his early childhood outside the united states. he grew up in the united states.

the founders had no intention of a black man ever being president. slaves were freed, became citizens, and can run for president. Obama was born in Hawaii, which made him a natural born citizen and is of course eligible to hold the office. The supreme court, the entire congress and the American people agree.

- - - Updated - - -

the supreme court ruled that marriage is a right. sorry.

 

All true and specific to the point.

Quick for extra points- who can name the other American President who spent several of his 'formative years' in a foreign country?

 

lol, the 14th amendment was of course ratified.

 

I do not find the word "marriage" mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or in the Amendments. If you find it quote it directly I might have missed it.

 

John Quincy Adams.................

- - - Updated - - -

are you schizophrenic?

 

A lot of legal Constitutional scholars disagree with you.
http://www.constitution.org/14ll/14ll.htm

 

Sherbert v Verner (1963), Justice Brennan:

"Nor may the South Carolina court's construction of the statute be saved from constitutional infirmity on the ground that unemployment compensation benefits are not appellant's "rights" but merely a "privilege". It is too late in the day to doubt that the liberties of religion and expression may be infringed by the denial of or placing of conditions upon a benefit or privilege..."

 

No. I am asking you to backup your claim that marriage is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution or any Amendments because I have not yet seen it. Either it is mentioned and you can quote it, or it is not mentioned.

 

What's to stop the Federal Government from doing that?

Powerful national governments are no protection from abuse of rights. Compare the crimes of all the State governments in the US put together to those of national governments in the 20th century and you'll see that State governments by far are the most innocent.