I already posted that to you HERE, and in great detail.
you didnt quote any of the dissent.
Allan
No.
It ruled that the practice of law was not a right that could never be abridged.
Doesn’t matter whether they decided on the basis of sex, race or hair color. The criteria didn’t matter.
What mattered is if the ability to practice law was an unassailable right, and the Court ruled it was not.
You are wrong, as is usually the case.
Syllabus
The Supreme Court of Illinois having refused to grant to a woman a license to practice law in the courts of that state, on the ground that females are not eligible under the laws of that state. Held that such a decision violates no provision of the federal Constitution.
No I’m not wrong.
Unlike you, I read.
WHY did it not violate the Constitution?
Because the Court held that practicing law was not an unassailable right under the 14th Amendment.
In this latter proposition we are not able to concur with counsel. We agree with him that there are privileges and immunities belonging to citizens of the United States, in that relation and character, and that it is these and these alone which a state is forbidden to abridge. But the right to admission to practice in the courts of a state is not one of them. This right in no sense depends on citizenship of the United States. It has not, as far as we know, ever been made in any state, or in any case, to depend on citizenship at all.
Emphasis mine.
The ruling was based solely on whether practicing law was an unassailable right based on citizenship…period.
Yes in his concurrence Justice Bradley prattled on about how the proper place for a woman was in the home raising kids, but that had no bearing on what the ruling was about.
Of course you are wrong. The case confirms a State may make a distinction in law based upon “sex”.
That it doesn’t matter to you that they ruled on personal bias’s rather than something in the Constitution reveals much about you i’m afraid.
1 Like
thats an opinion that i do not share.
Allan
You are absolutely correct that the majority’s “opinion” in Obergefell v. Hodges expresses the personal belief that same sex marriage should be a constitutionally protected subject matter, rather than it actually being protected under the terms and conditions with which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to by the States and people therein when ratifying the amendment.
The majority’s opinion is one of the most glaring instances in which Supreme Court members banded together and used their office of public trust to undo and expand what the States and people therein agreed to when ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment.
In fact, the five Justices in question substituted their personal feelings and beliefs as being the rule of law.
In effect five Justices on our Supreme Court, including Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, set themselves up as members of an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, constitutional convention, and simply declared by decree that the States are prohibited from making distinctions in law based on sex, and requires the States to henceforth recognize same-sex marriages. In doing so they:
-
defied, distorted and subjugated what the States agreed to when ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment;
-
knowingly overruled the State of Kentucky’s lawful and reserved power, guaranteed by our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, to issue marriage licenses based upon the applicants’ sex.
-
rendered meaningless Article V, our Constitution’s only lawful way to accommodate the desire to protect and allow nation-wide same-sex marriages
And, as we can see, gooddad409, there is not a sole among us, and especially not Allan, who is willing to step forth and quote from the majority’s written opinion those supposed passages establishing and confirming the States, and people therein, knowingly and willingly agreed, when adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, to forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex, and require each State to recognize same sex marriages as they do marriages consisting of one man and one woman.
Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, who are still on the bench, ought to be impeached and removed from their office of public trust for their glaring misfeasance and nonfeasance, and willful actions to subvert the very constitution they took an oath to support and defend.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.
no need for opinion to be in quotation marks.
it indeed was the opinion 10 years ago and confirmed as a precedent just a few days ago.
SCOTUS doesnt want to go backward on this.
Allan
An “opinion” not based on the text of our constitution or its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, but based upon the personal beliefs and sexual desires of the majority who wrote the “opinion”.
JWK
“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
doesnt matter. SCOTUS ruled and it is now the law of the land.
same with every other SCOTUS opinion.
it doesnt matter why,
it happened.
Allan
Our Constitution, and only those laws made in pursuance thereof, is the law of the land.
Let us follow the rules, e.g.:
“The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.”_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
And, as emphatically pointed out in In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903):
”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
“A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.”
So, where in the debates of the 39th Congress, which framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, was the intention expressed to forbid the States from making distinctions based upon “sex”? The fact is, nowhere in the debates can such an intention be found. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true:
One of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ardent supporters eloquently summarized the limited legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment as follows:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Globe, March 9th, 1866, page 1293
JWK
“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which would give the phrase…a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution.” ___ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872)
lol. kim davis found out differently.
maybe you can start a gofundme page for her. and get maybe a buck if you are lucky.
Allan
You seem to embrace judicial tyranny and those who perpetrated it as did Justices Sotomayor and Kagan,
i favor marbury v madison way of doing things, you prefer another system.
mine has worked for the nation for 222 years. slightly longer than yours.
Allan
As in adhering to our Constitutions’ defined and limited grants of power?
The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? ______ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
So, do tell, Allan, when was the Tenth Amendment, or Fourteenth Amendment, altered to prohibit Kentucky from making a distinction based upon sex when issuing marriage licenses?
no, by definition. marbury v madison makes SCOTUS opinions valid.
no matter how bad or good they are.
sorry John, this is a loss for you.
Maybe next time.
pick someone better than Kim Davis,
Allan
You never answered the following question.
So, do tell, Allan, when was the Tenth Amendment, or Fourteenth Amendment, altered to prohibit Kentucky from making a distinction based upon sex when issuing marriage licenses?
Keep in mind that, decades after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Nineteenth Amendment had to be adopted to forbid the States from making a distinction based upon “sex”, but only forbid the States from making distinctions based upon “sex” with respect to voting.
At this very time when the Nineteenth Amendment was adopted, there was a movement in the United States to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, and it persisted for decades after the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment. Its language was intentionally designed to prohibit distinctions based upon “sex” as follows:
Section 1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.
But the American people wisely refuse to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1980s, for a number of reasons, one reason was, it would lead to homosexual marriage.
So, here we are today, in a situation where Justice Kennedy, and Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in Obergefell v. Hodges set themselves up as members of an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, constitutional convention, ignoring Article 5 of our Constitution which is the only lawful way to prohibit distinctions being made based upon sex, and with the stroke of a pen reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which upheld, on November 6, 2014, Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage approved by 75% of the voters via their reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment.
