Mike Huckabee: States Can Ignore Supreme Court On Gay Marriage
Source: The Huffington Post
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee disputed what he called the "notion of judicial supremacy", arguing states would have the final say on gay marriage regardless of whether the Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Huckabee, a conservative evangelical and potential 2016 presidential candidate, said a Supreme Court ruling, expected this year, would ultimately be moot because "one branch of government does not overrule the other two."
"One thing I am angry about though ... is this notion of judicial supremacy, where if the court makes a decision, I hear governors and even some aspirants to the presidency say, 'Well that's settled, it's the law of the land.' No, it's not the law of the land," Huckabee said in an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. "Constitutionally, the courts cannot make a law, they can interpret one and then the legislature has to create enabling legislation and the executive has to sign it and has to enforce it," Huckabee added.
A ruling from the high court, however, would not "make law," but rather would invalidate existing bans on gay marriage as unconstitutional. State legislatures would need no additional law to recognize same-sex marriages. Similar appellate court decisions have already done so in 36 states and the District of Columbia -- all of which now recognize same-sex marriages. The comments place him on the far right of his party -- even more so than Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a potential rival in the race for the White House.
If Huckabee felt dismayed by some in his party who have softened their rhetoric on the matter, he didn't show it . "I may be lonely, I may be the only one, but I'm going to stand absolutely faithful to the issue of marriage not because it's a politically expedient thing to do because it isn't," he said. "I'm going to do it because I believe it's the right position, it's the biblical position, it's the historical position."
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/mike-huckabee-gay-marriage-supreme-court_n_6512042.html
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Might have the feeling how the SC has to rule. If you remember Little Rock was the place integration took the first stand and lost, it will again.
big_dog
(4,144 posts)and stake out ground for 2016
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)A carnival huckster <SLASH> Reverend...
mpcamb
(2,870 posts)roamer65
(36,745 posts)No, you cannot ignore or supersede federal law, you scum sucking moron.
TNNurse
(6,926 posts)Shrike47
(6,913 posts)were still around.
lastlib
(23,191 posts)--Article VI, Sec. 2
Most folks realized what it meant after McCulloch v. Maryland, it took a civil war to remind a whole lot of 'em, and some folks (Hucksterbee being among them) are just too stupid to figure it out even yet. He and his buds need to go back to eighth-grade civics class.
William769
(55,144 posts)If you're going to run for the highest office in the U.S., take a fucking 101 civics class.
And before you start beating your chest about this Country being founded on religion, chew on this!
In the heat of our political moment, we sometimes dont see how our future connects deeply to our past. But the Christian Right does and they do not like what they see.
The Christian Right has made religious freedom the ideological phalanx of its current campaigns in the culture wars. Religious freedom is now invoked as a way of seeking to derail access to reproductive health services as well as equality for LGBTQ people, most prominently regarding marriage equality.
But history provides little comfort for the theocratic visions of the Christian Right. And that is where our story begins.
For all of the shouting about religious liberty from the landmark Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case, to the passage of the anti-gay Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Mississippi, and more there is barely any mention, let alone any observance, of the official national Religious Freedom Day, enacted by Congress in 1992 and recognized every January 16 by an annual presidential proclamation.
The day commemorates the enactment of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786.
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/12/the-christian-right-does-not-want-you-to-know-about-this-day/
Fucking asshole.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)about this imminent threat to secularism?
project_bluebook
(411 posts)and give up all the Federal money and programs that keep the GOP states afloat then by all means, ignore the Supreme Court.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Initech
(100,054 posts)And in that document it says that whatever the Supreme Court decides, that's the law of the land. It overturns states' rights. You might want to read up on that if you even want to consider running for president.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Cause, there's this thing called the Constitution. And in Article III it says that
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
And then Huckabee should read Marbury v. Madison.
On this day in 1803 (Feb. 24), the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, decides the landmark case of William Marbury versus James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States and confirms the legal principle of judicial review--the ability of the Supreme Court to limit Congressional power by declaring legislation unconstitutional--in the new nation.
The court ruled that the new president, Thomas Jefferson, via his secretary of state, James Madison, was wrong to prevent William Marbury from taking office as justice of the peace for Washington County in the District of Columbia. However, it also ruled that the court had no jurisdiction in the case and could not force Jefferson and Madison to seat Marbury. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction, but the Marshall court ruled the Act of 1789 to be an unconstitutional extension of judiciary power into the realm of the executive.
In writing the decision, John Marshall argued that acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not law and therefore are non-binding to the courts, and that the judiciary's first responsibility is always to uphold the Constitution. If two laws conflict, Marshall wrote, the court bears responsibility for deciding which law applies in any given case. Thus, Marbury never received his job.
Jefferson and Madison objected to Marbury's appointment and those of all the so-called "midnight judges" appointed by the previous president, John Adams, after Jefferson was elected but mere hours before he took office. To further aggravate the new Democratic-Republican administration, many of these Federalist judges--although Marbury was not one of them--were taking the bench in new courts formed by the Judiciary Act, which the lame-duck Federalist Congress passed on February 13, 1801, less than a month before Jefferson's inauguration on March 4.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/marbury-v-madison-establishes-judicial-review
More on Marbury v. Madison
http://www.ucumberlands.edu/academics/history/files/vol9/MeganNichols97.html
I know Huckabee doesn't like people who attended Ivy League schools. Well, I didn't. I learned this stuff in state schools Why didn't he?
It's one thing to avoid being snobbish. That's great. Humility is wonderful. It's quite a different thing to wear your ignorance like a badge. Huckabee has just proved that he is not interested enough in American law and governance to be president. He shouldn't bother to run if he hasn't bothered to understand one of the most basic principles of American government.
I am sorry if I sound harsh and judgmental, but this goes beyond the limits . . . . .
christx30
(6,241 posts)position in Worchester v. Georgia. Paraphrasing here, "The US Supreme Court has made their decision. Now let them enforce it."
The childish thing one might say to an authority figure: "Make me."
He's a prick.
Orrex
(63,185 posts)If only.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)nt
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Article III, Section 1:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Section 2:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
See also: Marbury v. Madison
slumcamper
(1,605 posts)Remember Brown v. Board & Little Rock? Thanks, Ike.
Red states reposing in feeble Tenther resistance to judicial review and the supreme law of the land will quickly find their states filled with National Guard troops asserting federal authority and enforcing the law. It's time to call these idiots out on this bluster and drag them--kicking and screaming if necessary--into the modern age.
DallasNE
(7,402 posts)Isn't that the same position others use elsewhere to justify Sharia Law? Does Huckabee not understand this? Indeed, Huckabee is coming out against the 1st Amendment's establishment clause so, boy, does he have everything upside down.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, overturns statute law. Except in the case of Bush v. Gore, where the majority opinion said "This is not a precedent." Motherfuckers.
That kind of opinion drives legal types such as myself crazy. That's why I love Ruth Bader Ginsburg for saying "I dissent", NOT "I respectfully dissent." in Bush v. Gore. That's practically bomb-throwing on the Supremes.
Where do they get these idiot "constitutional scholars"???
King_Klonopin
(1,306 posts)Lithos
(26,403 posts)First, Huckabee knows *exactly* what he is saying. Doesn't matter if he believes it or not - I suspect he knows it's not true. He also is likely not an idiot w/r to this issue.
What is going on is that if the GOP admits the Supreme Court rules here they also have to admit that the legal weight is going to most likely have the Supreme Court rule in favor of Gay Marriage. Doing so will take away one of their red meat issues which they are using to fan their base.
So, admit it and you lose one of your main talking points getting you both money and votes. Or you can pretend thru some talking point that keeps the die-hard base frothing and active for you.
L-
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)quadrature
(2,049 posts)1970 or so.
USSC says DP is uncon because there was
no aggravating circumstances.
later.
States add aggravating circumstances.
|
|
\/
warm-up OldSparky