California's Prop 8 Denying Homosexual Marriage Ruling

Yes... As well they should be.

LadyJazzer wrote: God I love it when you go off the rails....

You are consistent... Just insert key, wind-up, and you spew your predictable alternate-reality from Constitution Party, LawAndLiberty, ReasonOfFreedom, PoliticsOfLiberty, TeaPartyPatriot and excursions into what you THINK the Constitution says, or should have said,.

Wake me when you have something new.... or relevant. Just keep pontificating and be the blowhard you aspire to be. You don't have a clue about the real world. Enjoy your fantasy life.

And you're such a fraud that you don't even give attribution to the bullsh*t that you steal from these wacko sites:

Invoking the Divine? You? And you allege that I'm the one who has left the rails?

No, the truth of which of us has lost any tether to reality is clearly evidenced in your baseless allegations and descent into hysterical (in every meaning of the term) attempts to attack me as an individual when the facts presented before you are unassailable.

They aren't "facts"... They're right-wing drivel from the neo-fascist echo-chamber that bounces this crap back and forth between them trying to sound like they "know something." Put in "so-called 14th amendment"--10+ pages of nothing but neo-teabagger nut-jobs with about as much constitutional smarts between them as Orly Taitz.

Sorry, but "facts" are something you know nothing about...Just more repetitive drivel from the wacko echo-chamber... Sorry, but the idea of conversing with a basically unstable ideologue ceased being entertaining a long time ago.

Are you ready for your close-up, Mr. Bonaparte?

Have a day...

LadyJazzer wrote: Sorry, but the idea of conversing with a basically unstable ideologue ceased being entertaining a long time ago.

Indeed it did, but I still put up with you anyway. You are too far gone to have any chance of having your stability restored, but there are others out there who have yet to have their brain similarly addled to such an extent; whose gray matter is still capable of independent thought, and who still possess the ability to apply reason and logic. Such things became beyond your abilities long ago, swept away to be replaced with naught but bitterness and bigotry aimed at any whose opinions fail to mirror your own.

But enough about you, we have more important matters to attend to at the moment.

Fact is that the Utah Supreme Court ruled in the matter of Dyett v Turner in 1968, said ruling, quoted at length earlier, is readily available via the internet for those who wish to read it in its entirety.

Fact is that none other than the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Texas v White that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the union, despite the fact that it was under military rule at the time and despite its joining the Confederate States. From the decision of the Supreme Court:

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest of subjugation.

Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first out break of the rebellion.

Fact is that Article V of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land as it were, in very clear and precise language says that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. Article V, for those who may have forgotten, or never learned, is the article in the Constitution which specifically deals with the means to amend the Constitution.

Fact is that the equal suffrage in the Senate was denied not only to Texas, but also to 10 other States that, as discussed earlier, had remained States since joining the union, when the vote was taken for the purposes of deciding whether 2/3 of that body had, as demanded by the Constitution, proposed the Constitution be amended. Another interesting fact was that one of the Senators from New Jersey, having been seated in the Senate in December of 1865, was removed from his seat in order that the 33 Senators who were prepared to vote for approving it would be sufficient in number to qualify as a 2/3 of the 49 seated members of the Senate.

Fact is that only 120 of the 182 members seated in the House of Representatives voted in favor of the amendment, while a 2/3 majority would have required a minimum of 122. But, because there were 30 abstentions, it was deemed that 120 votes constituted 2/3 of the voting members for the purposes of approving the amendment by that house of Congress.

Fact is that this amendment, despite the denial of equal suffrage in the Senate to 11 States without their consent and a removal of one of the Senators from New Jersey, along with a little accompanying creative math in the House, was submitted to the states in June of 1866 for ratification.

Fact is that by March 17, 1867, 10 states of the 37 then in the union, had rejected the amendment, defeating it since it would need a minimum of 28 of the 37 to approve of the amendment in order to secure ratification of 3/4 of the states and a maximum of 27 was possible with 10 states rejecting it.

Fact is that by the time the First Reconstruction Act was declared to be the law, 3 more states had approved the amendment and 2 more had rejected it. Maryland rescinded its approval, followed by Ohio and New Jersey. California, which had earlier refused to consider it at all, then voted to reject it as well, bringing the total number of states that had failed to approve of the amendment to 16 out of 37 - well beyond the 10 refusals needed to defeat its ratification.

Fact is that this was unacceptable to general Congress, and so they stripped 10 states, sparing Tennessee as it had ratified the 14th Amendment already, of their governments which had been functioning with the approval of Congress, complete with governors, legislatures, and courts, for the previous 2 years (during which their approval of the 13th Amendment was accepted as a valid act of an existing State in the union) and replaced them with occupation by the military until such time as they voted to approve the 14th Amendment as one of the conditions that must be met before they could send representatives to the general Congress. Mind you, the military occupation of these States did not alter their status as States (Texas v White), but they were still deprived of their equal suffrage in the Senate, in violation of Article V of the Constitution, until such time as they voted to approve the 14th Amendment.

There are more facts still LJ, but by now I think the point has been driven home beyond any reasonable doubt to anyone capable of reasoning at all.

Of course, Printsmith in his revisionist view of history, fails to cite that the Supreme Court of the United States (which trumps the Utah state courts) upheld the validity of the 14th Amendment and found that:

“The legislatures of Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina had rejected the amendment in November and December, 1866. New governments were erected in those States (and in others) under the direction of Congress. The new legislatures ratified the amendment, that of North Carolina on July 4, 1868, that of South Carolina on July 9, 1868, and that of Georgia on July 21, 1868.”

Coleman v. Miller

Let me take a stab in the dark here. I'd be willing to wager that this "decision" was rendered after the court was appropriated to the purposes of Congress and the President during the FDR administration by virtue of threatening the court with a hostile takeover unless it abandoned applying the law contained in the Constitution and started allowing the President and Congress to do whatever it was they wished, right? This new law for a new day interpretation of the court came what, maybe half a century or so after the amendment was supposed to have been approved by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and allegedly approved by 3/4 of the States?

Do you really think that if you forced someone to sign a contract while holding a gun to their head that you could then have the terms of that contract enforced through the courts Dog? Is there any doubt that approval of the amendment was extorted from those 3 States given that they were being denied their constitutionally guaranteed equal suffrage in the Senate until such time as they voted to approve the amendment?

Is there any doubt that the New Jersey Senator was removed from his seat in the Senate in violation of the rules of the Senate (he was removed by a simple majority vote when it was necessary to secure a 2/3 majority to remove a Senator from their seat) so that the 33 yes votes they had were sufficient to pretend that the amendment has received the necessary 2/3 approval of the Senate called for in the Constitution to refer the amendment to the States? Does this not also violate the constitutionally guaranteed equal suffrage in the Senate for States contained in Article V of the Constitution which clearly states that this equal suffrage shall not be denied without the consent of the State? And what of the other 22 Senators that represented the 11 States that had also been unconstitutionally denied their equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent? 33 is a far cry from a 2/3 majority of a legislative body that, according to the Constitution, numbered 72 at that time (36 States in the union), in fact, 33 falls short of even a simple majority of that number, let alone a 2/3 majority.

Boom... and we're off and running on the (non-existent) FDR "coup" again...

Consistent... but stopped being entertaining a loooong time ago...

Which is a way of saying that yes, the decision referenced was made after the Democrats in the executive and legislative branches told the judicial branch that unless they started playing ball they were going to seat their own justices to get the outcome they favored regardless of what the law as established by the Constitution was.

:Snooze

Yeah, I know it is old news, but it is still accurate news nonetheless. That is precisely what FDR and the super-majority of Democrats in Congress threatened to do - seat their own justices if the current court continued to apply the Constitution to the laws that the New Deal Democrats were passing.