Tagged: scotus Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 3:24 PM on 06/26/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , alito, doma, , scotus   

    DOMA Section Unconstitutional 

    I have made no secret of the fact that I am against gay marriage, so it may come as a surprise to some that I am happy with this ruling.  I have also made no secret of the fact that I am a huge supporter of the tenth amendment and the rights of states.

    Marriage is not the issue of the federal government.  It never has been and will remain that way unless a constitutional amendment on the issue is passed.  While I would like to see that amendment, the chances of it passing at this point in time is basically nill.  Due to that, I have to support this ruling.  Marriage is a state issue and I have never been able to wrap my brain around how a legal marriage could not be recognized by the federal government.

    Even Justice Alito acknowledges in his dissent that the constitution doesn’t speak on the issue:

    no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue.

    If no provision speaks to the issue and Americans fully expect our government to treat people equally under the law, what is the justification for the federal government to decide which legally married couple they give benefits to and which couples they don’t?

    As a limited government. constitutional conservative,  I couldn’t find a justifiable reason for that particular section of DOMA being upheld.  This doesn’t change my views of gay marriage.  I am against it.  But marriage is state issue, not a federal one.   This is an issue that must be fought on the state level.  If states are going to legalize gay marriage, the federal government has no right to overrule that.  Limited government means just that, limiting the power of the federal government.

    The main section of DOMA has not been overturned, a state like Connecticut that has legalized gay marriage has no right to force a state like Virginia to recognize that marriage.  As it should be.

    • signpainterguy 4:41 PM on 06/26/2013 Permalink | Reply

      Agreed, it is a States` Rights issue, not a fed one. If a state allows gay marriage, the fed should not get in the way of it at all, nor should the fed make any special allowances to accommodate it, but other states should not be required to honor the marriage. Choice, by majority vote.

      Has any state that allows gay marriage passed the law by majority vote of the people, or has it always been a court action that made it legal ? I am under the impression that it has failed every time when put to a vote by the people !

      • just a conservative girl 5:11 PM on 06/26/2013 Permalink | Reply

        Maryland was the first to vote for it on a state wide election.
        I am actually against ballot iniatives in general and most especially on this issue. I actually think it is a legislative issue. We are not democracy and ballot iniatives are turning us into one.

        • signpainterguy 5:19 PM on 06/26/2013 Permalink | Reply

          Yes, you`re right; we are a representative, constitutional republic, not a democracy. If the legislative process is carried out properly, our reps will have determined our wishes and will move accordingly, for us.

  • just a conservative girl 10:12 AM on 06/18/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , motor voter law, , scotus, voter registration   

    Federal Law, State Law, and the Constitution 

    I have seen much going around on social media on the SCOTUS ruling on Arizona and the motor voter laws.  Yesterday, the court came out with a 7-2 ruling that Arizona couldn’t add additional requirements to the federal forms for voter registration.  Arizona wanted to require additional paperwork proving American citizenship.

    On the face it seems silly that the court would come out against this.  But it isn’t silly.  It is completely Constitutional.  The federal government gives states money to cover the costs of all seats that are held in the federal government.  The Constitution says:

    The Elections Clause, Art. I, §4, cl. 1, provides:

    “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections
    for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed
    in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the
    Congress may at any time by Law make or alter
    such Regulations, except as to the places of chusing

    Now that sentence about Senators is no longer valid since the 17th amendment made senators also subject to direct elections.  But the point is the federal government absolutely has the right to decide how registration is done for federal elections.

    The court also has given Arizona a pathway to make changes to the Motor Voter form.  Arizona can, if they so choose, go to the Elections Assistance Commission and ask them to make changes to the federal form.  While that is highly unlikely under the current administration, if they don’t like the result, they then can take it to court.

    The Court did not rule on anything other than could a state require additional information on a mail in federal form for registration.  Arizona is free to require additional information on state forms.  Those registration rolls can be cross checked if they so choose to do it.

    The main point of this ruling is that the court did exactly what it was supposed to do, follow the constitution.  You may not necessarily like the outcome, but the federal government has the right and the responsibility to set rules for how federal elections are set up.  If we want changes made to include more safeguards for proof of citizenship, the avenue to do that is there.  The State of Arizona doesn’t seem to be shy about pursuing their options, so let them lead the charge to put more safeguards into place.

    If you don’t like judicial activism, then this ruling is exactly what you want.

    You can read Scalia’s opinion here.


Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc