Has the US Supreme Court Usurped State's Rights?

[United Federation of the World]

Myself find gay marriage as an acceptable act. It has been shown in several nationwide surveys that same-sex marriage has become acceptable to the majority, in stark contrast to several years ago. Nonetheless, gay marriage should be legal in the United States, but, as I am a heterosexual male, it doesn't directly affect me, hence why I'm okay with such being passed into law.

However, this thread is not about gay marriage and if it should be legal, but instead, if the way it was made legal in the United States is, in fact, correct.

Let me explain further:

The Supreme Court is composed of nine unelected, appointed, Justices. Five voted for the legality of homosexual marriage and four against. Granted, they are part of the federal governmnet, but they are unelected officials.

My case resides on the soul belief that this was a usurpation of the state's rights. Elected legislatures from the states, not the federal governmet, should be passing laws in regard to this. However, if this motion and idea was passed through the proper and correct legislative process in Washington, of course being signed into law by our liberal President Barack Obama, then I would have been set with this being a law which no state should supersede.

In this case, sadly, five unelected and appointed Justices changed the marriage laws for fifty states. How does that seem fair? How does this adhere to our practiced traditions of a democratic process? In short, it doesn't. To me this is a blatant over extension of the Supreme Court into which they interpreted the Constitution, their legal and constitutional responsibility, interjected their political agenda into it, which has been done before by both sides of the political spectrum, and finally took away the power of every single last state legislative body.

I'm sad to say this but I believe states should not abide by this ruling. Granted, the logical argument of: 'Is homosexual marriage morally, legally, constitutionally, and fully correct' should be saved for another time. In this thread I wish to discuss if the way by which this was enacted is correct to you.

As a disclaimer, I mean no offense to anyone, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or transexual, but I want my opinion to be heard and those who live in the United States and understand the beliefs of this nation's political democratic ideology should chime in.

[Alcase]

The Supreme Court is a fine enough way to ensure peoples' civil rights are protected.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

The right didn't make a fuss over Citizens United. They didn't complain about "unelected judges" after Hobby Lobby. At any rate, we don't live in a direct democracy. As I said in the other thread, a direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner. Did you know that in the 1960's, more than half of Americans wanted interracial marriage to be illegal? But the Supreme Court overruled them, because our laws are based on equality, not people's whims.

[The French Remnant]

The Supreme Court is a fine enough way to ensure peoples' civil rights are protected.

As stated in the Constitution, no one should be judge on what they like, your race, or religion.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Constitutional law is clearly in favor of same sex marriage. The states do not have the right to deny any group equal protection under the law.

[Indhir]

The right didn't make a fuss over Citizens United. They didn't complain about "unelected judges" after Hobby Lobby. At any rate, we don't live in a direct democracy. As I said in the other thread, a direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner. Did you know that in the 1960's, more than half of Americans wanted interracial marriage to be illegal? But the Supreme Court overruled them, because our laws are based on equality, not people's whims.

So it's basically a dictatorship, where the supreme leader is equality?

[Middle Pacific]

However, if this motion and idea was passed through the proper and correct legislative process in Washington, of course being signed into law by our liberal President Barack Obama, then I would have been set with this being a law which no state should supersede.

It could not have happened that way. It's not possible. Congress does not have such a power.

States have ultimate power over regulating marriage, insofar as the Constitution of the United States is adhered to - i.e. no discrimination on the basis of race (Loving v. Virginia) or gender/sex/sexuality (Obergefell v. Hodges) per the 14th Amendment.

[Great Eurasian Russia (Ancient)]

The right didn't make a fuss over Citizens United. They didn't complain about "unelected judges" after Hobby Lobby. At any rate, we don't live in a direct democracy. As I said in the other thread, a direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner. Did you know that in the 1960's, more than half of Americans wanted interracial marriage to be illegal? But the Supreme Court overruled them, because our laws are based on equality, not people's whims.

So it's basically a dictatorship, where the supreme leader is equality?

*approves*

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

The right didn't make a fuss over Citizens United. They didn't complain about "unelected judges" after Hobby Lobby. At any rate, we don't live in a direct democracy. As I said in the other thread, a direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner. Did you know that in the 1960's, more than half of Americans wanted interracial marriage to be illegal? But the Supreme Court overruled them, because our laws are based on equality, not people's whims.

So it's basically a dictatorship, where the supreme leader is equality?

That's one way to put it. That's a bit like saying capitalism is a dictatorship where the supreme leader is self-interest/greed. Not entirely inaccurate, but definitely a negative and flawed way of phrasing the situation.

[United Federation of the World]

The Supreme Court is a fine enough way to ensure peoples' civil rights are protected.

Yet, the Supreme Court, arguably one of the weakest parts of the federal government should be able to overstep large numbers of state legislatures who do not support gay marriage. It is wrong that appointed officials should be able to demand that the elected members of the legislatures silence their beliefs that their constituents elected them on. If the states do not support such a ruling they should nullify it, just as done before. It will be a tricky slope but they should not be forced to obey members of a entity we did not elected. Such injustice can be found in the reasoning behind our patriots during the revolutionary war. 'No taxation without representation' should indeed be applied here. Minus the taxation, we did not ask for those Justices, hence why they shouldn't be demanding submission from us on issue they support but our legislatures don't.

[Palakistan]

The Supreme Court is a fine enough way to ensure peoples' civil rights are protected.

Yet, the Supreme Court, arguably one of the weakest parts of the federal government should be able to overstep large numbers of state legislatures who do not support gay marriage. It is wrong that appointed officials should be able to demand that the elected members of the legislatures silence their beliefs that their constituents elected them on. If the states do not support such a ruling they should nullify it, just as done before. It will be a tricky slope but they should not be forced to obey members of a entity we did not elected. Such injustice can be found in the reasoning behind our patriots during the revolutionary war. 'No taxation without representation' should indeed be applied here. Minus the taxation, we did not ask for those Justices, hence why they shouldn't be demanding submission from us on issue they support but our legislatures don't.

I agree with you here. What's next? Complete gun bans? Military police?

[Galloism]

The Supreme Court is a fine enough way to ensure peoples' civil rights are protected.

Yet, the Supreme Court, arguably one of the weakest parts of the federal government should be able to overstep large numbers of state legislatures who do not support gay marriage. It is wrong that appointed officials should be able to demand that the elected members of the legislatures silence their beliefs that their constituents elected them on. If the states do not support such a ruling they should nullify it, just as done before. It will be a tricky slope but they should not be forced to obey members of a entity we did not elected. Such injustice can be found in the reasoning behind our patriots during the revolutionary war. 'No taxation without representation' should indeed be applied here. Minus the taxation, we did not ask for those Justices, hence why they shouldn't be demanding submission from us on issue they support but our legislatures don't.

Looking to overturn loving vs Virginia?

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

One of the purposes of the Supreme Court under US federal law is to act as the court of final appeal for state court cases. A lawsuit was brought before the Supreme Court from one of those state courts that challenged the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans. SCOTUS ruled that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the right to marriage thereby extended to everyone regardless of sex.

There was no usurpation of state authority involved here. Everything functioned the way it should in US law - a law's constitutionality was challenged in court, and SCOTUS ruled that the law was unconstitutional and was thereby struck down. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the US, and has been ever since the United States was established (more or less). If the states don't like that fact, they're welcome to try and use the legal channels present to try and change that Constitution.

[Ashmoria]

no the supreme court hasn't usurped states' rights. it has clarified their limits as regards marriage.

unfair? fairness has nothing to do with it. this is the system we have had for 200+ years. no need to whine about it now.

[Dyakovo]

Myself find gay marriage as an acceptable act. It has been shown in several nationwide surveys that same-sex marriage has become acceptable to the majority, in stark contrast to several years ago. Nonetheless, gay marriage should be legal in the United States, but, as I am a heterosexual male, it doesn't directly affect me, hence why I'm okay with such being passed into law.

However, this thread is not about gay marriage and if it should be legal, but instead, if the way it was made legal in the United States is, in fact, correct.

Let me explain further:

The Supreme Court is composed of nine unelected, appointed, Justices. Five voted for the legality of homosexual marriage and four against. Granted, they are part of the federal governmnet, but they are unelected officials.

My case resides on the soul belief that this was a usurpation of the state's rights. Elected legislatures from the states, not the federal governmet, should be passing laws in regard to this. However, if this motion and idea was passed through the proper and correct legislative process in Washington, of course being signed into law by our liberal President Barack Obama, then I would have been set with this being a law which no state should supersede.

In this case, sadly, five unelected and appointed Justices changed the marriage laws for fifty states. How does that seem fair? How does this adhere to our practiced traditions of a democratic process? In short, it doesn't. To me this is a blatant over extension of the Supreme Court into which they interpreted the Constitution, their legal and constitutional responsibility, interjected their political agenda into it, which has been done before by both sides of the political spectrum, and finally took away the power of every single last state legislative body.

I'm sad to say this but I believe states should not abide by this ruling. Granted, the logical argument of: 'Is homosexual marriage morally, legally, constitutionally, and fully correct' should be saved for another time. In this thread I wish to discuss if the way by which this was enacted is correct to you.

As a disclaimer, I mean no offense to anyone, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or transexual, but I want my opinion to be heard and those who live in the United States and understand the beliefs of this nation's political democratic ideology should chime in.

No, the Supreme Court has not usurped state's rights. It can not because states don't have rights, people do.

[Sam Hyde]

The right didn't make a fuss over Citizens United. They didn't complain about "unelected judges" after Hobby Lobby. At any rate, we don't live in a direct democracy. As I said in the other thread, a direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner. Did you know that in the 1960's, more than half of Americans wanted interracial marriage to be illegal? But the Supreme Court overruled them, because our laws are based on equality, not people's whims.

So it's basically a dictatorship, where the supreme leader is equality?

We have lost.

[Indhir]

Myself find gay marriage as an acceptable act. It has been shown in several nationwide surveys that same-sex marriage has become acceptable to the majority, in stark contrast to several years ago. Nonetheless, gay marriage should be legal in the United States, but, as I am a heterosexual male, it doesn't directly affect me, hence why I'm okay with such being passed into law.

However, this thread is not about gay marriage and if it should be legal, but instead, if the way it was made legal in the United States is, in fact, correct.

Let me explain further:

The Supreme Court is composed of nine unelected, appointed, Justices. Five voted for the legality of homosexual marriage and four against. Granted, they are part of the federal governmnet, but they are unelected officials.

My case resides on the soul belief that this was a usurpation of the state's rights. Elected legislatures from the states, not the federal governmet, should be passing laws in regard to this. However, if this motion and idea was passed through the proper and correct legislative process in Washington, of course being signed into law by our liberal President Barack Obama, then I would have been set with this being a law which no state should supersede.

In this case, sadly, five unelected and appointed Justices changed the marriage laws for fifty states. How does that seem fair? How does this adhere to our practiced traditions of a democratic process? In short, it doesn't. To me this is a blatant over extension of the Supreme Court into which they interpreted the Constitution, their legal and constitutional responsibility, interjected their political agenda into it, which has been done before by both sides of the political spectrum, and finally took away the power of every single last state legislative body.

I'm sad to say this but I believe states should not abide by this ruling. Granted, the logical argument of: 'Is homosexual marriage morally, legally, constitutionally, and fully correct' should be saved for another time. In this thread I wish to discuss if the way by which this was enacted is correct to you.

As a disclaimer, I mean no offense to anyone, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or transexual, but I want my opinion to be heard and those who live in the United States and understand the beliefs of this nation's political democratic ideology should chime in.

No, the Supreme Court has not usurped state's rights. It can not because states don't have rights, people do.

And those people in those states have elected people that have their views, and if those views are anti-LGBT then that's that.
Welcome to the land of the free, where unelected officials have more power than elected officials.

[Sam Hyde]

No, the Supreme Court has not usurped state's rights. It can not because states don't have rights, people do.

And those people in those states have elected people that have their views, and if those views are anti-LGBT then that's that.
Welcome to the land of the free, where unelected officials have more power than elected officials.

Also, on the Supreme Court has someone who explicitly stated they're going to be looking after their own ethnic interests rather than the interests of the nation as a whole.

I believe she described herself as a "wise Latina".

[United Federation of the World]

No, the Supreme Court has not usurped state's rights. It can not because states don't have rights, people do.

And those people in those states have elected people that have their views, and if those views are anti-LGBT then that's that.
Welcome to the land of the free, where unelected officials have more power than elected officials.

And that's the point I am arguing for. State's rights do exist and should be protected from this abuse and the many others it has suffered throughout the years.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

And those people in those states have elected people that have their views, and if those views are anti-LGBT then that's that.
Welcome to the land of the free, where unelected officials have more power than elected officials.

The Constitution has ultimate legal authority in the US. You don't get to vote away constitutional rights whenever a state wants to - that's the whole point of a constitution.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

And those people in those states have elected people that have their views, and if those views are anti-LGBT then that's that.
Welcome to the land of the free, where unelected officials have more power than elected officials.

How far does this go? If the majority of people in a state wanted to exterminate all gays, should we let them?

[Middle Pacific]

.
Welcome to the land of the free, where unelected officials have more power than elected officials.

Yes, welcome to the land of the free, where the idea that human rights are innate and inherent is upheld, and the Constitution prevents state governments or the federal government from having laws that oppress a minority.

[The Alma Mater]

Amazing. Really.
We are talking about giving people MORE rights. No rights whatsoever were taken away.

And yet people desperately seek something to undo that.

[Gauthier]

You have to wonder, did the same people bitching about the Supreme Court right now bitch about it back in 2000 when it practically decided the election?

[Napkiraly]

The Supreme Court is a fine enough way to ensure peoples' civil rights are protected.

Yet, the Supreme Court, arguably one of the weakest parts of the federal government

>Weakest part
>Final say on how to interpret the Constitution as it stands

I love how everyone is making a fuss over how the SCOTUS is selected (there is a reason why they aren't elected) now. Not on any previous other ruling that shoved things down states and people who opposed it down their throats. No it's now.

Jesus fucking Christ, this is why civics should be a mandatory course for everyone in school.