I am asking you to show me in the law that this has been handled correctly. I do not mean this smart or condescending when I ask. I am really interested now in this. Just because the Supreme Court issues a opinion and thats only what it is, a opinion, does this make it the "Law of the land" like everyone screams. From everything I have read, Huckabee has a strong point and nobody has yet to stand up and say he is wrong. Everything I can find in regards to how this is supposed to work goes along with what he is saying.

 

I had a professor in college who for one month challenged us students to prove the earth revolved the sun. He professed the Sun revolved around the Earth and gave us a months worth of proof this was the way it was. To make a long story short, he wanted us to not take just anyones word for something and believe it. He would ask us " who told you that?" Where is the equation to prove what you say?" etc. He challenged us and it made me really think hard. To use that here, when you say I should dismiss anything after that when I saw the name "Huckabee" why do you say that? See my point? So to everyone on here, get out your best browser, find google, go to the Library, talk to really good lawyers and lets see how these actions are supposed to work by how our legal system is set up. I just want the truth. And I dont want to be riduclued by statements like " I cant believe someone on this board dont know this"! I am after facts, they are very important here and very important going forward. If I find this is correct then I am good. If I find we have been duped I am gonna be mad becasue there are going to have to be alot of work done to straighten up our country.

 

I'll take you up on it with links and citations when I'm in front of a computer and not a tablet. Here's the quick version:

 

• The constitution is the supreme law of the country.
  
• When state law and federal law clash, federal law is superior.
  
• The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and whether the country's laws are compatible with it.
  
• The Supreme Court's decisions on what the constitution means can only be changed by a future Supreme Court or by amending the constitution.
  
• In the case of same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court has ruled that the constitution allows same-sex couples the same right to marry as heterosexual couples have.
  
• Thus, same-sex couples can get married the same as heterosexual couples. Full stop. No state or federal law can undue it, according to the constitution. We can quibble about making some changes on the margins, but denying marriage to same-sex couples is not debatable.
  

So another example of people wanting to be treated differently, or better, than those "other" people.

 

If you are in contempt of court there is no bail. She either has to agree that she will do her job, quit, or wait until the next election and get voted out

 

What is the Catholic Church stance on same sex marriage Sportsguy41017?

What is the Catholic Church stance on same sex marriage Sportsguy41017?

 

They are 100% against it. Why do you ask?

I'll take you up on it with links and citations when I'm in front of a computer and not a tablet. Here's the quick version:

 

• The constitution is the supreme law of the country.
  
• When state law and federal law clash, federal law is superior.
  
• The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and whether the country's laws are compatible with it.
  
• The Supreme Court's decisions on what the constitution means can only be changed by a future Supreme Court or by amending the constitution.
  
• In the case of same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court has ruled that the constitution allows same-sex couples the same right to marry as heterosexual couples have.
  
• Thus, same-sex couples can get married the same as heterosexual couples. Full stop. No state or federal law can undue it, according to the constitution. We can quibble about making some changes on the margins, but denying marriage to same-sex couples is not debatable.
  

 

So where does the law get changed on the books? And how does that work? Do we just say ok the Supreme Court said its so and thats that? Is there not a balance?What if we get 5 new supreme court justices that rule that "inter racial marriage is again wrong? 5 to 4? What happens then? Is there not a check and balance? You know this could happen right? Thats why there has to be more than just " the Supreme Court said so".

They are 100% against it. Why do you ask?

 

The Pope has said that he is open to discussing the possibility of civil unions. And many are not happy about these words from the Chair of Peter.

 

But again, that has nothing to do with this thread.

They are 100% against it. Why do you ask?

 

I already knew the answer Clyde. Just want to hear it from who I asked.

The Pope has said that he is open to discussing the possibility of civil unions. And many are not happy about these words from the Chair of Peter.

 

So if the Pope says it its the Gospel? Now we are getting somewhere.

So where does the law get changed on the books? And how does that work? Do we just say ok the Supreme Court said its so and thats that? Is there not a balance?What if we get 5 new supreme court justices that rule that "inter racial marriage is again wrong? 5 to 4? What happens then? Is there not a check and balance? You know this could happen right? Thats why there has to be more than just " the Supreme Court said so".

 

The "illegal" part simply gets struck from the state ruling and the rest stays.

 

There does NOT have to be more than "the Supreme Court said so." See Supremacy Clause.

I already knew the answer Clyde. Just want to hear it from who I asked.

 

You've certainly got me curious as to how this relates to the argument at hand.

Pope Francis said the church has the right to express its opinions but not to "interfere spiritually" in the lives of gays and lesbians, expanding on explosive comments he made in July (2013) about not judging homosexuals.

I don't want anyone to have to stay in jail, I would hope that she would just quit, go home to her family, and gets on with her life

So where does the law get changed on the books? And how does that work? Do we just say ok the Supreme Court said its so and thats that? Is there not a balance?What if we get 5 new supreme court justices that rule that "inter racial marriage is again wrong? 5 to 4? What happens then? Is there not a check and balance? You know this could happen right? Thats why there has to be more than just " the Supreme Court said so".

 

You can appoint new justices when there are openings or amend the constitution (this is a state-driven process). That's about it. The "checks and balances" are baked into who gets appointed to the Court and how, as well as which cases they get to hear and that the constitution can be amended. Outside of the Warren years its design has led it to be a fairly conservative body.

So what you are telling me is there are no checks and balances?

Now, I'd pay attention to the quotes of the Holy Father. He is correct that we spend too much time debating or all out arguing about certain issues, such as gay people, that we ignore other issues, that are very important. Such as now with the crisis in Syria and the refugees, but people don't care about our brothers and sisters in dire need and want to turn their backs on them and act like they don't exist or some nonsense. I started a thread last week about the Syrian crisis and hardly anyone posted in that thread, a few did and I thank you! But the fact is people would rather waste their time complaining about those evil gay people and how they are getting married now Vs helping our brothers and sisters in need. The European crisis is the result of Europe ignoring a war on their boarders. The U.S. is to blame too, for all those crying about Obama all of the time this is one of those times I agree with you, his line in the sand was a joke! And not only did Assad see it, so did Putin.

 

Pope Francis: Gays, Abortion Too Much Of Catholic Church's Obsession

So what you are telling me is there are no checks and balances?

 

No. I listed four in the post above (counting that the president nominates and the Senate confirms appointments). What I am telling you is that the "checks and balances" available for this issue are amending the constitution or getting new justices appointed who agree with your interpretations.