PDA

View Full Version : Not over? Alabama Supreme Court should reject marriage decision, legal group says



Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-09-2015, 09:24 AM
http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/not.over.alabama.supreme.court.should.reject.marri age.decision.legal.group.says/49230.htm


Not over? Alabama Supreme Court should reject marriage decision, legal group says
by Michael Foust | 10 July, 2015

ORLANDO, Fla. (Christian Examiner) -- A prominent legal organization has filed a 36-page brief urging the Alabama Supreme Court to reject the U.S. Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision, saying the ruling was an "assault" on the rule of law and natural law and that it defied the very words in the Declaration of Independence.

Further, the new brief says, there is major precedent in the nation's history for a state court to ignore a U.S. Supreme Court decision when it is "unlawful."

The brief was filed by Liberty Counsel, which is headed by an attorney Mat Staver who has argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"There is existing precedent for a state's highest court to reject an unlawful mandate from the U.S. Supreme Court," said Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel.

"The hope of our Constitutional Republic rests upon state officials and American citizens who will refuse to allow five, black-robed judges to rob us of our free, representative form of government. A judicial opinion without constitutional basis is not law and should not be followed by any state or citizen."

After the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Alabama Supreme Court invited parties in a state-level same-sex marriage case "to submit any motions or briefs addressing the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell on this Court's existing orders." Liberty Counsel's brief was in response to that invitation. Roy Moore serves as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

"In determining the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision on this Court's prior orders, this Court should consider several important factors," the brief reads. "These include the decision's substantial assault on the Rule of Law, Democracy, and Natural Law, and its necessary diminishment of the constitutional right to Free Exercise of Religion. Furthermore, this Court should consider existing precedent for a state's highest court to reject an unlawful mandate from the U.S. Supreme Court."

The Liberty Counsel brief pointed to a pre-Civil War Wisconsin case in which that state's Supreme Court rejected the authority of federal fugitive slave slaves, which were intended to ensure the return of runaway slaves. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled against Wisconsin, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court remained defiant and never recognized the decision. To this day, the case is celebrated on the Wisconsin state court system website.

The brief quotes former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Abram D. Smith, who argued state officials had "duty" to resist federal powers that were "not expressly granted or necessarily implied in the federal constitution."

State officials are bound not simply by the federal constitution but by their respective state constitution, Liberty Counsel said.

Smith "recognized that state judges are duty bound to resist unconstitutional federal usurpations of authority by their solemn oaths to their states," the brief said, implying that by not rejecting the same-sex marriage decision, state officials would be violating their oath.

"Justice Smith reasoned [that] resistance to overreaching federal power both flows from and is felicitous to a solemn oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, not contrary to it," the brief read. "Even more, Justice Smith concluded, such resistance is a necessary preservative of state sovereignty."

Marriage cannot be redefined by the U.S. Supreme Court because the court did not define it in the first place, the Liberty Counsel brief said. Quoting the Declaration of Independence, the brief said the court's high court legal arguments "contravene 'the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.'"

"This conjugal view of marriage (as a comprehensive and complementary union of a man and a woman that naturally creates families) was (and is), in fact, 'natural and just' for it mirrored (and continues to mirror to this day) the intrinsic nature of marriage regardless of the five lawyers' newly-laid foundation for this universal institution," the brief read.

The brief quoted heavily from the four dissenting justices in the same-sex marriage case, including from Chief Justice John Roberts.

"This Court is not a legislature," Roberts wrote. ". . . Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. ... The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent. . . . Just who do we think we are?"

Read Liberty Counsel's entire brief here.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-09-2015, 09:28 AM
http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/not.over.alabama.supreme.court.should.reject.marri age.decision.legal.group.says/49230.htm


Not over? Alabama Supreme Court should reject marriage decision, legal group says
by Michael Foust | 10 July, 2015

ORLANDO, Fla. (Christian Examiner) -- A prominent legal organization has filed a 36-page brief urging the Alabama Supreme Court to reject the U.S. Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision, saying the ruling was an "assault" on the rule of law and natural law and that it defied the very words in the Declaration of Independence.

Further, the new brief says, there is major precedent in the nation's history for a state court to ignore a U.S. Supreme Court decision when it is "unlawful."

The brief was filed by Liberty Counsel, which is headed by an attorney Mat Staver who has argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"There is existing precedent for a state's highest court to reject an unlawful mandate from the U.S. Supreme Court," said Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel.

"The hope of our Constitutional Republic rests upon state officials and American citizens who will refuse to allow five, black-robed judges to rob us of our free, representative form of government. A judicial opinion without constitutional basis is not law and should not be followed by any state or citizen."

After the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Alabama Supreme Court invited parties in a state-level same-sex marriage case "to submit any motions or briefs addressing the effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell on this Court's existing orders." Liberty Counsel's brief was in response to that invitation. Roy Moore serves as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

"In determining the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's Obergefell decision on this Court's prior orders, this Court should consider several important factors," the brief reads. "These include the decision's substantial assault on the Rule of Law, Democracy, and Natural Law, and its necessary diminishment of the constitutional right to Free Exercise of Religion. Furthermore, this Court should consider existing precedent for a state's highest court to reject an unlawful mandate from the U.S. Supreme Court."

The Liberty Counsel brief pointed to a pre-Civil War Wisconsin case in which that state's Supreme Court rejected the authority of federal fugitive slave slaves, which were intended to ensure the return of runaway slaves. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled against Wisconsin, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court remained defiant and never recognized the decision. To this day, the case is celebrated on the Wisconsin state court system website.

The brief quotes former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Abram D. Smith, who argued state officials had "duty" to resist federal powers that were "not expressly granted or necessarily implied in the federal constitution."

State officials are bound not simply by the federal constitution but by their respective state constitution, Liberty Counsel said.

Smith "recognized that state judges are duty bound to resist unconstitutional federal usurpations of authority by their solemn oaths to their states," the brief said, implying that by not rejecting the same-sex marriage decision, state officials would be violating their oath.

"Justice Smith reasoned [that] resistance to overreaching federal power both flows from and is felicitous to a solemn oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, not contrary to it," the brief read. "Even more, Justice Smith concluded, such resistance is a necessary preservative of state sovereignty."

Marriage cannot be redefined by the U.S. Supreme Court because the court did not define it in the first place, the Liberty Counsel brief said. Quoting the Declaration of Independence, the brief said the court's high court legal arguments "contravene 'the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.'"

"This conjugal view of marriage (as a comprehensive and complementary union of a man and a woman that naturally creates families) was (and is), in fact, 'natural and just' for it mirrored (and continues to mirror to this day) the intrinsic nature of marriage regardless of the five lawyers' newly-laid foundation for this universal institution," the brief read.

The brief quoted heavily from the four dissenting justices in the same-sex marriage case, including from Chief Justice John Roberts.

"This Court is not a legislature," Roberts wrote. ". . . Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. ... The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent. . . . Just who do we think we are?"

Read Liberty Counsel's entire brief here.

Looks like Alabama is going to reject and then thumb its nose at the insane and unconstitutional SCOTUS decision on forcing states to sanctify gay marriage.
Knew it would have to be a Southern state to point the way to fight for religious freedom, states rights and constitutional integrity .. --Tyr

Motown
10-09-2015, 10:10 AM
Good, I hope other states follow this example and at least consider whether or not the USSC acted Constitutionally because this country needs to have a debate about this.

fj1200
10-09-2015, 10:16 AM
Oh geez.

Gunny
10-09-2015, 10:20 AM
Looks like Alabama is going to reject and then thumb its nose at the insane and unconstitutional SCOTUS decision on forcing states to sanctify gay marriage.
Knew it would have to be a Southern state to point the way to fight for religious freedom, states rights and constitutional integrity .. --Tyr

I'm so proud to be half Alabaman half Texan. :salute:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-09-2015, 10:30 AM
I'm so proud to be half Alabaman half Texan. :salute:

My dad came from Alabama/Georgia, my mother from Tennessee/Mississippi, raised their family in Arkansas.
Southern blood, Native American blood, English/Irish/German /Danish /Viking blood in these veins. :salute:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-09-2015, 10:31 AM
Oh geez.

Two words--all you could muster.. And obvious words indicating ridicule..
Why am I not shocked that you made such a reply????--Tyr

Motown
10-09-2015, 10:32 AM
My dad came from Alabama/Georgia, my mother from Tennessee/Mississippi, raised their family in Arkansas.
Southern blood, Native American blood, English/Irish/German /Danish /Viking blood in these veins. :salute:

If you can figure out a way to get rid of the English/Irish/Native/Southern you'll be all set :laugh2:

Gunny
10-09-2015, 10:37 AM
My dad came from Alabama/Georgia, my mother from Tennessee/Mississippi, raised their family in Arkansas.
Southern blood, Native American blood, English/Irish/German /Danish /Viking blood in these veins. :salute:

My family is from New Market, 16 miles east of Huntsville. About 50 miles west of Scottsborough. And guess what that town is named after. Scots. Cranky lot and don't like being pushed around. Especially by a stupid government and tyrant who thinks he's king.

fj1200
10-09-2015, 10:57 AM
Two words--all you could muster..

There was a lot in those two words. There are countless other threads where I've shown your error already.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-10-2015, 09:05 AM
There was a lot in those two words. There are countless other threads where I've shown your error already.

Only thing that outranks your arrogance is that vivid imagination!--:laugh:--Tyr

fj1200
10-10-2015, 10:00 AM
Only thing that outranks your arrogance is that vivid imagination!--:laugh:--Tyr

It's not my imagination that you chose not to rationally discuss any points made. It's FACT.

fj1200
10-10-2015, 10:07 AM
Looks like Alabama is going to reject and then thumb its nose at the insane and unconstitutional SCOTUS decision on forcing states to sanctify gay marriage.
Knew it would have to be a Southern state to point the way to fight for religious freedom, states rights and constitutional integrity .. --Tyr

Alabama won't thumb it's nose IMO and it really doesn't have a Constitutional leg to stand on. Interracial marriage bans were State unconstitutional until the early 2000s IIRC and they still honored interracial marriages. The recent decision is not an issue of religious freedom and the States rights were co-opted by the Federal a long time ago in many different ways forcing any issue of Constitutional integrity to grant gay marriage via equal protection.

/cliffnotes

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-10-2015, 12:24 PM
Alabama won't thumb it's nose IMO and it really doesn't have a Constitutional leg to stand on. Interracial marriage bans were State unconstitutional until the early 2000s IIRC and they still honored interracial marriages. The recent decision is not an issue of religious freedom and the States rights were co-opted by the Federal a long time ago in many different ways forcing any issue of Constitutional integrity to grant gay marriage via equal protection.

/cliffnotes

You had better wait to see hoss. I think they may actually thumb their nose and if so they will have done this nation and our freedoms a great service.--Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-10-2015, 12:29 PM
It's not my imagination that you chose not to rationally discuss any points made. It's FACT.

So says the most famous member here in issuing one-liners and/or single smilie replies!
Your record stands for all to see.
Define your definition of "rational" and not the one you and your liberal friends adhere to-- "as in- one must agree with lib insanity" ! Tyr

fj1200
10-13-2015, 10:08 AM
You had better wait to see hoss. I think they may actually thumb their nose and if so they will have done this nation and our freedoms a great service.--Tyr

A. If they don't I'm sure you'll never admit you're wrong. B. If they do it will result in nothing.


So says the most famous member here in issuing one-liners and/or single smilie replies!
Your record stands for all to see.
Define your definition of "rational" and not the one you and your liberal friends adhere to-- "as in- one must agree with lib insanity" ! Tyr

Interesting you make that post while specifically not addressing the points I've made. Rational can be met merely by discussing points without your typical rants and whining about imaginary "libs." I'll post my record against yours any day.