From: "Anlatt the Builder" 

On Mar 21, 12:10 am, "John D.Wentzky"
 wrote:
> "Anlatt the Builder"  wrote in
messagenews:1174458762.673921.268030{at}e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 9:08 pm, "John D.Wentzky"

> > wrote:
> >> Innews:1174448638.819863.325890{at}e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com,
> >> Anlatt the Builder  typed:
>
> >> > On Mar 20, 8:11 pm, "John D.Wentzky"

> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Innews:46008222$0$18887$4c368faf{at}roadrunner.com,
> >> >> Dionisio  typed:
>
> >> >>> John D.Wentzky wrote:
>
> >> >>>> Attila  typed:
> >> >>>>> Exactly where does the Constitution
address marriage laws?  Please
> >> >>>>> be specific, with quotes.
>
> >> >>>> Where it says that the powers the states
already reserved to
> >> >>>> themselves can not be usurped by the federal
government.
>
> >> >>> Well, if no one else has jumped on this, I will:
>
> >> >>> So, Mr. Wentzky, what you seem to be saying is
that in those states
> >> >>> -- yes, plural -- where the right to define
marriage (or Civil
> >> >>> Union, or whatever) has been reserved by said
states to cover
> >> >>> same-sex couples; You contend that the Feds can
do nothing about it?
>
> >> >> If the States in question have done so legally via their own
> >> >> Constitutionally required process, such would be true.
> >> >> But, to my knowledge no state has done such to this date.
>
> >> > When a state supreme court declares that a restriction
in law (such
> >> > as, in this case, the restriction of marriage to
mixed-sex couples) is
> >> > unconstitutional under the state constitution, that *IS*
"their own
> >> > Constitutionally required process."
>
> >> Actuallu, it isn't their Constitutionally required process.
>
> >> > Courts are permitted to declare laws unconstitutional.
>
> >> Wrong.
>
> > Courts. Are not. Permitted. To declare laws. Unconstitutional.
>
> > You actually claim that?
>
> Yes. At least in part.
> There are rules to be adhered to.
>
> > Where have you been the last 200 years? How far outside the solar
> > system is your home planet?
>
> > Sir, you are simply and obviously making false statements. You are
> > either delusional or a liar. Take your pick.
>
> Ideally, the courts would not strike down laws.
> It is my opinion that Constitutionalist judges should be involved in the
> law-making process to ensure that they will not need to strike it after the
> representative process has been completed

That's an interesting opinion which happens to be at odds with the way the
U.S. legal system works. Perhaps there is some other country you're
thinking of, where the legal system works that way.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag