From: "John D.Wentzky" 

"Anlatt the Builder"  wrote in message
news: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.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag