From: "Anlatt the Builder" 

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?

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.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag