Don't it make my Red state Blue...

[asphaltjunkie]

The Feds, or a single judge?

Federal judge. In the United States, the title of federal judge usually means a judge appointed by the President of the United States. Orlando Garcia was appointed by Clinton. Was a Texas State Representative as a Democrat member. Not helping refute my conspiracy theorist-like claims.

[Gargamel]

While I'm personally against same sex marriage, I find the issue about #51,000 on the list of priorities for this country.

I'm much more worried about activist federal judges and the power they seem to have defining the "rights" of the state.

What if we were talking say.... a Federal Judge found private property rights unconstitutional?

Would the Federal government have the power to "stay" or "negate" private property rights in Texas as the case crawled up the system?

The State of Texas amended its constitution to define "Marriage" as between man and woman.

Does the judicial arm of federal government have the power to declare a state constitution "unconstitutional"?

I'm not worried about the subject as much as I am the process.

The power of the Federal Government, in my opinion, has grown into something that the Founders never would have intended.

and yes, blue is coming, and its going to be everywhere.... it's only a matter of time.

[Chili]

While I'm personally against same sex marriage, I find the issue about #51,000 on the list of priorities for this country.

I'm much more worried about activist federal judges and the power they seem to have defining the "rights" of the state.

What if we were talking say.... a Federal Judge found private property rights unconstitutional?

Would the Federal government have the power to "stay" or "negate" private property rights in Texas as the case crawled up the system?

Or what if the State of Texas amended its constitution to define "Marriage" as between man and woman?

Does the judicial arm of federal government have the power to declare a state constitution "unconstitutional"?

I'm not worried about the subject as much as I am the process.

The power of the Federal Government, in my opinion, has grown into something that the Founders never would have intended.

and yes, blue is coming, and its going to be everywhere.... it's only a matter of time.

Judicial powers haven't changed. The next step on an issue like this one is to appeal to a higher court, the highest being the Supreme Court. If they all uphold it, or if the Supreme Court chooses not to hear it, then too bad, so sad.

[Chili]

Maybe this will help some understand how all this works:

http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/government/branches.html

and:

http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/government/national/judicial.html

[Gargamel]

Judicial powers haven't changed. The next step on an issue like this one is to appeal to a higher court, the highest being the Supreme Court. If they all uphold it, or if the Supreme Court chooses not to hear it, then too bad, so sad.

So basically you are stating that just 1 arm of the federal government can go against the will of a state or states. (What... maybe 4 or 5 judges in total)

Obviously it can....

What I'm saying is that there is no way in hell that any state rep at the constitutional convention would have been OK with that, much less signed on the dotted line.

The Civil War was much less about slavery than State's rights....

Thanks for the links, but I'm well aware of how it works.... I'm saying that how it has "grown" to work over the centuries would never have been embraced by the people who signed the constitution in the first place.

[Pro88LX]

worrying about what a gay guy does with his junk is the 3rd gayest thing you can do.

[racrguy]

So basically you are stating that just 1 arm of the federal government can go against the will of a state or states. (What... maybe 4 or 5 judges in total)

Obviously it can....

What I'm saying is that there is no way in hell that any state rep at the constitutional convention would have been OK with that, much less signed on the dotted line.

The Civil War was much less about slavery than State's rights....

Thanks for the links, but I'm well aware of how it works.... I'm saying that how it has "grown" to work over the centuries would never have been embraced by the people who signed the constitution in the first place.

Except that's what they did in the constitutional convention. Do I need to cite the part of the Constitution that gives them this power?

[Sean88gt]

Non issue. Why shouldn't Brent be happy too?

[talisman]

Glad to hear it.

[bird_dog0347]

Who effing cares, worry about your damn self and not what other people want to do in their private lives and this isn't an issue. Government should stay out of our private lives, and this includes LGBT crowd as well. It's no one else's damn business.

One of my close friends is completely against gay marriage and when I press him on the issue he says it is due to his religious beliefs. However he chooses to ignore the side of those christian beliefs that would have him forgive others and help him to understand that it's not his place to judge them. He also claims to be a staunch republican but I can't see how they can be soooooo against government control except when it is used to exude power that isn't theirs.

I'm a conservative, but this whole thing bugs the crap out of me. Who gives a damn, that is actually minding their own business?

For the record I'm straight and married, I have a gay uncle and my sister in law is gay and wants BADLY to get married to her woman but can't in this state.

[talisman]

I think a lot more people that think they are Conservatives are really Libertarians these days. Especially in this state.

[Gargamel]

Except that's what they did in the constitutional convention. Do I need to cite the part of the Constitution that gives them this power?

You mean the Supremacy Clause of Article VI?
Also, under Article III, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution....

So maybe you were referring to one of those...

(Some of us don't need Google to have a valid conversation.)

Anyway, my view on this is much more in line with the 10th Amendment strictly read.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were also proponents of nullification and interposition when it came to state's rights if needed (Kentucky\Virginia Resolutions 1798)

I understand that the federal court system over the years have generally found the constitutionality of nullification and interposition void (of course it has), but I view it as within the original spirit of the document itself as the States formed the Union by compact in the first place.

The Federalist papers state that federal laws are supreme to state law, so long as they are within the federal government's delegated powers.
And it does not directly addresses the question of who is to decide whether the federal government has exceeded its powers.

Anyway, I understand that case law has generally shifted generic power to Federal control of just about everything since the Civil War, but it is my opinion (call it a minority dissent) that we have reached the point where the Federal Government just has too much power in the every day lives of Americans from taxes to commerce and wealth distribution.

I also believe that many of the delegates at the convention of our founding document would not recognize many of the decisions made in it's name.

I'm going go ahead and put my tin foil hat back on now....

[Gargamel]

I think a lot more people that think they are Conservatives are really Libertarians these days. Especially in this state.

I actually agree with this statement....

[talisman]

[Chili]

So basically you are stating that just 1 arm of the federal government can go against the will of a state or states. (What... maybe 4 or 5 judges in total)

Obviously it can....

What I'm saying is that there is no way in hell that any state rep at the constitutional convention would have been OK with that, much less signed on the dotted line.

The Civil War was much less about slavery than State's rights....

Thanks for the links, but I'm well aware of how it works.... I'm saying that how it has "grown" to work over the centuries would never have been embraced by the people who signed the constitution in the first place.

Don't hate the playa, hate the game!

But seriously, I think that our current democratic system has a finite life cycle. I do not believe it will last forever. That's not to say I think that anything will absolutely change in my lifetime, but that I am certain it will, in the not too distant future.

I do agree with your assertions regarding our founding fathers' intent. I do not agree with much of how the Constitution is being "interpreted" these days.

As to the links, I may have totally misinterpreted your post, but I just read it as a very naive take. So I think we're on the same page, I was just being a dick.