XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 7/9/2015 12:03 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:   
   >   
   > "Josh Rosenbluth"  wrote in message   
   > news:mnk357$gck$3@dont-email.me...   
   >> On 7/8/2015 1:46 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> When a majority vote that marriage shall be between one man and one   
   >>> woman, and do so as an amendment to the constitution, then that vote is   
   >>> supreme to any law.   
   >>   
   >> It isn't supreme to the federal Constitution.   
   >   
   >   
   > Now you are changing the subject.   
   >   
   > Assume for a moment that there was an amendment to the US Constitution   
   > that defined marriage as one man and one woman, that amendment would be   
   > supreme to the court.   
   >   
   > A state supreme court cannot, should not be able to, overturn a state   
   > constitutional amendment. The amendment is the constitution. Marriage is   
   > a states right issue, not a federal one.   
      
   Under your assumption, that the federal constitution defined marriage to   
   exclude gay couples, then there would be no need for any state   
   constitutional amendments doing likewise.   
      
   If on the other hand, the federal constitution has no such amendment,   
   state courts are still bound by the federal constitution as the supreme   
   law of the land when judging state constitutional amendments.  Thus, a   
   state court must rule against such an amendment.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)