AMERICA HAS BEEN PUNKED! SMOKING GUN!
2015 SCOTUS GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT IS ILLEGAL!
By the words of the same five justices who struck down DOMA!
Please share this video across the nation. Send it to your congressman today.
By the words of the same five justices who struck down DOMA!
Please share this video across the nation. Send it to your congressman today.
In U.S. v. Windsor (the 2013 SCOTUS decision that overturned the Defense of Marriage Act), the five majority justices EXPLICITLY STATED THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER MARRIAGE LAWS.
Here are a few excerpts from that opinion:
"Regulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”
"Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders.”
"The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the protection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.”
"The states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce . . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”
“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.” "Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations."
"The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”
"Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State."
"Federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.”
Here are a few excerpts from that opinion:
"Regulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”
"Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders.”
"The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the protection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.”
"The states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce . . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”
“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.” "Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations."
"The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”
"Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State."
"Federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.”
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.