No amendment should take precedence but the Supreme Court ruling violates the clear language of the 1st in that it restricts the practice of faith. No longer can a person of any faith rely on the government to protect that right. Now we must have the government decide if our practice is acceptable to them. More and more we have a battle, costly and time consuming, to get the government to allow us to practice our faith. Instead of government being limited and not infringing, it is we who are being limited.
Although I am Christian, this applies to all people regardless of what faith they practice. When they applied this ruling to the 14th amendment, they basically said the 1st amendment no longer applies. This on it’s face nullifies the 1st and by doing so their ruling is unconstitutional.
The states are under no obligation to obey an unconstitutional ruling and have in the past done so when they outlawed slavery even though it was the law of the land. Supreme Courts are not always right, they were not in the Dred Scott decision.
Absolutely Looploo. As it stand now we have an unjust Supreme Court and Administration. I would also add there is no place in the Constitution for marriage, not even the 14th Amendment. hence, despite my lack of legal expertise, I am certain that would bring up the discussion of the validity of the ruling. It is a state issue, not Federal.
Loading...
I agree with you Joy. However, I did not write the article.Sorry, I don’t have a “constitutional” mind.
You are absolutely right Pastor Carter, it is a state right issue that the Federal government should not be involved in, nor is there anywhere that the Supreme Court has that right. It is just something that they have decided to opt in on. I am not a constitutional authority either, it is just that what they have done does not follow the rules of logic. John Roberts acknowledged that in his opinion but people that want this don’t really care as long as they get what they want. If we continue down this road our Constitution means nothing. Sadly I don’t think most people care anymore and won’t until it impacts them.
I didn’t think any amendment cancelled out another or that one had precedence over the other. By the way, Bill, “justices” and not “justice’s”. 😉
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:19 PM, preachercarter wrote:
> loopyloo305 posted: ” “
No amendment should take precedence but the Supreme Court ruling violates the clear language of the 1st in that it restricts the practice of faith. No longer can a person of any faith rely on the government to protect that right. Now we must have the government decide if our practice is acceptable to them. More and more we have a battle, costly and time consuming, to get the government to allow us to practice our faith. Instead of government being limited and not infringing, it is we who are being limited.
Although I am Christian, this applies to all people regardless of what faith they practice. When they applied this ruling to the 14th amendment, they basically said the 1st amendment no longer applies. This on it’s face nullifies the 1st and by doing so their ruling is unconstitutional.
The states are under no obligation to obey an unconstitutional ruling and have in the past done so when they outlawed slavery even though it was the law of the land. Supreme Courts are not always right, they were not in the Dred Scott decision.
Absolutely Looploo. As it stand now we have an unjust Supreme Court and Administration. I would also add there is no place in the Constitution for marriage, not even the 14th Amendment. hence, despite my lack of legal expertise, I am certain that would bring up the discussion of the validity of the ruling. It is a state issue, not Federal.
I agree with you Joy. However, I did not write the article.Sorry, I don’t have a “constitutional” mind.
You are absolutely right Pastor Carter, it is a state right issue that the Federal government should not be involved in, nor is there anywhere that the Supreme Court has that right. It is just something that they have decided to opt in on. I am not a constitutional authority either, it is just that what they have done does not follow the rules of logic. John Roberts acknowledged that in his opinion but people that want this don’t really care as long as they get what they want. If we continue down this road our Constitution means nothing. Sadly I don’t think most people care anymore and won’t until it impacts them.