Jump to content
PeteF

Supreme court creates national reciprocity?

Recommended Posts

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/07/supreme-court-voids-alabama-ruling-against-lesbian-adoption.html

 

By another overeach of their powers, did they just create national reciprocity? By forcing Alabama to accept a Georgia document, how can they say that ANY carry permit is invalid in any state? I can see this applied to almost anything. Magazine legal in Pa, must be legal in NJ after all "in full faith and credit"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More to this story than in print. How do two Alabama residents petition a Georgia court?  Something is missing here!  Agree with Vlad, not even remotely related.  However given the way SCOTUS is ruling lately, at some point I do believe they will step on their own toes, refuse to acknowledge it and then that is the beginning of the end.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even remotely connected.

Why not?

Al residents do adoption in Ga.

Nj resident get Fl non res ccw.

 

SC says Al must acknowledge Ga adoption, which is unlawful in Al.

 

So by simple word replacement.

SC says NJ must acknowledge FL CCW, which is unlawful in NJ.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because one set happens in civil court and the other set happens in criminal court. 

 

There is zero doubt that the SC is perfectly ok with various things being a criminal act in one state but not the other, it has been this way for a very long time on many different topics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because one set happens in civil court and the other set happens in criminal court.

 

There is zero doubt that the SC is perfectly ok with various things being a criminal act in one state but not the other, it has been this way for a very long time on many different topics.

What is the name of the crime for taking someones children without proper authorization from the legal gaurdian? Lets see, thats right kidnapping. A pretty serious CRIMINAL offense. That is exactly what the charge would have been if the second mommy took the first mommy's kids in Al under the Al SC ruling. But the USSC said no. So that crime angle is not applicable. My CCW was issued by a Dept of Agriculture. Not a LE agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what kidnapping you are talking about, the article doesn't mention it.

The whole case is about custody and visitation rights. Mommy 1 tried to have the adoption in GA nullified to limit Mommy 2's access to her children. She used the fact that the Ga adoption is not valid because it was not legal in Al. Now with over turn of Al Sc decision Mommy 2, can pick up kids without any permission from Mommy 1. Following Al law, that would be kidnapping. But hey thats okay because USSC said Al laws don't mean anything because.

 

You say its different because of civil vs criminal. The USSC decision allows mommy 2 to commit what would be a criminal act in Al.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds more like a custody or visitation rights battle. Some savvy lawyer went way outside the box. For the movement....

Exactly. And the SC said that one states laws had to be followed in another state, even though there was a conflict in the home state. This is where my conclusion comes from. I as NJ resident get a Fl non resident CCW. NJ claims I am breaking the law if I try and use it in NJ. But according to this decision, full faith and credit of Fls decision overides NJ law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. And the SC said that one states laws had to be followed in another state, even though there was a conflict in the home state. This is where my conclusion comes from. I as NJ resident get a Fl non resident CCW. NJ claims I am breaking the law if I try and use it in NJ. But according to this decision, full faith and credit of Fls decision overides NJ law.

See here's the rub with that.

We pti, or drop here. They ain't stupid.

To go to the supremes takes $ and a victim(s) and time.

 

I understand your POV.( point of view in Zeke speak).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete, I understand what you're saying, and I like your thinking.  The SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage established the same precedent.  Under the 14th Amendment, a right in one state cannot be denied in another state.  In other words, everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law.

 

Logically, that should open the door to CCW reciprocity, but unfortunately, it seems that logic does not apply to gun laws.  Which is really weird,because the RKBA is enumerated in the Constitution, while gay marriage is never mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete, I understand what you're saying, and I like your thinking. The SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage established the same precedent. Under the 14th Amendment, a right in one state cannot be denied in another state. In other words, everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law.

 

Logically, that should open the door to CCW reciprocity, but unfortunately, it seems that logic does not apply to gun laws. Which is really weird,because the RKBA is enumerated in the Constitution, while gay marriage is never mentioned.

Ergo a case. Which is why I'm all for out of state ccw here.

Baby steps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gay marriage case was a bad application of the 14th ammend't.  But... if they used... we should be able to use it.  It's certainly no worse.  And that case could be an example of the same logic.  I doubt we're the only ones thinking about it. Someone will come with a case eventually.  The only real obstacle is who picks the replacements for Scalia, Ginsberg, Breyer and Souter.... and Thomas.

 

But that gay marriage case violated the 10th ammend't.  The Federal Gov't has no ability to dictate the application of one state's laws upon another state.   Reading through the Constitution.....  nope... that's not enumerated as something the Feds are allowed to do.

 

Ultimately, the ruling has to say that states can not restrict the Constitutional rights of a citizen of the united States.  Specifically those granted by the 2A. But we need a SC that have 5 justices that actually believe what the Constitution says... not what they'd like it to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gay marriage case was a bad application of the 14th ammend't. But... if they used... we should be able to use it. It's certainly no worse. And that case could be an example of the same logic. I doubt we're the only ones thinking about it. Someone will come with a case eventually. The only real obstacle is who picks the replacements for Scalia, Ginsberg, Breyer and Souter.... and Thomas.

 

But that gay marriage case violated the 10th ammend't. The Federal Gov't has no ability to dictate the application of one state's laws upon another state. Reading through the Constitution..... nope... that's not enumerated as something the Feds are allowed to do.

 

Ultimately, the ruling has to say that states can not restrict the Constitutional rights of a citizen of the united States. Specifically those granted by the 2A. But we need a SC that have 5 justices that actually believe what the Constitution says... not what they'd like it to say.

Mx'r gets it.

But!

Separation of church and state. Why did I need a marriage liscense to marry Mrs Zeke? We used a justice of the peace.( it's most likely she knew the church would catch on fire if I entered)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol... 

 

I'm not sure which angle you have on the marriage license thing. 

 

And remember "separation of church and state" is not part of the Constitution.   It simply says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" .. ie.. Henry VIII's Church of England... or persecution over practicing a religion.   That's it. 

 

That means there is no favoring of one religion over another by the Gov't and and citizens are free to practice their religion.  Implicit is that as long as that practice doesn't involve breaking other laws.  Like shooting some other guy's horse to sacrifice it.

 

"Separation of Church and State" is a concept like concealed carry permits.  Someone dreamed Separation up based on some letter Jefferson wrote.  CC permits are some nanny state zealot's dream.

 

A marriage license is a gov't issued document that gets you some rights and some benefits.  It's got nothing to do with religion, except your ceremony can be in a church if you want or at the court house or done by someone licensed to marry people.

 

If you mean why is the Gov't involved in your religious sacrament.... good question.   Maybe to deal with polygamy, divorces and I guess tax rates and deductions.  Not really sure.

 

Probably getting off Pete's topic though.  And this makes my brain hurt... remember.. I just corner left and right and go over stuff.... and crash now and then..... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

lol...

 

I'm not sure which angle you have on the marriage license thing.

 

And remember "separation of church and state" is not part of the Constitution. It simply says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" .. ie..

 

A marriage license is a gov't issued document that gets you some rights and some benefits. It's got nothing to do with religion, except your ceremony can be in a church if you want or at the court house or done by someone licensed to marry people.

 

quote]

Thank you. It always better to have friends smarter than you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gay marriage case was a bad application of the 14th ammend't.  But... if they used... we should be able to use it.  It's certainly no worse.  And that case could be an example of the same logic.  I doubt we're the only ones thinking about it. Someone will come with a case eventually.  The only real obstacle is who picks the replacements for Scalia, Ginsberg, Breyer and Souter.... and Thomas.

 

Souter's been gone for a few years. Kennedy?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

lol... 

 

I'm not sure which angle you have on the marriage license thing. 

 

And remember "separation of church and state" is not part of the Constitution.   It simply says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" .. ie.. Henry VIII's Church of England... or persecution over practicing a religion.   That's it. 

 

That means there is no favoring of one religion over another by the Gov't and and citizens are free to practice their religion.  Implicit is that as long as that practice doesn't involve breaking other laws.  Like shooting some other guy's horse to sacrifice it.

 

"Separation of Church and State" is a concept like concealed carry permits.  Someone dreamed Separation up based on some letter Jefferson wrote.  CC permits are some nanny state zealot's dream.

 

A marriage license is a gov't issued document that gets you some rights and some benefits.  It's got nothing to do with religion, except your ceremony can be in a church if you want or at the court house or done by someone licensed to marry people.

 

If you mean why is the Gov't involved in your religious sacrament.... good question.   Maybe to deal with polygamy, divorces and I guess tax rates and deductions.  Not really sure.

 

Probably getting off Dave's topic though.  And this makes my brain hurt... remember.. I just corner left and right and go over stuff.... and crash now and then..... 

 

 

Why do you think the federal government has been given a right to ban polygamy? It's been in every culture in human history and currently over a trillion people are in polygamist marriages. The same can't be said for homosexual marriage anywhere in history.

 

Are you trying to impose your personal morality on others regarding limitations of marriage rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete, I understand what you're saying, and I like your thinking.  The SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage established the same precedent.  Under the 14th Amendment, a right in one state cannot be denied in another state.  In other words, everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law.

 

Logically, that should open the door to CCW reciprocity, but unfortunately, it seems that logic does not apply to gun laws.  Which is really weird,because the RKBA is enumerated in the Constitution, while gay marriage is never mentioned.

spoke to a lawyer friend of mine...it has merit to do exactly that. each ruling adds to the potential 14th suit...that is the way the libs work, we have opputrunity to use it against them. Read the ruling, it most certainly could be applied here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   

 

Why do you think the federal government has been given a right to ban polygamy? It's been in every culture in human history and currently over a trillion people are in polygamist marriages. The same can't be said for homosexual marriage anywhere in history.

 

Are you trying to impose your personal morality on others regarding limitations of marriage rights?

Huh?  He asked about marriage licenses.  I gave my thoughts about the question.... followed up with "I'm not sure."  Where does imposition of anyone's morality come into this?  I'm not arguing for or against any of the crap about marriage.  Just tossing out some thoughts about what Zeke brought up.  There's no need to drum up drama where none exists.

 

Souter.. lol.. yeah... brain fart..  Kennedy was who I meant.  Good thing I didn't say Marshall....

 

And back to Pete's original point.  More things like this probably help us.  Regardless of whether or not they create issues with ammendt's other than the 14th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...