PeteF 1,044 Posted March 7, 2016 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" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted March 7, 2016 Not even remotely connected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T Bill 649 Posted March 7, 2016 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PeteF 1,044 Posted March 7, 2016 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. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted March 7, 2016 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PeteF 1,044 Posted March 7, 2016 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted March 7, 2016 Because that aint guns, bro. Guns don't have the weight in the Constitution that adoptions do. Because courts are responsible for amending the Constitution. How come Al Qaeda is never around when you actually need them? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted March 7, 2016 I have no idea what kidnapping you are talking about, the article doesn't mention it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PeteF 1,044 Posted March 8, 2016 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. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted March 8, 2016 Sorry dude, you are reaching. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted March 8, 2016 This sounds more like a custody or visitation rights battle. Some savvy lawyer went way outside the box. For the movement.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PeteF 1,044 Posted March 8, 2016 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted March 8, 2016 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). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,125 Posted March 8, 2016 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted March 8, 2016 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin125 4,772 Posted March 8, 2016 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted March 8, 2016 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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin125 4,772 Posted March 8, 2016 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..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted March 8, 2016 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted March 8, 2016 Not 100% how I screwed that up lapper Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin125 4,772 Posted March 8, 2016 us lapper's make sure those really good lines don't get messed up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted March 8, 2016 Lol. It's an interesting point. Ya ll see that there constitution was fer all da people's. Not jus the the northerners or da southerners, or the oalkleys Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njpilot 671 Posted March 9, 2016 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted March 9, 2016 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
10X 3,278 Posted March 9, 2016 currently over a trillion people are in polygamist marriages Trillion? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted March 9, 2016 Trillion? LOL, wrong window. I was discussing US deficits. Fortunately I didn't ask anybody to show me their coochie Good catch, not even going to edit it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
intercooler 41 Posted March 9, 2016 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin125 4,772 Posted March 9, 2016 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites