State Constitution vs. US Constitution

Forums: Us, Constitution, Constitutional Law, State
Email this Topic • Print this Page

If I am guaranteed a specific Constitutional Right in my State Constitution, however, no similar specific right exists in the US constitution, does not my State Right have precedence?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 11 • Views: 5,734 • Replies: 68

[+4] - maxdancona - 09/13/2015[quote]Let's assume that before the gay marriage law, she was deemed qualified to do her job. So, she gets elected to that job. Then the law changes. Isn't a new vetting required, in context of the...
[+3] - maxdancona - 09/08/20151) They are not holding Christians in jail to make them forsake their beliefs. There is no attempt to make anyone forsake their beliefs. There is no one who is in jail because they are a Christian....

@CollierT,

No it does not take precedence, particularly in cases where your so-called "right" comes into conflict with someone else's right that is actually guaranteed by the US law.

Do you know who George Wallace was?

0 Replies

A right listed in the state constitution would restrain the state government from violating the right.

It would not however restrain the federal government.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

A right listed in the state constitution would restrain the state government from violating the right.

And Kim Davis is a representative of the government.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

And Kim Davis is a representative of the government.

Who is Kim Davis?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

STATE government.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Kim Davis is the government official who refused to give out marriage licenses and was put in jail for this (she was just released).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Kim Davis is the government official who refused to give out marriage licenses and was put in jail for this (she was just released).

Ah. Is this what this thread is about? I've not followed that case, though I do hear it mentioned in the news.

They are going about it the wrong way. They will never be able to force her to uphold the law. She honestly believes this to be a matter of good verses evil. Anything that they could possibly do to her as a disciplinary measure, she will calmly accept, just like Xians once calmly accepted facing hungry lions in Roman arenas.

The only way to resolve this case is to remove her from office. She will never voluntarily resign.

I'm a little disturbed by the way gay rights advocates are spouting such vehement hate at anyone who disagrees with them. I'm beginning to think that we are going to need laws to protect people who disagree with gay rights.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

. I'm beginning to think that we are going to need laws to protect people who disagree with gay rights.

This one sounds like you mean we are going to need laws to protect those that refuse to follow the - even if though they don't like some particular law.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I think you are wrong... and the judge has found a perfectly good solution.

While she was in jail, her deputies (without her approval) were free to approve marriage licenses. The judge then let her out of jail with explicit instructions for her not to interfere with her deputies. If she disobeys the judge's orders, she will be thrown back in jail.

This is a perfect solution. The onus is put on her to choose to defy the judge, she can choose to go to jail or not, and citizens will get their marriage licenses either way.

I don't see any prominent gay rights advocates spouting hatred. Would you like to give an example of what you are talking about?

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

This one sounds like you mean we are going to need laws to protect those that refuse to follow the - even if though they don't like some particular law.

I think you edited that only halfway?

Anyway, it depends on what you mean. If someone is not following the law, that does not make it OK for pro-gay advocates to destroy their lives.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I think you are wrong... and the judge has found a perfectly good solution.

While she was in jail, her deputies (without her approval) were free to approve marriage licenses. The judge then let her out of jail with explicit instructions for her not to interfere with her deputies. If she disobeys the judge's orders, she will be thrown back in jail.

This is a perfect solution. The onus is put on her to choose to defy the judge, she can choose to go to jail or not, and citizens will get their marriage licenses either way.

I don't think holding Xians in jail for the rest of their lives in a futile attempt to make them forsake their beliefs is a good solution for America. Why not just feed them to hungry lions?

maxdancona wrote:

I don't see any prominent gay rights advocates spouting hatred. Would you like to give an example of what you are talking about?

I've heard a lot of hateful statements directed at this lady.

I also recall there were some store owners who faced a fine that forced them out of business because they would not serve same sex couples. There was a webpage posted for people to donate to them. The donation website was barraged with hate until they took down the donation page for that business, and then many gay people gloated over the misfortune of the former store owners.

I can see the legitimacy of the fines to force compliance with the law. But preventing them from receiving donations (and then gloating when they were prevented from getting donations) was completely uncalled for.

1 Reply

If each State Constitution were to take precedence over the US Constitution, we would not have the United States of America. We would end up with 50 new countries. Each of the 50 states have the right to create their own constitution and their own laws just as long as it isn't in conflict with the US constitution and federal laws. That is why we are the United States of America.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quite right. I left out a word, and we still seem to disagree. The issue is following the law; not about someone destroying the law breaker's life. You seem to want to defend defiance of the law. So, do it as a protest but be prepared for the consequences.

1 Reply

I noticed that this discussion is now talking about that city clerk in Kentucky who has refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples due to her religious belief. I was waiting for someone to start this discussion. I have been following this case closely from the very beginning. Being that she is a public employee/official, isn't she suppose to be doing the job that tax payers are paying her to do. No one is forcing her to remain in her current employment status with the government. She has the right to quit anytime she wishes to quit. This is not a church. This is not some private business or private company she is working for. What's next? Can a DMV employee refuse to issue a drivers license to a woman because his religious belief does not allow women to drive? Can a US postman refuse to deliver a playboy magazine subscription to any of his customers because his religion says it is wrong to possess pornographic material? Can a police officer refuse to arrest a man for beating his wife because the police officer's religion says the man has the right to beat his wife? Where does this end? You are a government employee. Obey the law and do your job or quit and go into the private sector. You do have that right.

2 Replies

@Real Music,

All that, and she was ordered by a judge to do the job. She refused and was held in contempt.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

1) They are not holding Christians in jail to make them forsake their beliefs. There is no attempt to make anyone forsake their beliefs. There is no one who is in jail because they are a Christian.

2) They are holding a public governmental official in jail for defying a court order. The charge is contempt of court. Any public official who defies a court order can be put into jail. This is the only reason that this woman was in jail.

3) They are not putting anyone in jail "for the rest of her life". In fact, she is currently out of jail.

4) Name a public figure who has not had "hateful statement" directed at them. Many public figures have had people say mean things about them without failing to keep their oath of office or keeping fellow Americans from getting married.

5) The prominent gay rights activists have been persistent, but they have been far from hateful. Many if not most were arguing against this lady being held in jail.

6) Putting people in jail based on "contempt of court" is not only effective, it is appropriate. This is the way that judges ensure that the authority is respected. People can't be allowed to defy the direct lawful order of a judge.

7) This woman has stated she is acting by the authority of God. As a public official who has sworn to uphold the laws and the Constitution of her state and country, this is bogus. She is breaking her oath of office. She deserves the consequence. God has no say in this.

2 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

The issue is following the law; not about someone destroying the law breaker's life.

The issue I was complaining about was the efforts of gay rights advocates to destroy the lives of those who disagree with them.

roger wrote:

You seem to want to defend defiance of the law.

That depends on the law I guess.

roger wrote:

So, do it as a protest but be prepared for the consequences.

The consequences should not involve having your life destroyed by gay rights advocates.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1) They are not holding Christians in jail to make them forsake their beliefs. There is no attempt to make anyone forsake their beliefs. There is no one who is in jail because they are a Christian.

When you put someone in jail and do not release them until they violate their beliefs, you are putting them in jail until they forsake their beliefs.

maxdancona wrote:

2) They are holding a public governmental official in jail for defying a court order. The charge is contempt of court. Any public official who defies a court order can be put into jail. This is the only reason that this woman was in jail.

You are glossing over the fact that the court order requires her to forsake her beliefs.

maxdancona wrote:

3) They are not putting anyone in jail "for the rest of her life". In fact, she is currently out of jail.

I expect she will soon be returned to jail. And when you put someone in jail until they forsake their beliefs, and they refuse to forsake their beliefs, you are effectively putting them in jail for the rest of their lives.

maxdancona wrote:

4) Name a public figure who has not had "hateful statement" directed at them.
5) The prominent gay rights activists have been persistent, but they have been far from hateful. Many if not most were arguing against this lady being held in jail.

Perhaps it is some of the non-prominent ones who are filled with hate. At any rate, people should be protected from that hate.

maxdancona wrote:

6) Putting people in jail based on "contempt of court" is not only effective, it is appropriate. This is the way that judges ensure that the authority is respected. People can't be allowed to defy the direct lawful order of a judge.

We might get a better intimidation effect if we start feeding Xians to hungry lions in front of spectators.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

You are glossing over the fact that the court order requires her to forsake her beliefs.

The losing side of any legal decision has to forsake their beliefs. You still have to accept the legal decision or face the consequences.

1 Reply

State Constitution vs. US Constitution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know