DOMA Section Deamed Unconstitutional

I have made no secret of the fact that I am against gay marriage, so it may come as a surprise to some that I am happy with this ruling.  I have also made no secret of the fact that I am a huge supporter of the tenth amendment and the rights of states.

Marriage is not the issue of the federal government.  It never has been and will remain that way unless a constitutional amendment on the issue is passed.  While I would like to see that amendment, the chances of it passing at this point in time is basically nill.  Due to that, I have to support this ruling.  Marriage is a state issue and I have never been able to wrap my brain around how a legal marriage could not be recognized by the federal government.

Even Justice Alito acknowledges in his dissent that the constitution doesn't speak on the issue:

no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue.

If no provision speaks to the issue and Americans fully expect our government to treat people equally under the law, what is the justification for the federal government to decide which legally married couple they give benefits to and which couples they don't?

As a limited government. constitutional conservative,  I couldn't find a justifiable reason for that particular section of DOMA being upheld.  This doesn't change my views of gay marriage.  I am against it.  But marriage is state issue, not a federal one.   This is an issue that must be fought on the state level.  If states are going to legalize gay marriage, the federal government has no right to overrule that.  Limited government means just that, limiting the power of the federal government.

The main section of DOMA has not been overturned, a state like Connecticut that has legalized gay marriage has no right to force a state like Virginia to recognize that marriage.  As it should be.

Federal Law, State Law & The Constitution

I have seen much going around on social media on the SCOTUS ruling on Arizona and the motor voter laws.  Yesterday, the court came out with a 7-2 ruling that Arizona couldn't add additional requirements to the federal forms for voter registration.  Arizona wanted to require additional paperwork proving American citizenship.  

On the face it seems silly that the court would come out against this.  But it isn't silly.  It is completely Constitutional.  The federal government gives states money to cover the costs of all seats that are held in the federal government.  The Constitution says:

The Elections Clause, Art. I, §4, cl. 1, provides:
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections
for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed
in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the
Congress may at any time by Law make or alter
such Regulations, except as to the places of chusing
Senators.”

Now that sentence about Senators is no longer valid since the 17th amendment made senators also subject to direct elections.  But the point is the federal government absolutely has the right to decide how registration is done for federal elections.  

The court also has given Arizona a pathway to make changes to the Motor Voter form.  Arizona can, if the so choose, go to the Elections Assistance Commission and ask them to make changes to the federal form.  While that is highly unlikely under the current administration, if they don't like the result, they then can take it to court.  

The Court did not rule on anything other than could a state require additional information on a mail in federal form for registration.  Arizona is free to require additional information on state forms.  Those registration rolls can be cross checked if they so choose to do it.  

The main point of this ruling is that the court did exactly what it was supposed to do, follow the constitution.  You may not necessarily like the outcome, but the federal government has the right and the responsibility to set rules for how federal elections are set up.  If we want changes made to include more safeguards for proof of citizenship, the avenue to do that is there.  The State of Arizona doesn't seem to be shy about pursuing their options, so let them lead the charge to put more safeguards into place.  

You can read Scalia's opinion here.  

Romney's Response to Obamacare Ruling

You know, we had to expect that this could happen.  I really thought that the mandate would go and the balance would stay, therefore forcing congress to either fix or repeal.  It seemed to me to be the best way for a judge to handle it.  They are not elected and shouldn't be making law.  The left had said they thought they could either Scalia and/or Roberts.  What I had read about Scalia was quite compelling.  He has consistently voted for stretching the commerce clause.  Something that I didn't know.  


I was down at the court today.  It was crazy.  I ended up mainly surrounded by supporters of the law, I couldn't get over to the tea party section because of the crowds.  


I have more to say, but I need to gather my thoughts more.  There are a few things in this ruling that I am happy about.  Or, at least in the wording that he used.  


Romney gave this reaction:

The High Court Rightly Defends Westboro Crazies Right to Protest

The SCOTUS decision on the Westboro Church's protests of military funerals was released today.  The decision was 8-1, Alito being the only dissenter.  As much as I find the members of the Westboro Church to be crazy and offensive, this was the right decision.  Free speech and the right to assemble must be protected. 

There also has been misunderstanding of the case.  While protesting this particular funeral the family wasn't even aware of the presence of the protesters until they were told about it from someone seeing media reports.  In no way did they interrupt the services.  They had legal permits and stayed within the distances that the permits required them to, I believe it was 1,000 feet.  More and more states are putting laws into place about the distance people must stay away from funeral services.  The Church may be full of crazies, but they are not stupid and do follow the letter of the law. 

The one thing that I have always kept in mind during this case was the fact that I have become involved in going to protests and want my view points to be heard.  As an example here are some comments on Huffington Post on this case:

I blame hate speech for the GOP being so radicalize­d right now.



Of course, this SCOTUS rules in favor of right wing hate speech. Why would we expect this group to actually come down in favor of common sense. Funny how first amendment protection­s are no longer extended to journalist­s and whistleblo­wers.
 
I am so ready for Hate Speech laws.



Gee, maybe the Church is Right.



As much as I hate what these people have to say, which is quite disgusting­, I agree with this decision..­.free speech is free speech, no matter how vile, stupid, and racist. See the Tea Party and many in the conservati­ve party.

 The problem is if I am unwilling to stand for their right to speech and to protest mine will be taken away next.  Giving them the right to protest is in no way endorsing what they say, it is just protecting my rights to do the same.  If Westboro's right to protest was taken away, someone would be coming for the Tea Party next.  Freedom is not free, even the speech you find offensive has the same protections.