Judge Rules Virginia Ban on Gay Marriage Unconstitutional

Case to go to appeals court.

Judge rules VA ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.
Judge rules VA ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.
A federal judge in Norfolk ruled Thursday that Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, effectively sending the case to an appeals court.

U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen's decision made Virginia the second state in the South to issue a ruling recognizing the legality of gay marriages, The New York Times reported.

Wright stayed her decision until an appeals court rules, meaning that gay couples will not be able to marry in the state immediately.

Kim McCoy February 27, 2014 at 11:39 AM
If this doesn't say it all, I don't know what would. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/27/the-moment-a-prof-warned-that-america-is-at-a-constitutional-tipping-point/
Barbara Glakas February 27, 2014 at 03:12 PM
Sorry for the length, but.... “PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO DECLINE TO EXECUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES, November 2, 1994. “(This memorandum discusses the President's constitutional authority to decline to execute unconstitutional statutes). MEMORANDUM FOR THE HONORABLE ABNER J. MIKVA COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT. “I have reflected further on the difficult questions surrounding a President's decision to decline to execute statutory provisions that the President believes are unconstitutional, and I have a few thoughts to share with you. Let me start with a general proposition that I believe to be uncontroversial: there are circumstances in which the President may appropriately decline to enforce a statute that he views as unconstitutional. “First, there is significant judicial approval of this proposition. Most notable is the Court's decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President's view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." Id. at 906 (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (recognizing existence of President's authority to act contrary to a statutory command). “Second, consistent and substantial executive practice also confirms this general proposition. Opinions dating to at least 1860 assert the President's authority to decline to effectuate enactments that the President views as unconstitutional….”
Kim McCoy February 27, 2014 at 03:50 PM
Barbara...are you kidding me with those citations, right?....Frank S. Myers, a First-Class Postmaster in Portland, Oregon, was removed from office by President Woodrow Wilson. An 1876 federal law provided that "Postmasters of the first, second, and third classes shall be appointed and may be removed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate." Myers argued that his dismissal violated this law, and he was entitled to back pay for the unfilled portion of his four-year term......You are equating the removal of a postmaster by the President to the Attorney General of the United States telling state AGs not to defend laws they don't like?....WOW, that's stretching it don't you think?...and of course, it had to involve the most socialistic former President this country has ever had the displeasure of electing (except for the current one, of course)Then you site a tax judge appointment ruling. BUT THE ONE THAT REALLY GETS ME is the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case...Justice Black wrote for the majority, although the number of divergent concurring opinions made it clear that he did not necessarily speak for it. Black took, as he often did, an absolutist view, holding that THE PRESIDENT HAD NO POWER to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress...Keep trying to justify the unlawfulness of this and I'll keep holding the rule of law at the ready. Maybe you should actually READ the opinions next time.
Barbara Glakas February 27, 2014 at 05:23 PM
It doesn't really matter what I say, right?
Ray Wedell February 27, 2014 at 06:28 PM
Side note on Woodrow Wilson. Once he took office, his own paranoia and love of power turned him into a tyrant. He was responsible for the Sedition Act, which Chris Hedges has cited as ending real progressive politics in the USA as we know it. Wilson locked up many of those who were his supporters a mere year earlier (when he won election against a split Republican ticket by lying to the American people that he would not enter WWI when he already had plans drafted to do so). Hedges has also compared Obama's paranoia and use of EO's, the drones, the NSA stuff, etc. to Wilson. So someone may be a "liberal" in words and maybe even private thoughts. Once they take office, it can be a different story, but one nobody wants to see clearly. Wielding universal power to accomplish that which many may agree with is not "liberal" nor "progressive." Nor is it the right thing to do.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »