That question is actually one of the primary functions of the US Supreme Court- to decide whether something can be regulated at the federal level, or whether it is within the jurisdiction of the states to control.
In this case, there is a very strong argument to be made in favor of the involvement of the Supreme Court. One of the key issues behind the debate on gay marriage has to do with whether homosexual couples should enjoy all of the same benefits and protections which are conferred upon heterosexual couples. Many of these benefits and protections arise at the Federal level, such as filing status with the IRS, eligibility for pension-sharing and other spousal benefits under Federal employment, eligibility for Housing for Married Couples on US military bases, and so on.
Then, of course, there are also many issues arising at the State level. Spousal benefits under private insurance which is regulated by the states, execution of Probate and administration of Wills, even the settlement of such trivial matters as the resolution of landlord-tenant disputes (eg: rules for rental property which regulate the maximum number of non-related persons who may occupy a dwelling.)
As with most matters of Law, there is no simple line of demarcation here. Marriage, from a legal standpoint, has historically arisen out of the Common Law. Attempting to define it legislatively is a relatively new idea.
I could see how the DOMA case is definitely something that should be heard by the Supreme Court because it is at the Federal level and the States have no jurisdiction. For the Proposition 8 case, however, I could see the argument that it should not be up to the Supreme Court. Either way unless the Supreme Court specifically upholds proposition 8 it will be struck down either directly or indirectly by deferring to the lower court's decision.
One of the more interesting arguments I have heard, which does get into the actual merit of gay marriage, is that that DOMA and proposition 8 are not descriminatory because the benefits of marriage are given in order to facilitate responsible conception and gay couples are unable to conceive. Basically stating that the reason the marriage should not be recognized from a governmental standpoint is not because they are gay but because they cannot facilitate the behavior desired to receive the benefits.
I am not sure how much merit I give the argument due to the ability to adopt or use a sperm/egg donor but it is still interesting.
From: Eddie Maxwell Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 10:54 PM To: (all members of state legislature) Subject: Gun Control and our Constitutions
Can the officers of our state government change our constitution when the change is forbidden by the people? The Supreme Court of Alabama has ruled that it cannot in an opinion dealing with another matter where change is forbidden. You have sworn to support our constitution. You have defined a violation of an oath in an official proceeding as a class C felony (C.O.A. Section 13A-10-101 Perjury in the first degree).
Do not violate your oath of office by introducing additional gun control bills or by allowing those already enacted to remain in the body of our laws.
From: Representative Joseph Mitchell Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 11:59 PM To: Eddie Maxwell cc: (all members) Subject: Re: Gun Control and our Constitutions
Hey man. You have used the word ‘except’ when I think you mean somethin’ else.
Hey man. Your folk never used all this sheit to protect my folk from your slave-holding, murdering, adulterous, baby-raping, incestuous, snaggle-toothed, backward-a**ed, inbreed, imported criminal-minded kin folk. You can keep sending me stuff like you have however because it helps me explain to my constituents why they should protect that 2nd amendment thing AFTER we finish stocking up on spare parts, munitions and the like.
Bring it. As one of my friends in the Alabama Senate suggested – “BRING IT!!!!”
JOSEPHm, a prepper (’70-’13)
From: Eddie Maxwell Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 2:23 PM To: Representative Joseph Mitchell cc: (all members) Subject: Re: Gun Control and our Constitutions
Rep. Mitchell and other members of the Legislature of Alabama,
That’s not the type of reply I expect to receive from a state legislator. The lack of response to your racist comments from your fellow members speaks volumes about the state of our legislature as a whole.
I’m not a racist and I find your reply to be especially offensive considering the position you hold.
My parents and grandparents taught me to love God and my fellow man as myself. My father was threatened by members of his church back in 1954 for inviting a black family to attend the church he pastored.
My father-in-law was threatened when he hired a young negro man to work in his shop back in 1968 in a community where several neighbors were members of the Ku Klux Klan. He didn’t allow those threats to keep him from treating people of all races equally.
In 1969, I was a draftee in the US Army and bunked with a young negro man named Earl Shinholster at Fort Benning. Earl later became a prominent leader of the NAACP back home in Georgia after serving with me in the Army. When I received numerous racist threats from negroes who knew I lived near Birmingham, Earl warned me of the knives they carried and cautioned me to be more careful around them. Earl had been watching me and he had come to know and respect me for my Christian values. Earl and I became friends and he helped me get through some tough times there.
Racism is not exclusive to my own people. I learned that before 1955. It is just as ugly now as it was then, regardless of the race of the person who is consumed by it.
I love my country and my state, and I vowed to support and defend our constitutions. I expect you and all of our representative to do the same.
From: Patricia Todd Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:41 PM To: Eddie Maxwell Cc: (all members) Subject: Re: Gun Control and our Constitutions
I am Patricia Todd, a member of the house. I just received this chain of emails and wanted to let you know that I am with you on the gun issue and am saddened by the tone of my colleagues email. All of us have suffered from the racism of the past and I thank you for your civic and thoughtful response.
We all have different life experience that shapes our values. I pray that we can all respect, and, celebrate, our differences. That is what make America the greatest country on earth, scars and all.
This member hears you loud and clear.
From: Representative Joseph Mitchell Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 5:09 PM To: Eddie Maxwell cc: (all members) Subject: Re: Gun Control and our Constitutions
Eddie. I grew up in Albany Ga. I was a military brat for most of my youth. Air Jump Master and DI USMC. Because I preference my issues with the values that I learned in ‘the heat of battle’ during the mid-fifties through the ‘70’s and into today might tell you what and who I am. I find no need to define it or explain it to you because you can identify with the threats of reprisals against your folk for helping somebody of African Descent. I know ol’ Ft. Benning and Columbus like the palm of my hand.
Where were you during the Albany Movement? Oh…. You shoulda been there. I am certain that your experiences through how your kin folk ‘helped’ colored folk would have helped us a lot when we were bombed in Albany, Leesburg, Newton and Sylvester.
I apologize for the restless nights your folk endured out of fear of the Klan. At least as they stood on the sidewalk watching my cousins and me get beat up by some of your neighbors they were able to push you out into the street to physically intervene. They did do that didn’t they? Oh …. Well, I rear where you were one of the first to integrate the all-colored school to prove your parents point.
Do you that your fathers ‘black’ friend was unable to get FHA benefits? Knowing about those knives and stuff were of benefit but did you know that colored military typically carried knives to protect themselves from folk who looked like your father? Historically, violence on Black folk was committed by White folk. It’s a fact but is it ‘racist?’ It is ‘racial.’ I had seven uncles and three aunts who served in three different ‘encounters. My father was Regular Army.
Eddie, a person without the power to exercise a threat cannot be a racist because he or she will be eliminated. A person who can, by merely stepping back on the sidewalk’ ore being quiet can support racism and benefit from the ‘first hired,’ affirmative action, preferential treatment fostered by systemic racism and bigotry.
It is unlikely that I, through sharing my many experiences on the receiving end, will convince you of your errors. For that matter, you will never convince me that our discomforts were comparable. Let the next generations resolve this continuing story.
Arlington just spent 1 million dollars on this Bus stop that can house 15 people at a time.
I'm so glad I moved away and I'm no longer funding their rediculous programs; they are planning 23 more stops at around $900,000 each. Stainless Steel and Glass must be really expensive lately, or maybe it's the union labor?
I also plugged in my own ZIP code, and was relieved to see no locations in this area.
I'm still sort of beside myself at the notion of offering concierge service for food-stamp shopping.
Posit that if a "normal" grocery store were to implement this level of service, the cost of providing it would typically be reflected in an increase in the price of the goods that they sell. This is how capitalism is supposed to work under normal circumstances- when I take my Mercedes SLS into the dealership for routine service, they provide me with "free" gourmet juices, an omelet bar, a foot massage, etc. In actuality, these value-added services are not free; they have passed the cost of providing these services along to me in the form of higher prices for both the initial purchase of the car and for the labor and materials markup of the service department.
When a grocery store which caters exclusively to food-stamp users who, by definition, are not paying for their own groceries, what controls (if any) exist on the "price" of their goods? In other words, does a gallon of milk at this supermarket "cost" $10 insofar as those funding the program (taxpayers) are concerned?
I would be willing to place a very large wager that the vast majority of people that opted out of Social Security and in to a privatized account would be worse off. The vast majority of people have no appreciation or understanding of the value of a guaranteed lifetime pension with spousal benefits.
Someone who receives ~$20k a year guaranteed with a 1.5% COLA and lives for 20 years in retirement would need to have almost $350k saved at the time of retirement.
If Social Security was replaced with private investment accounts, the biggest losers would be individual investors and the biggest winners would be the financial services industry (brokers, advisors, Vanguard, Fidelity, etc). This would be similar to the switch from corporate pensions to private 401k accounts.
Bush's retirement plan that was part SS and part private would have starkly shown the result of those choices. People then could choose which plan they preferred. Personally, I think I'd always choose control over my own money, and the chance to pass some along to my children.
Believe me, I'm doing everything I can to not break out in a rant of swear words over the institutionalized-theft-as-government-savior that is Social Security.
I'm unfortunately not surprised. You've got Ruth Ginsberg condoning eugenics all the way down to this Planned Parenthood bitch whose sole job is to hide her job of murderer behind legalese. What else does one call a person who would kill a newborn child?
It's tough to find time during the day when you have 8 bastard children to take care of at home.
As the economy "improves", more and more people hop on food stamps and disability. This, and trillion dollar deficits, are unsupportable. This is the new normal, although I prefer to consider this a transition period. What we transition into will be quite interesting...