GOP hero Rick Santorum promises to OVERTURN any Supreme Court decision that legalizes same-sex marriage. Psst, Rick: Presidents can NOT overturn Supreme Court decisions.

  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1980

    Feb 12, 2012 11:04 PM GMT
    I can't believe Santorum is so stupid that he doesn't understand the most basic principles of how the three branches of government work.
    He's probably assuming his ignorant supporters will believe the President can veto SC decisions.
    Interesting how conservatives love to talk about respecting the Constitution, only to turn around and shred its most fundamental principles when it suits them. ("Three branches of government." Google it, Rick.)

    "GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Sunday morning he would try to overturn any Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage if he became president.

    Santorum was asked by Meet The Press host David Gregory about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional and whether he would seek any change if the highest court ruled in favor of the LGBT community.

    “I would do the same thing I would with Roe v Wade, which I would seek to try and overturn it,” he said. “I think judicial tyranny is a serious issue in this race and this country. And we need judges who respect the people’s voice. Let the people decide with respect to what the constitution says, if in fact they would go through a constitutional amendment process.”

    Unfortunately for Santorum, his effort would be futile. No president can overturn any Supreme Court decision."
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/12/santorum-i-would-overturn-any-supreme-court-ruling-same-sex-marriage-legal/


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2012 11:06 PM GMT
    I desperately hope Rick Santorum is going to the be Republican candidate for the Presidency... icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2012 11:22 PM GMT

    "And we need judges who respect the people’s voice."


    I think Santorum doesn't understand that judges are supposed to respect justice and apply it, not special interests.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2012 11:45 PM GMT
    From far far away he seems a bit ignorant. I dunno Im not into US politics that much but do find it interesting.
    He looks presidential but I cant help but get the felling, just by watching odd bits here and there that he is out of his depth?
    Also that he is hiding something, something just doesnt add up
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2012 11:57 PM GMT
    No offense but Obama said he does not support Gay Marriage and his Attorney General has fought almost every gay initiative. Though they lost, and Obama has taken credit for all the gay advances under his administration, his administration and his Attorney General has fought against gay rights. So why do we give him credit when he and his administration have been on the wrong side everytime?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2012 12:26 AM GMT
    Umm, yes he can! This is specifically why I'm in favor of state rights. The feds can currently overturn gay marriage in any state they want if they used that power to do so!

  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Feb 13, 2012 12:37 AM GMT
    Triggerman saidNo offense but Obama said he does not support Gay Marriage and his Attorney General has fought almost every gay initiative. Though they lost, and Obama has taken credit for all the gay advances under his administration, his administration and his Attorney General has fought against gay rights. So why do we give him credit when he and his administration have been on the wrong side everytime?


    Soo...umm mm...yea...that whole thing on DADT...Or preventing discrimination in the federal workforce over sexual orientation....

    And then there's also this whole list...

    http://www.equalitygiving.org/Accomplishments-by-the-Administration-and-Congress-on-LGBT-Equality

    Are you just not watching the news? Or are you trolling?
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1980

    Feb 13, 2012 1:21 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidUmm, yes he can! This is specifically why I'm in favor of state rights. The feds can currently overturn gay marriage in any state they want if they used that power to do so!



    I'm not sure who "The Feds" is, but the President can not overturn U.S. Supreme Court decisions.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2012 1:58 AM GMT
    KissTheSky said
    mocktwinkie saidUmm, yes he can! This is specifically why I'm in favor of state rights. The feds can currently overturn gay marriage in any state they want if they used that power to do so!



    I'm not sure who "The Feds" is, but the President can not overturn U.S. Supreme Court decisions.


    You're right, however he can waste lots of time and resources to amend the constitution. Which then would become the law the SCOTUS has to apply. But he's a candidate right now, so his talk is cheap and most of us not the intended audience.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2012 1:58 AM GMT
    I am always amused that an "activist judge" is always one that someone doesn't agree with.....I see alot of "conservatives" seem to be the ones doing the most or loudest bitching about "activist judges".....there are plenty of rulings I disagree with, but I don't think these rulings are always done for a judges personal interest...and Santorum is just another face in the GOP spotlight for his 5 minutes. Let min make his noise and give him enough rope and the electorate will play hangman with him too....icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2012 2:32 AM GMT
    bhp91126 said
    KissTheSky said
    mocktwinkie saidUmm, yes he can! This is specifically why I'm in favor of state rights. The feds can currently overturn gay marriage in any state they want if they used that power to do so!



    I'm not sure who "The Feds" is, but the President can not overturn U.S. Supreme Court decisions.


    You're right, however he can waste lots of time and resources to amend the constitution. Which then would become the law the SCOTUS has to apply. But he's a candidate right now, so his talk is cheap and most of us not the intended audience.
    The last constitutional amendment (27th) took 202 yrs to complete.. Santorum aint got that much time.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2012 3:25 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidUmm, yes he can! This is specifically why I'm in favor of state rights. The feds can currently overturn gay marriage in any state they want if they used that power to do so!

    Please explain that Federal power to overturn gay marriage in any State. How does it work, what is the process and Constitutional authority? Are you claiming the President has this authority? That even exceeds the looney Bush theory of the Unitary Presidency.

    And if you mean the US Supreme Court, then wouldn't that be judges acting as "activists" which right wingers abhor? Except when it comes to radical decisions like Citizens United, of course, overturning many decades of precedent from prior court rulings. Then that's not being activist and turning the law on its head, but defending the Constitution, so long as you're a Republican benefiting from the floodgate of corporate campaign money it unleashed.

    And the superiority of the US Constitution over State Constitutions is a key conflict on which the US Civil War was fought. Secessionist States argued that Federal law did not supersede their State laws. To follow arguments like yours about States rights is to lead us down the road to civil war and chaos once more.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2012 5:10 PM GMT
    KissTheSky said
    mocktwinkie saidUmm, yes he can! This is specifically why I'm in favor of state rights. The feds can currently overturn gay marriage in any state they want if they used that power to do so!



    I'm not sure who "The Feds" is, but the President can not overturn U.S. Supreme Court decisions.




    The feds would be the federal government. I didn't say SCOTUS, but they can overturn state decisions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2012 5:21 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    mocktwinkie saidUmm, yes he can! This is specifically why I'm in favor of state rights. The feds can currently overturn gay marriage in any state they want if they used that power to do so!

    Please explain that Federal power to overturn gay marriage in any State. How does it work, what is the process and Constitutional authority? Are you claiming the President has this authority? That even exceeds the looney Bush theory of the Unitary Presidency.

    And if you mean the US Supreme Court, then wouldn't that be judges acting as "activists" which right wingers abhor? Except when it comes to radical decisions like Citizens United, of course, overturning many decades of precedent from prior court rulings. Then that's not being activist and turning the law on its head, but defending the Constitution, so long as you're a Republican benefiting from the floodgate of corporate campaign money it unleashed.

    And the superiority of the US Constitution over State Constitutions is a key conflict on which the US Civil War was fought. Secessionist States argued that Federal law did not supersede their State laws. To follow arguments like yours about States rights is to lead us down the road to civil war and chaos once more.


    I'm not an expert on the entire process, but the federal government and the President CAN overturn currently instituted state rights like gay marriage in New York, for instance. Why do you think the candidates were being asked during a debate if they would honor state rights or go in and overturn gay marriage. All of them said that they wouldn't overturn the state rights but some said they would make a constitutional amendment.

    Whatever powers are not specifically granted to the federal government should be left to the states to decide.

    I do not believe that the federal government or SCOTUS should be able to trump decisions on certain things like gay marriage or rulings by state supreme courts.

    And no, it doesn't necessarily lead to civil war -- although civil wars are always a possibility.
  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Feb 13, 2012 5:23 PM GMT
    With DINOs like Feinstein in the Senate (who if they were real democrats, would have prevented Alito and Roberts from being confirmed as justices), he may not need to. They and the other reactionaries on the court that the democrats should have prevented from getting onto the court may preclude any advance in gay rights for years to come.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2012 5:46 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidI'm not an expert on the entire process, but the federal government and the President CAN overturn currently instituted state rights like gay marriage in New York, for instance.

    You're clearly not an expert. Again I ask, please explain how the President personally overturns State rights. You made the claim, so you must have some basis for it. Now please tell us what that is, other than uninformed opinion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2012 6:16 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    mocktwinkie saidI'm not an expert on the entire process, but the federal government and the President CAN overturn currently instituted state rights like gay marriage in New York, for instance.

    You're clearly not an expert. Again I ask, please explain how the President personally overturns State rights. You made the claim, so you must have some basis for it. Now please tell us what that is, other than uninformed opinion.


    By adding an amendment to the constitution for the whole country and then enforcing the law and making the states comply?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2012 6:19 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco said
    mocktwinkie saidI'm not an expert on the entire process, but the federal government and the President CAN overturn currently instituted state rights like gay marriage in New York, for instance.

    You're clearly not an expert. Again I ask, please explain how the President personally overturns State rights. You made the claim, so you must have some basis for it. Now please tell us what that is, other than uninformed opinion.

    By cloaking his nefarious deeds in words like "General Welfare" and "Commerce Clause" that's how "Colonel" Deco.

    Still vague and evasive, "southbeach". Please provide examples of this, that were not prompted by Court decisions, but solely by the authority of the President. And please name what "his" you are citing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2012 6:22 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Art_Deco said
    mocktwinkie saidI'm not an expert on the entire process, but the federal government and the President CAN overturn currently instituted state rights like gay marriage in New York, for instance.

    You're clearly not an expert. Again I ask, please explain how the President personally overturns State rights. You made the claim, so you must have some basis for it. Now please tell us what that is, other than uninformed opinion.

    By adding an amendment to the constitution for the whole country and then enforcing the law and making the states comply?

    Nope, the President isn't involved in the Constitutional amendment process. The Congress has that role alone in the Federal government, to propose an amendment, not requiring Presidential approval, nor allowing for the President to submit such a proposal to Congress. And then the amendment goes to the States for their ratification, or rejection.

    Now please give us a real example of a President independently overturning States rights. I think the best you might cite would be Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. But that only applied to those States in armed rebellion, and did not free any slaves in States that remained in the Union. That action required the 13th Amendment. Please read the official Federal explanation of the amendment process:

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

    The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

    A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.