Federal Judges can overturn anything they want to.
Even state laws, if the Federal Judge believes the action of the state or an amendement violates either Federal Law of the U S Constitution.
When a District Federal Judge overturns something, it only applies to that one case.
If that decision is appealed, and those types of decisions are almost always appealed, and if the Federal Court of Appeals agrees about overturning something, that ruling becomes the ';Law'; in that District only.
Cases which are heard most quickly by the US Supreme Court are cases where say the Court of Appeals in California is different than how the Court of Appeals in Atlanta has ruled.
So far this has not happened, but it might.
It shouldn't, because the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, tell them not to. The Tenth Amendent tells them not to as well.
I am sure, that as we speak, someone is trying to do exactly that in California.Can Federal judges overturn state amendments banning gay marriage?
They have the power to do so, but DOMA would have to be overturned first. It does not matter whether it is a state amendment or simply a state law - although the process is somewhat different.
It an action of a state legislature violates the US constitution, the federal courts can invalidate it. But only if someone with standing brings it to them as a federal case.
If a federal court finds that a state amendment, law, or policy violates federal law or the Constitution, then a federal court can void the amendment, at least insofar as the case before the court is concerned (sometimes, the reach is farther, especially if the Supreme Court is involved, but this is rare unless two circuit courts have reached incompatible decisions). The legal basis is provided by the Supremacy Clause, which is in Article VI, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution:
';This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.';
The Supremacy Clause defines the federal government and the Constitution as having jurisdiction over the states. This was first demonstrated in McCulloch v. Maryland, in which it was determined that the state of Maryland could not collect a tax from a federally-controlled bank.
At this point in the US, nothing would surprise me.
It wouldn't surprise me if the president decided to write an executive order out of the blue giving himself the power to do things he cannot do.
Personally I think it's just silly that people promote laws to limit peoples social activity.
I mean come on... get out of peoples bedroom, get out of our contract marriages.
Egyptians are the 1st ones that had laws about marriage on the books, and guess what. IT wasn't about their many gods, or religion. It was about the same thing that it is today... $$$
Yes. The Supreme Court struck down state Sodomy laws in 2003. The bans on gay marriage are up against the full faith and credit clause in the US Constitution. Given time, the bans will lose enough support to be struck down as well, just like the laws for segregation were. It's just a matter of time.
If a state amendment contravenes the US Constitution, then you bet they can. You can't be a part of the US if you're unwilling to follow its constitution, can you?
Short answer is only if it violates federal law
nope, its a state by state thing..so whereas a few states will agree, most of them will not i wouldnt tihnk...
I doubt it
I think it's funny how in CA we voted in legal marijuana, but the Feds say it's illegal
I would imagine that the US Supreme Court could.
Unless a Constitutional Amendment was passed
No, the states retain the rights to thier own constitutions.
What a stupid and complicated law system! If it allows bigots to take away the rights of others.
no they can't
No comments:
Post a Comment