Should President Obama send the National Guard to Alabama if they fail to enforce the marriage laws?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	2 (33%)
	No
	4 (67%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[hrmjustin]

1. Yes!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. "We are a government of laws and not of men ." /NT

[Terra Alta]

3. these judges are defying a federal court order.

Something has to be done to force them to obey the law.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. What other federal laws do state get to choose to ignore? /NT

[H. Cromwell]

7. Here's one...

Legalizing Marijuana...it is not legalized at the federal level.... just pointing that out.

[misternormal]

13. Precident Set...

Once the door was opened for States to make laws that counter Federal law, as in the case of legalized marijuana, legislators that are not so happy with this administration will try and push their own agenda.

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers.

Nullification is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law.

[JDPriestly]

14. Legalizing marijuana is a matter of passing or not passing a law.

In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court stated that marriage is a fundamental right. It cannot be denied on the basis of discrimination. To prohibit a person from marrying the person she or he loves based on that person's gender is arguably discrimination, gender discrimination. Thus, I would argue that the government cannot deny a person the right to marry the person he or she loves based on gender.

We grant certain privileges and rights to married people that we do not grant to people who are not married. We also grant a certain legal status and recognition to people who are married. Even in courts of law, marital partners at least in California have certain protections when it comes to the duty to testify that unmarried partners do not enjoy.

What is confusing so many people especially (having lived in the South) I suspect, Southerners and very religious people is that there are two aspects to marriage. We require that people enter into a civil marriage if they are to enjoy the privileges and rights of marriage before the law -- taxes, certain rights to ownership of property, rights in terms of testimony in court and many other rights. We do not require a religious right of matrimony for those privileges. The legal right to marry permits the right to civil marriage.

The religious right of matrimony is quite a different thing. A church or religion can refuse to marry same-sex couples or couples if one is divorced or people of other religious denominations. The right to religious freedom protects the right to refuse to marry couples.

The confusion about this stems from the fact that many people marry in their religion and don't realize that they are filling out forms that require the government to recognize their civil marriage. In other words, people don't realize that when they marry in their religion they are also entering into a civil marriage in most cases (if their marriage can be lawfully recognized as a civil marriage).

I hope this clarifies why marijuana laws (no fundamental right to use or smoke marijuana) are different from state to state at this time but if the courts rule that the right of same-sex couples to marry is a fundamental right then all states have to follow that law. One is not required by the Constitution. The other is simply a law.

Of course, with marijuana laws there may be another problem in that the federal criminal laws prohibiting the use or sale or whatever of marijuana could still be enforced and preempt the state laws. I don't know enough about drug laws to know whether the federal government is simply choosing to focus on enforcing laws other than those concerning marijuana. I haven't looked into it. Some federal laws have tIo be enforced in all states and some allow states to decide on their law for themselves. It's a question of preemption that has to be decided by the courts based in great part on the wording of the federal law.

[Warpy]

6. There is a petition to impeach Roy Moore

That sanctimonious old fool has been the one leading all this horse shit.

[hunter]

5. My dad was Army National Guard.

They put him to work as a clerk because he told them he wouldn't want to shoot anyone. Think "Radar" in MASH, but a foot taller, with much thicker glasses.

My father-in-law was Navy, and he didn't want to shoot anyone either so they declared him a medic, and then they used him as a guinea pig in nuclear weapons testing. He witnessed a nuclear bomb up close and marched across ground zero shortly afterwards, as things were still burning. He was also assigned to data collection in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

My parents, and my wife's parents, octogenarians and very near-octogenarians, don't have any problems celebrating LGBT marriages and relationships.

I think they'd be thrilled to be recalled or drafted for LGBT marriage military duty.

[Bucky]

8. You don't swat flies with a hand grenade.

Defying the law of the land can't be tolerated, of course, but proportional response is always best.

[linuxman]

9. Hardly

There would be no purpose.

It made sense for integration, as there were people physically interfering and preventing people from moving about freely and attending school, and the local cops weren't stopping it.

In this case, a law is being ignored, though there is no situation in which the armed presence of soldiers could remedy it. If there were people physically blocking Gays from places where they were to be married and the local police wouldn't arrest/stop those people, then there might be some utility in assigning troops to intercede.

Now, if court officials are not following the law and need to be removed, that is another issue between the Attorney General and the forces at his office's disposal. Not the fucking Army.

Call me crazy, but a proportional and logical response based on minimum effort needed to accomplish a goal seems far more suitable that involving the Army. Personally, I hate to see troops doing just about anything in the US aside from SAR, filling sandbags, and training. Maybe that's just me.

If other channels are available, other channels should be pursued.

[d_r]

10. The state's national guard

is called out by the Governor of the state. In Little Rock, Governor Faubus called out the Arkansas national guard to block the nine African-American students from Little Rock Central High School. In the picture that you posted, President Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne (US Army) to Little Rock, then federalized the Arkansas National Guard taking them from the Governor's command.

[ChosenUnWisely]

11. The National Guard from another state should be used if it comes

to that.

The hate is strong in that state and their is a high probability that some in the NG don't agree and may decide to ignore orders.

The oath keeper movement is popular with conservatives in the military today and some very well may decide that their religion trumps all.

[ladjf]

12. A Federal Marshal should arrest the judge. nt

[NCTraveler]

15. I would think there are other options.

I could be wrong. It seems brawn over brains is the order of the day anymore.

[Baitball Blogger]

16. It would be one of many justified reasons.

[closeupready]

17. I don't know. Lots of things can be done between here and there, right?