When shelby was appointed in 2011, Both of Utah's senators supported the
nomination! Just a fact for you CONservatives to chew on!
Wow. For once I am impressed with the quality of the responses here. Yes, the
11th amendment is not applicable. And, I might add, the 14th amendment trumps
the 10th in this case.
I think U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby should be given a peace prize for
upholding the constitution and putting a stop to bigotry!
Cost our state dearly: No the last time we debated sex was justifying polygamy
it almost prevented us from becoming a state!
@Open Minded MormonThe 14th amendment was wrongly applied.And it certainly doesn't override the 10th amendment. Defining Marriage
was never right given to the federal government.Contrary to extreme
left opinion States do rights and powers, in fact, ALL not delegated to the
federal government. Federal government has no right being involved
RFLASH,How about reading the other Articles of Faith too. How about
reading how we believe God the Father and in His Son and in the Holy Ghost? How
about reading about personal transgressions? How about reading about keeping
the commandments? How about trying to understand that Christ came to earth, not
to save us in our sins, but to change, to leave those sins behind us so that he
could save us from our sins?When we separate God from life, we get
those who hunt for a single principle that they might think excuses them.
Religion, when taken in its fulness, gets us past that self-centered view and
allows us to understand the "wholeness" of Christ's doctrine and
the requirements that His Doctrine places upon those who profess to follow
Him.Removing God from our lives is to remove the very foundation of
civilization. The commonality between religions is greater than the
differences, but the philosophies of men wander all over creation.
Samuel leaves out the most important part of the 11th Amendment. It forbids the
federal judiciary from involvement in suits against states brought by a citizen
or citizens of another state or country. That is not the case here as the suit
was brought by Utah citizens. Also, Shelby did not "make" a law. He
ruled a current "law" (a state constitutional amendment) to be
unconstitutional. That is the constitutional responsibility of the judiciary. If
he had ruled in favor of the state you would not have heard complaints of
"judicial tyranny" from opponents of marriage equality, but they would
be heaping endless praise for the independent judiciary, separation of powers
and checks and balances of our political system.
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates
of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship
how, where, or what they may.Is this true? Is it? Somebody explain
to me why we are not being allowed to worship God according to our own
conscience! Think about it! What does "all men" mean? Part of every
man's quest for God is living a life of dignity! Mormons don't
believe in the 11th article of faith! This is no game! we struggle to make lives
better and you tell us that we are not allowed to believe in ourselves! How do
we worship God if we do not believe in ourselves? We do! In our way, we worship
our creator by caring enough about ourselves to do what is best for us! What are
we to Mormons? It is clear that article 11 does not apply to us, so who do you
really say we are? I will stand up to any of you who would degrade me to the
point where you have no consideration of me as a man! Something is very wrong!
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahWhen we uphold the
Constitution, we must uphold ALL of the Constitution, not just the parts that we
agree with.===== Sort of like ACA being passed by the
House, the Senate, the President and upheld by SCOUTS -- but shutting down the
government beause a minority in the GOP disagrees with it?or how
about the 14th Amendment -- which Judge Shelby used to strike down Utah's
Amendment 3.As you so said -- When we uphold the Constitution,
we must uphold ALL of the Constitution, not just the parts that we agree with.
Amendment 3 was a clear shot of "All-or-Nothing"-ism.Which - got
shot down. (ie.e, Nothing).I heard on KSL this morning that Governor
Herbert NOW is interesed in a compromise of Civil Unions / Domestic
Partnerships.[Which I have been advocating as a good and decent compromise
for over 9 years now -- and been called all sorts of nasty names by my fellow
Latter-Day Saints for it.]BTW - If you stick to the All-or-Nothing,
you already know what the answer is going to be.
The 11th Amendment clearly has nothing to do with this case, as the plaintiffs
in the suit were Utah citizens. Speaking only as an old law student, I think
that's fairly obvious.
As a sidenote: The "Obama appointee" Judge Robert J. Shelby's name
was offered up by Republican senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee. They endorsed
his nomination, with Sen. Lee describing Shelby as "pre-eminently
qualified" and predicting that he would be "an outstanding judge."
Senator Hatch also praised Shelby as "A man of keen intellect. Robert Shelby
has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the law".Judge
Robert Shelby may have been appointed by President Obama, but I find the
evidence slim that he is liberal shill.
Thanks for the "stars", but you may want to take them away because I
totally disagree with Judge Shelby's ruling. I think that he was
irresponsible. I think that he twisted the Constitution. I think that he
grasped for straws when none were even available; BUT, I agree with anyone who
would say that the 11th Amendment cannot be used by a State to stop the Federal
Government from bringing suit. When we uphold the Constitution, we
must uphold ALL of the Constitution, not just the parts that we agree with.
Whether a State should have the right to reject a suit brought by the Federal
Government is moot because that prohibition is not part of the Constitution. If
it is not part of the Constitution, then it is allowed. Our Constitution does
not have a list of things that we CAN do. We can do anything unless we are
specifically prohibited by law from doing those things. That means that the
Federal Government can sue a State.
Whatever the means by which we have arrived where we have, it's good to
know Utah is leading the charge towards equal treatment for same sex marriage
nation wide. The freedom and adherence to the law we so frequently speak of
really means something.
He IS defending it! Gov Herbert said very clearly that it's his
responsibility to defend this law as long as it's part of our Constitution.
I don't know what you are complaining about. He IS acting to defend the
amendment made part of our constitution by the proposition-3 popular vote.
What more can he do?He has to follow the legal process too.
That's why we have Judges (to prevent Governors and Presidents, from doing
whatever they want).===You are from California... and
lecturing the Governor of Utah for not defending/appealing the judge's
ruling on proposition-3??It was the California AG and Governor
deciding not to defend your prop-8 that got us here.This whole thing
should have been resolved when the Supreme Court got the California prop-8
case... but they just decided not to decide, because the people suing
didn't have standing and the people with standing (the California AG)
decided not to defend it in court.California's Governor and AG
didn't respond when the judge made his decision overriding the people. IF
they had... the Supreme Court would have had to rule on it already!
It might have cost the state" dearly" from a financial angle, but form a
moral, correct, fair, just, inclusive and accepting standpoint, it has enriched
The judge's ruling was not 'flawed"--- It was constitutional,
just, fair, and most of all, legal and correct.
I did too, Ranch!
@Mike R. Unbelieveable, I just gave you a +1. I'm living in the twilight
Samuel Nielson, sorry but you'd better get used to it. It's going to
happen in all 50 states and guess what? You won't notice a thing.
I have to agree with atl134 on this. I cannot see how the 11th Amendment would
could have been invoked.
The writer gets points for creativity, but his understanding of the 11th
Amendment has no basis in reality.The simple fact is that states may
not, no matter how popular the sentiment within a state may be, enact laws that
violate the United States Constitution.
The US Constitution, according to Utah's own constitution, is the Supreme
Law of the Land.You violate the US Constitution by passing laws
violating the 14th Amendment, it is a Federal issue. You get sued in Federal
court regardless of "state sovereignity".
"One man making laws for everyone is not a republican form of government; it
is a dictatorship."====== Um, I think I see the
problem.What "law" precisely did Judge Shelby make up?
Irrespective of how you feel about Judge Shelby's ruling (and I am not a
fan), states do not have the power to assert sovereign immunity from the federal
govt. Were that so it would be done all the time and we would have a huge
patchwork of state vs. federal law.
And isn't it wonderful???! Bigotry and discrimination will soon be a thing
of the past! Thank you Herbert.
Your entire letter became outdated shortly after the Civil War began. I'm
sorry, but states aren't small countries able to do whatever they want.
11th Amendment "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be
construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted
against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or
Subjects of any Foreign State."Translation, as it pertains to
this case: a Californian or a Canadian couldn't sue in federal court over
Amendment 3, it has to be a Utahn.