I guess that depends on what one thinks a “correct” Constitutional decision is. If you think we should apply the words as they were meant to be applied, there’s no way they thought the Feds should force states to recognize gay marriage because it was illegal in all 50 states until the last few decades.
I guess that depends on what one thinks a “correct” Constitutional decision is. If you think we should apply the words as they were meant to be applied, there’s no way they thought the Feds should force states to recognize gay marriage because it was illegal in all 50 states until the last few decades.
That surely would have warranted a mention, if not a full blown argument.
I, for one, think if we’re going to change the Constitution, it should be by the amendment process rather than by 5 black-robed, unelected masters.
I guess that depends on what one thinks a “correct” Constitutional decision is. If you think we should apply the words as they were meant to be applied, there’s no way they thought the Feds should force states to recognize gay marriage because it was illegal in all 50 states until the last few decades.
That surely would have warranted a mention, if not a full blown argument.
I, for one, think if we’re going to change the Constitution, it should be by the amendment process rather than by 5 black-robed, unelected masters.