on the constitution.

"Whatever the merits of current controversies over the laws of marriage ... if the decisions of federal courts can override the actions of state lawmakers on this subject, we have suffered a significant constitutional reallocation of lawmaking power from the lawmaking branch to the judicial branch and from the states to the federal government."

In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that:

"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Less than ten years after the federal courts banned states from prohibiting interracial marriage, a member of a stake presidency told my wife that she should marry "her own kind".

Are these priesthood folks really going to save the constitution?

Funny that being the former Utah chief justice didn't give him a clearer understanding of this stuff. When the courts declare a law unconstitutional, they aren't making new law, they are defending old law -- the foundation of the law. They're telling the legislative branch, sorry, you can't make a law like that. That's why certain factions are pushing for various constitutional amendments, so their bad laws can't be declared unconstitutional anymore.

They probably ought to mark all of the rulings Oaks participated in so the case law they created can be taken with a "grain of salt" and later reviewed by the court system.

If you wanted an example why cult members do not make good public servants, including Brother Mitt, you now have one. He knows that what he is saying is complete crap, but he is now in the business of "Lying for [his new corporate interests]".

luminouswatcher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
He knows that what he is saying
> is complete crap, but he is now in the business of
> "Lying for ".

"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. **Everything** may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors."
- Apostle Dallin Oaks, footnote 28, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii

notice the "Everything" =) they do what they have to do =)

thanks for that quote, Nick.

Revise, bury, hide the history. Make up a happy tale, and sell it hard. Stay on the happy tale message, and suppress everything else. Oppress all who would reveal anything else.

This is God's will, and work.

Dallin Oaks, servant of God.

For his education that is about the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Cult

He is just a hired gun for the cult now. Plain and simple. TSCC is his one and only client.

What an ass. We already know how they feel about gay marriage. Now they want to make this a constitutional issue about state vs federal power. Bullshit. It's still about tormenting gays!

But since he brought up the federal power issue I was reminded of the civil right movement in the 1960s. Many states wanted to limit the rights of specific minorities. It took federal interference to force states to treat all people with dignity and respect. The issues is the same today.....gays shouldn't have to sit at the back of the bus. But the deep south of gay discrimination is the red patch in the middle of the country.

Here are two preambles. The first is from the United States Constitution. The second is from the Constitution of the Confederate States.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

Oaks Speech:
"I referred to these fundamentals as the divinely inspired principles in the Constitution, and I here affirm my belief that they are."

(Confederate constitution mentions guidance of God in the preamble, U.S. constitution does not)

"I mention first what is probably the most important of the great fundamentals of the United States Constitution—the principle of popular sovereignty"

(The preamble to the Confederate constitution mentions sovereignty, the U.S. constitution does not. It is so important in the confederate version that it is in the opening sentance.)

"The dominance of state law will also be changed if, after full review, federal courts decree that a state law on marriage is invalid under the United States Constitution."

Constitutional rights for interracial marriage flies in the face of what Oaks said here. Oaks ignores mention of Loving v. Virginia: "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The Oaks speech is very disturbing to me.

It is true that the U.S. Constitution does not give the federal courts, specifically the U.S. Supreme Court, the job of being the final arbiter of Constitutional disputes. However, the precedence that gives the U.S. Supreme Court that very right goes back to 1803, a scant sixteen years after the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified, and a case called Marbury vs. Madison. Remembering this from my high school history classes, the case centered around then-U.S. President John Adams naming several Federal court judges late in the evening prior to the day when the newly-elected Thomas Jefferson was supposed to be taking the Constitutional oath. These appointments came to be known as the "Midnight Appointments." The new President Jefferson sued, and the U.S. Supreme Court, then led by an Adams appointee, John Marshall, sided with Jefferson, even though the U.S. Constitution said nothing about this issue. With the High Court's agreeing to hear the case and the ruling favoring Mr. Jefferson, Justice Marshall established the legal precedent that the U.S. Supreme Court would be the final arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional. And this is what Mr. Oaks wants to change, mainly so that he, his church, and many other churches, can control who marries whom. This should be sufficient enough reason to stay away from control freaks like Mr. Oaks and the organizations they represent.

A couple of cases where Supreme Court rulings were ignored:

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 1831 ruled that tribes were sovereign nations and state laws had no force on tribal lands. Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court and the Trail of Tears is a matter of history.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 ruled that black slaves were not citizens and the rights in the constitution did not apply to them. Lincoln said "we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous". The Civil War is a matter of history.

Right you are, in both cases. The U.S. Supreme Court (and any Federal court, for that matter) can make any ruling on whatever issue it wants. However, there is no enforcement mechanism. Remember, it is the office of the executive branch (the U.S. President) that is supposed to enforce the laws. If enough people, including the President believe the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to be in error, then that ruling is effectively null and void.