Decision to Decide Same Sex Marriage Unconstitutional

Decision to Decide Same Sex Marriage Unconstitutional

By: Apostle Paul Castellano

Supreme Court Jurisdiction on Appeals:

The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law.

Judicial Review in the United States is the ability of a court to examine and decide if a statute, treaty or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define a power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States: In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax".  The Court engaged in the process of judicial review by examining the plaintiff's claim that the carriage tax was unconstitutional. After review, the Supreme Court decided the Carriage Act was not unconstitutional.

In 1803, Marbury v. Madison[3] was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority for judicial review to strike down a law as unconstitutional. At the end of his opinion in this decision,[4] Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as instructed in Article Six of the Constitution.

As of 2014, the United States Supreme Court has held 176 Acts of the U.S. Congress unconstitutional.

Under the Constitution Polygamy is Legal But the Law of Marriage is Unconstitutional

You must read this article to understand the law of marriage and the real issue at hand.

The Key Term is:   Solemnization:

In short the law of marriage is not of marriage, but a law that allows a marriage ceremony.  Then they say, everyone must have a marriage ceremony, meaning you need an officiant or judge to get married.  Then it goes on to explain who is not effected by this law that requires a judge to bring people together in marriage.  Then it explains who the Law of Solemnization do not apply to and that criteria only  fits the Living God and his flock.

Now they claim same sex marriage, whereby the only true authority granted under the United Constitution is the law of Solemnization or the right to a marriage ceremony.  But a marriage is not establish my any wedding ceremony.

The bottom line is marriage is not even a legal question of law an therefore the Supreme Court had to authority to hear the argument to begin with.

In jurisprudence, a question of law (also known as a point of law) is a question which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles, by an interpretation of the law.^[1]Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence, and inferences arising from those facts. Answers to questions of law are generally expressed in terms of broad legal principles, and are capable of being applied to many situations, rather than being dependent on particular circumstances or factual situations. An answer to a question of law as applied to the particular facts of a case is often referred to as a "conclusion of law".

WASHINGTON — In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Courtruled by a 5-to-4 vote on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage.

So when I saw this  5 to 4 decision, I saw a unanimous decision, because it would have only taken one Supreme Justice to say, we have no authority to hear this case.

Apostle Paul Castellano