Tag Archives: Supreme Court Ruling

Rand Paul: ‘I Don’t Want My Guns Or My Marriage Registered In Washington’

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same sex marriage in all 50 states, GOP Presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) shared his opinion on the issue, highlighting the fact that he thinks the federal government “should get out of the marriage business altogether.

In an editorial for TIME Magazine, Paul wrote that while he disagrees with the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, he still thinks all Americans should have the right to contract, and he thinks it should be a local issue, as the Founding Fathers wanted it to be, judging by the fact that “the Constitution is silent on the question of marriage.

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental liberties protected by the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause “extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.”

Paul noted that while those who disagree with the ruling argue that the  court “should not overturn the will of legislative majorities,” those in favor argue that the 14th Amendment “protects rights from legislative majorities.”

“I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington,” wrote Paul, who added that “it seems some rights are more equal than others,” judging by the fact that while supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue that consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults when it comes to legalizing same sex marriage, they argue against the right to contract when it comes to economic liberties.

As Truth In Media previously reported, the Supreme Court was ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the plaintiff “wanted to be listed as the surviving spouse on his husband’s death certificate but discovered legal challenges regarding his home recognizing marriage performed in an outside state.

Paul noted that while marriage is a contract, it is “more than just a simple contract.” He acknowledged the “right to contract in all economic and personal spheres,” and wrote that having this right does not mean there is not a danger of government involving itself “in every nook and cranny of our lives” and enforcing “definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others.”

[quote_center]“Some have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling will now involve the police power of the state in churches, church schools, church hospitals,” Paul wrote. “This may well become the next step, and I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere.”[/quote_center]

In the Supreme Court’s ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent that in the American legal tradition, “liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.”

Paul agreed, writing that while he thinks the government should not prevent people from making contracts, he also thinks it’s time to “examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.”

Paul also questioned whether the government should “allocate any benefits based on marital status,” and whether other states will create bills like the bill seeking to abolish marriage licenses in the state of Alabama.

[quote_center]“Since government has been involved in marriage, they have done what they always do—taxed it, regulated it, and now redefined it,” Paul wrote. “It is hard to argue that government’s involvement in marriage has made it better, a fact also not surprising to those who believe government does little right.”[/quote_center]

While other GOP candidates such as Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker opposed the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, candidates Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio have said that they would not support an amendment to reverse the court’s ruling.

For more news related to the 2016 Presidential election, click here.

Supreme Court Ruling: Police Cannot Search Cell Phones Without A Warrant

In a colossal decision favoring digital privacy, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled 9-0 Wednesday that “police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested” due to the immense amount of private information now commonly contained on cell phones.

In a ruling over two separate cases in California and Massachusetts, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of privacy rights over the necessity of investigating crime. Defendants David Riley of California and Brima Wurie of Massachusetts sought to overturn their convictions due to the fact that their convictions had stemmed from their phones being searched without a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled that both searches were unconstitutional.

While police are still allowed to examine a phone to specifically ensure it is not a weapon, the ruling states “digital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee’s escape.”

“Modern cellphones are not just another technological convenience,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple—get a warrant.”

ACLU national legal director Steven R. Shapiro responded to the ruling: “By recognizing that the digital revolution has transformed our expectations of privacy, today’s decision is itself revolutionary and will help to protect the privacy rights of all Americans. We have entered a new world but, as the court today recognized, our old values still apply and limit the government’s ability to rummage through the intimate details of our private lives.” 

Follow Annabelle on Facebook and Twitter.