The US Supreme Court ruled on same-sex marriage before Trump and even Trump has not been able to revert the decision. Everyone was surprised when the US Supreme Court refused to consider the cases brought by Trump about the fraud in the election and he was sure the three justices he had appointed were going to stand by him. They did not because they are Justices in the US Supreme Court and they have to respect the US Constitution and precedence: when people are granted a right of any kind, it cannot be withdrawn. That's why cases against Obama Care all failed.

2. The US Supreme Court,
A Universal Lesson in Constitutional Right
Jacques Coulardeau & Ivan Eve
This essay studies the Case of California's Proposition 8 from its adoption by
the voters in November 2008 to the most recent US Supreme Court ruling on June 26,
2013. This essay is essentially centered on the legal and constitutional side of the
case and the arguments dealing with Amendment 14 to the US Supreme Court, Article
III of teh US Constitution, and the concepts of due process of law, equal protection of
the laws, strict scrutiny, standing, all concepts that should be universal in all legal and
judiciary systems in the world. The case then provides the world with a full
demonstration of these judicial human rights that in fact should define the concept of
Habeas Corpus.
This case deals with same-sex marriage in California. The US Supreme Court
refused to rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. They vacated and remanded
the Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit's ruling on the case because the people
speaking for the State of California did not have the necessary standing. That ruling
indirectly affirms the ruling of the Federal District Court that had declared Proposition
8 unconstitutional. Though it does not create a legal void in California, this ruling
encourages the ProtectMarriage organization to start a new round of legal
proceedings in the California Supreme Court.
This long essay would not have been possible if the first and shorter version
had not been encouraged by one of its first readers as follows:
“I think your argumentation and logic is good. You shouldn’t be
entering the rest of the discussion, maybe you can quote all the experts or
send back to what was said in a footnote, but it is not your point. You are
following the logic of the legal and constitutional system: Amendment 14,
the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court. What will happen, we can’t be
sure, but you can project yourself in the future, and you are already doing it,
by saying that the Supreme Court, despite taking a lot of time (which can
also be to get the “temperature,” the mood of the country within the next
few months), is very unlikely to commit itself with such an important issue.
And your logic shows just that . . .
So, in short, your approach is the most valuable as the case starts in
California (and its norms) and shifts to the federal level (multiple norms):
they all thrive under the US Constitution and Amendment 14.”
Paris, January 11, 2013
Amazon Kindle
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services, Inc.
Language: English
ASIN: B00E24JTC0
US$ 4.00 EUR 3.23