Posted on 01/29/2010 11:13:04 AM PST by GonzoII
And do you think it should be? In this country, just like people have a right to live their lives in a manner consistent with the literal word of the bible, people also enjoy the same rights to completely ignore the Bible and practice some other religion. This hasn't weakened religion in America, it's strengthened it.
Founding Fathers were religious people, and believed in the Bible.
I'm sure some did. Of course, others were Deist, so not so much. Of course, that begs the question "which Bible" did they read? Have you ever read the Jefferson Bible. You should. You might find it enlightening.
In any event, what the Framers didn't do is make the Bible the law of the land. They could have, but elected not to. Instead, they wrote their own laws and codified those laws into our Constitution.
"John Adams said that the Constitution cannot work for immoral people. Those were his words, not mine."
They certainly were. Just curious, did Adams happen to identify who the morality police were? Precisely where are these morality police, and what our my rights with them? Where can I petition for grievances with these morality police? See where I'm going here.
We have a set of rules in this country called laws. The people elect representatives to make or amend those laws. Sometimes those representatives - and the judges they appoint and confirm - do what we like, sometimes they don't. But we don't get to selectively follow the laws we agree with and ignore the ones we don't based on our own personal sense philosophical or moral superiority.
We have people in this country who do that now. They're called Jihadist. We don't need anymore than we already have to endure.
Actually you are mistaken, comparably there are less countries who are a party with the United States in the Hague Convention than there are who are. Further, you assume that people in those other countries would actively be looking for her anyway.
These treaties were the foundation for the argument that eventually prevailed to return the US child in Brazil back to his New Jersey father.
It took more than 5 years.
There is a public policy exception to both the FF&C Clause, and to contracts. No one has a right to have a court enforce a contract that contravenes public policy.
Natural Law always trumps human law.
"This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."
Argumentum Ad Hominem.
When we have people deciding what "just and unjust" laws they will or will not be following, we've lost the Republic.
Funny that you say that, especially when the Framers did exactly that.
Except even you don't believe that. If the Representatives passed a law tomorrow requiring you to turn in your guns would you do it?
If the Constitution were amended to force you to put members of your family on cattle cars headed for a gas chamber, I am sure that you would follow it to the letter. Right? After all, the law is the law.
No, even YOU have a point where you would disregard laws that conflict with your notions of morality. Everyone does.
Says you. So what? "Funny that you say that, especially when the Framers did exactly that."
Funny, I don't remember the Framers declaring independence from a Republic. I'm pretty sure it was a monarchy. Maybe you have different history books than I do.
You do recognize that what KSM might or might not do is irrelevant?
Funny, I don't remember the Framers declaring independence from a Republic. I'm pretty sure it was a monarchy. Maybe you have different history books than I do.
So your position is that it is OK to break the laws of a Monarchy, but not those of a Republic? Isn't the law the law? Doesn't one have to work within the system to change it without resorting to breaking the law? Is breaking the law never an option?
Precisely what public policy is this ruling contravening? Two years ago, the Virginia Supreme Court heard the visitation rights case with these very litigants. The court sided with the plaintiff - the lesbian partner. The judge was following the law. You just don't like the law.
Two years ago, the Virginia Supreme Court heard the visitation rights case with these very litigants. The court sided with the plaintiff - the lesbian partner.
On what grounds? Was it on the merits or not?
The judge was following the law. You just don't like the law.
Which law?
The Framers created a system where the people - through this representative system of government - create laws. We, as a civil society, live within the confines of those laws. You're comparing the laws of today with the edicts of a monarch, to what end, apparently only you know. What relevance there is to a child custody case, is a mystery to all but you.
"Virginia has a public policy against same-sex unions. It should not be enforcing any policy contrary to the laws of the State of Virginia."
So, England didn't have a Parliament? In any case, you still didn't answer the question. Is it OK to break the laws of a monarchy (or other non-republican form of government) but not the laws of a Republic? What makes the laws of a Republic more valid than the laws in other forms of government? You seem to assert the position that the law is the law, and breaking the law is never an option.
So let's go with that. Is it ever OK to break the law? If yes, then under what circumstances? If No, then why were the Framers OK in breaking the laws that they were subject to?
Does this also mean that you agree that Baker v. Nelson is the law (and thus Vaughn Walker is bound to follow it.) And that Prop 8 in California is a law that must be respected and followed?
Post #35 - I cited the relevant VI statute. That is the statute that the VT judge used to grant visitation to the non-biological parent. The VI Supreme Court upheld that visitation order. That details of that decision may be read here.
It's certainly the law in MN. IIRC, the US Supreme Court denied cert in that case.
"And that Prop 8 in California is a law that must be respected and followed?"
It's certainly the law in California.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
The Framers declared the independence from a monarchy to build a representative Republic. If you're advocating open rebellion and insurrection over a child custody case. Have at it, old boy. Let me know how it works out for you.
The Virginia Supreme court didn't find that argument compelling. They ruled, unanimously, against the biological mother.
Wrong. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed Baker. A dismissal for "want of a substantial question" is NOT simply a denial of cert. "[A] dismissal by the Supreme Court is an adjudication on the merits. . . a lower federal court must consider itself bound by the dismissal when a similar challenge comes before it."
"[D]ismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction". Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977).
Summary decisions "prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)
Baker is the law of the Land, not just California. So again, do you agree that since it is the law, Vaughn Walker is obliged to follow it? (Since the jurisdictional statement in Baker specifically included both Due Process and Equal Protection grounds.)
I find your lack of a response quite telling. It certainly says a lot for your position that "the law is the law."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.