Posted on 09/04/2015 5:12:31 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Bottom line, host Joe Scarborough said, is that if Supreme Court makes a decision, that’s the law of land, right?
“You have to go with it,” Mr. Trump said. “The decision’s been made, and that is the law of the land.”
“She can take a pass and let somebody else in the office do it in terms of religious, so you know, it’s a very … tough situation, but we are a nation, as I said yesterday, we’re a nation of laws,” he said. “And I was talking about borders and I was talking about other things, but you know, it applies to this, also, and the Supreme Court has ruled."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The Supreme Court decision did not change Kentucky law, it voided it. The LAW in Kentucky regarding marriage is that in order to get a marriage license the applicant must be two adults of the opposite sex who are not immediately blood related. The Kentucky statute that authorizes the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to anyone does not authorize her to issue a license to same sex couples. If the Supreme Court determined that the Kentucky statute was unconstitutional, then the county clerk cannot issue any marriage license at all. She isn’t. She is currently obeying the law by not issuing licenses because she currently has no authority to do so.
Your position is one that gives the Supreme Court LEGISLATIVE POWER which it does not have. Forcing this clerk to issue marriage licenses is an unconstitutional act. The court has no power to require a county clerk to violate an existing Kentucky Statute and if the statute is void, then it has no power to make up some statute that requires the state to issue marriage licenses in accordance with a void statute.
I get pretty sick and tired of people on this forum saying that this clerk needs to follow the law or quit her job. SHE’S DOING HER JOB!!!! Her job is to follow the statutory law and right now there isn’t one.
Unless and until KENTUCKY passes a law re-authorizing the issuance of marriage licenses, no clerk in Kentucky should be issuing marriage licenses to anyone.
If you disagree, then show me the currently existing statute that authorizes county clerks in Kentucky to issue marriage licenses to anyone.
The problem is not that the clerk is not following the law, THE COURTS ARE MAKING UP THE LAW. THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO!!! If anyone should be quitting their jobs, it is the judges!!!!
> Mark Levin suggests that if this stands, it effectively means religious people are barred from serving in public office.
That’s one of the points I made in my last post. Like Mark I think ahead where the bus is headed which is one of the things I like about the man. He’s a critical thinker He knows and undeerstands his enemies because he’s done nattle with them so many times before. Kim Davis wasn’t fired for failingto do her job she was arrested. And it was because she didn’t want to do something against her religious beliefs but because she would not kneel and submit to the will of a protected class which the president has an affection for she was arrested. We are in perilous waters here if you are a Christian.
> How would people on this board feel if a border sheriff “objected” to having to arrest illegals
National defense is a legitimate function of the Federal government, marriage is not.
GAFC
The Supreme Court decision did not change Kentucky law, it voided it. The LAW in Kentucky regarding marriage is that in order to get a marriage license the applicant must be two adults of the opposite sex who are not immediately blood related. The Kentucky statute that authorizes the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to anyone does not authorize her to issue a license to same sex couples. If the Supreme Court determined that the Kentucky statute was unconstitutional, then the county clerk cannot issue any marriage license at all. She isn’t. She is currently obeying the law by not issuing licenses because she currently has no authority to do so.
Your position is one that gives the Supreme Court LEGISLATIVE POWER which it does not have. Forcing this clerk to issue marriage licenses is an unconstitutional act. The court has no power to require a county clerk to violate an existing Kentucky Statute and if the statute is void, then it has no power to make up some statute that requires the state to issue marriage licenses in accordance with a void statute.
I get pretty sick and tired of people on this forum saying that this clerk needs to follow the law or quit her job. SHE’S DOING HER JOB!!!! Her job is to follow the statutory law and right now there isn’t one.
Unless and until KENTUCKY passes a law re-authorizing the issuance of marriage licenses, no clerk in Kentucky should be issuing marriage licenses to anyone.
If you disagree, then show me the currently existing statute that authorizes county clerks in Kentucky to issue marriage licenses to anyone.
The problem is not that the clerk is not following the law, THE COURTS ARE MAKING UP THE LAW. THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO!!! If anyone should be quitting their jobs, it is the judges!!!!
Sorry you didn’t understand my argument that court orders and nullifying of unconstitutional laws are valid ways that “the law” is implemented. I wasn’t equating race and “sexual perversion.”
You have to realize that Trump is still new with this whole “being a Christian” thing. He’s bound to make mistakes.
“You have to go with it,” Mr. Trump said. “The decision’s been made, and that is the law of the land.”
___
Trump is so wrong. He needs to step back and rethink his position regarding SC decisions. The SC does not make/change law.
> Mark Levin suggests that if this stands, it effectively means religious people are barred from serving in public office.
That’s one of the points I made in my last post. Like Mark I think ahead where the bus is headed which is one of the things I like about the man. He’s a critical thinker. He knows and undeerstands his enemies because he’s done battle with them so many times before. Kim Davis wasn’t fired for failing to do her job, she was arrested. And it was because she didn’t want to do something against her religious beliefs and because she would not kneel and submit to the will of a protected class which the president has an affection for she was arrested. We are in perilous waters here if you are a Christian.
I heard she wasn't allowing any of her clerks to sign them either.
And it is.
However, Kim Davis earns $80K annually as the Rowan County Clerk. She obviously disagrees with the terms of the job to which she was elected. I support her taking the position against "gay marriage," but if she finds her assigned duties at variance with her beliefs, she needs to resign or at least delegate the issuance of those licenses.
The correct answer is to say that the job duties have changed and either carry them out or it's grounds for termination. Arresting someone and throwing them in shackles is pure legalistic terrorism. A show of force by a demonically possessed government.
A referendum on what? To have the local county voters decide whether they want their officials to abide by the Supreme Court or not?
Trump is about a gamble. He is definitely no politician, so what he does should be the measure of his opinion and not those off-the-cuff thoughts he weaves together. He was talking to Hugh Hewitt on the radio and Hewitt started asking him the name, rank, and serial number of the various leaders of various terrorist groups around the world. Trump called it a gotcha question. (It was.) He said to forget those details and just know that he’s a delegator, that he finds the best people, and that shortly after taking office he’ll know more about those people than Hewitt ever knew, because he’ll find the best person to be in charge. Besides, he says, who cares who they are. By the time the presidency changes, those guys could be dead or gone.
I agree. Does it matter that someone doesn’t know a name? They’re not auditioning for the role of double agent in the guy’s friendship group. They’re auditioning for the role of whack-a-mole.
So with the Scotus. Trump says “they ruled”. We have to deal with it, he says.
The important thing to me is if he has ever indicated in his past an ability to work around, finesse, or even violate the spirit while manipulating the letter of the law? Has he ever worked to change a law?
All that said, you are right about Cruz. He’s the best.
And Huckabee, to be honest with you, was on this weeks ago. And Rand Paul is no slouch. If I have to choose between one of them and Bush, then it’s gonna be one of them.
If the law authorizing the clerk to issue the licenses has been declared null and void, then under what authority does she have to issue any licenses at all?
The court is ordering her to issue licenses when her authority to do so was apparently stripped by the Supreme Court?
Why are there so many Freepers who support this TYRANNY from the Judiciary?
BTW it is not a "LAW" it is an OPINION. Only the legislature can make laws. Show me the LAW?
A 5-4 opinion by a bunch of senile geezers is not a Law.
Did they really void the entire statute in KY that deals with marriage licenses? Do you have something that shows this?
“The LAW in Kentucky regarding marriage is that in order to get a marriage license the applicant must be two adults of the opposite sex who are not immediately blood related. “
And SCOTUS ruled that those laws are unconstitutional. Not unconstitutional, but until your state legislator gets around to rewriting it, then it’s still on the books.
Hate to break it to you, but that isnt a legitimate loophole. It never has.
When SCOTUS rules some gun law unconstitutional no one here was saying it didnt matter until the law was rewritten.
The faggots could go to another county. She is being targeted.
Apples and oranges, marriage is a legal contract governed by state law, currently the laws that detate how that contract is written can not be followed hence the laws need to be rewritten so the clerk can write a legal contract.
If you believe there is no rule of law now, do you not wish for there to be so? Or is that to be re-instated only after the revolution?
No, I am just saying we have to understand the reality of the situation and not day dream about a Constititon that does not exist under King Obama.
Would a Dem have a problem sitting in jail for what they believe? No. Nothing illustrates the insanity of the leftist attack on Christianity better than this woman sitting in jail.
If a Muslim doesn’t want to issue alcohol licenses, great. Let them pull that crap while they are still 2% of the population. Let’s have that battle now too. Better to see them for what they are now than later.
So, if the law authorizing marriage licenses specifically makes the banned distinction, there is no law authorizing marriage licenses.
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.