Franklin Graham Slams Trump on Kim Davis Remarks: 'Forefathers Gave Us Freedom of Religion

Christian Post ^ | 09/08/2015 | Stoyan Zaimov

[SeekAndFind]

RE: EXACTLY.
Now you get it.

_____________

Not exactly. It means that Obergfell is INVALID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL, therefore AGAINST the basic law of the land.

It should not be obeyed.

[Jan_Sobieski]

Judicial activism is the point. Judicial review was never intended to “write law”, which is what they are doing. Why do we need legislators if the Judicial branch can “write law”? They have overstepped their constitutional bounds and have assumed roles never intended for the courts. It is clear that we need a constitutional convention.

[LambSlave]

The "law" the SC is interpreting is the 14th Amendment, specifically section 1, specifically equal protection:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How a rational being could interpret an amendment designed with the narrow intent of granting rights of citizenship to former slaves to mean this is the question. But like the Commerce Clause, General Welfare Clause, if it gives the governemnt control over the people then that is how they wil linterpret it.

[EternalVigilance]

"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

-- President Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address

[EternalVigilance]

"It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

- Thomas Jefferson

[EternalVigilance]

"[T]he judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78, June 14, 1788

[tanknetter]

Those quotes are great. However what ususlly gets neglected in citing them is that they speak to a system of checks and balances that still exists.

The problem is that it isn’t exercised.

Judges don’t have unlimited and arbitrary power. They only exercise such because the power to stop them doesn’t exist and/or isn’t being used.

Judges can be impeached. The makeup of the Judiciary can be changed. Courts can be packed, jurisdictions removed.

Barring that, Constitutional Amendments can be ratified and a new Constitutional Convention can be called.

Judicial tyranny only exists ONLY because We The People allow it to exist, don’t make our representative leaders stop it from existing and failing that won’t use the legal and Constitutional mechanisms in place to stop it ourselves.

[EternalVigilance]

That’s the whole point, right there.

[Georgia Girl 2]

I would like to see Trump come out and say that its time to let Davis out of jail and settle this another way.

[Georgia Girl 2]

The judge just announced he’s letting Kim Davis out of jail immediately.

[Reaper19]

Pretty much.

[Reaper19]

But that’s the Trump way. Running against someone for office? Call them names. Get asked a question in a debate you don’t like? Insult. Get stumped in an interview? Whine about not being treated fairly and attack.

[SgtHooper]

To bypass Congressional codification of laws that align with the decision is unconstitutional. But you seem okay with that.

[Kenny]

I don’t like the insulting side of Trump. I’ll stick with him though because for those of us who have been tracking GOPe war, its Trump or their guy end of story.

Things I do like about Trump that I’d probably vote for him anyway, 1) illegal immigration 2) positive message - make America great again - and win. 3) not owned by party, donors, or lobbyists.

[richardskeet]

“To bypass Congressional codification of laws that align with the decision is unconstitutional. But you seem okay with that.”

READ MY POSTS

[Pelham]

“Franklin Graham is not someone I put much weight on their words. TV preacher, living off of daddy’s dynasty.”

A foolish comment. Franklin Graham is a credit to his father.

[Reno89519]

How so, living high off congregation, infidelity, what?