Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $78,466
89%  
Woo hoo!! And now over 89%!! Less than $9.6k to go!! Let's git 'er done!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by P-Marlowe

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’

    09/04/2015 7:19:20 AM PDT · 245 of 255
    P-Marlowe to ObozoMustGo2012; xzins
    I didn’t read anywhere that Trump said no matter what, she should have issued those licences herself. He could have delegated it to someone else.

    By law her signature must be on every marriage license issued in her county. She is not legally allowed to delegate that task to anyone else. She is simply following Kentucky law. She is not signing any marriage certificates. Technically since Kentucky's marriage laws are void, she really has no authority to issue any marriage licenses anyway.

    Kentucky could change the law if they are so inclined.

    You fight the fights that you can win now (immigration, economy), and fight for more when you’re in a position to do so.

    SURRENDER DOROTHY!

  • Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’

    09/04/2015 7:15:11 AM PDT · 239 of 255
    P-Marlowe to skippyjonjones; Jim Robinson; xzins
    Stop pretending you were for Trump you insufferable troll. How have you not been zotted yet?

    Ask Jim.

  • Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’

    09/04/2015 7:14:27 AM PDT · 236 of 255
    P-Marlowe to SoothingDave
    I could be wrong.

    You are.

    Obamacare was not passed with a saving clause, so if any part of it is found unconstitutional, the whole law is void.

    Do you not remember the arguments here on why it was so important that the employee mandate be found to be unconstitutional? If the court had so ruled, then the whole statute would have been voided and the matter sent back to congress to fix.

    The Supreme Court does not have a line item veto.

  • Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’

    09/04/2015 7:11:24 AM PDT · 230 of 255
    P-Marlowe to theoldmarine; xzins
    And, by the way, when did you come to know the Lord Jesus?

    1971. I found Jesus in a Christian Coffee house on Beach Blvd. I was baptized by the hippie freak Lonnie Frisbie.

  • Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’

    09/04/2015 7:03:16 AM PDT · 214 of 255
    P-Marlowe to gdani; xzins
    The SCOTUS decision does not void the entire law, only the law as it applies to gay marriages. Your (and others') interpretation that it voids the entire existing law is incorrect.

    And what law school did you flunk out of?

    The Supreme Court does not have a line item veto.

    Do you recall how it was noted that Congress forgot to put a "saving clause" in Obamacare? It was noted that their failure to do so would mean that if ANY PART of Obamacare were found to be unconstitutional, then the whole law would be unconstitutional and void? That is why Roberts was so adamant about finding any way to save it.

    Well, the same is true of marriage laws. When a law is passed by the legislature that includes some provision that is found to be unconstitutional, the entire statute that contains the governor's signature is voided and the legislature then needs to rewrite the law and get it passed. If there was another previous statute that was overturned or amended when the unconstitutional law was passed, then that statute goes back into effect.

    The Supreme Court voided every state statute that contains the words "Marriage shall be limited to one man and one woman". So those states that have those words are currently operating either under a previous law that did not contain those provisions or they are operating without any marriage laws whatsoever.

    And if people can still get marriage licenses without the limitation of "between one man and one woman", then if the State is going to recognize marriages and issue licenses, then it is not merely gay people who can get married, but polygamy is now the law of the land without limitation. Two men and three women? Five women and three men?

    Where is the limitation?

  • Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’

    09/04/2015 6:38:19 AM PDT · 164 of 255
    P-Marlowe to theoldmarine

    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!!!!

  • Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’

    09/04/2015 6:36:21 AM PDT · 159 of 255
    P-Marlowe to SoothingDave; Manly Warrior; xzins
    Or is it rather that portions of it are now unenforceable due to their being unconsitutional?

    Unless the Kentucky marriage laws were passed with a saving clause indicating that if any portion of the law was declared unconstitutional that the rest of the law passed as part of that package would remain in effect, then the entire statute was struck down by the Supreme Court.

    The Kentucky marriage laws were obviously passed before this became a habit of legislatures. So if that clause isn't there, then Kentucky and every other state which prohibited homosexual marriage is currently operating without any marriage laws.

  • Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’

    09/04/2015 6:31:17 AM PDT · 151 of 255
    P-Marlowe to Ransomed; xzins
    Do you know if she or her lawyer has made that argument?

    No. They are holding to the Religious liberty argument based on the Kentucky law that requires her signature to be on each Marriage License issued by her office.

    However the fact that they are not making that argument does not mean the statute still exists. It doesn't. In that sense her religious objection is even stronger. The State and Court are trying to force her to sign off on illegal marriage licenses.

    Why don't these fags just declare themselves married and shut the Hell up? Because they are at war with GOD.

  • Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’

    09/04/2015 6:26:51 AM PDT · 144 of 255
    P-Marlowe to Hugin; xzins
    Then why even bring up a religious liberty argument?,

    Because by law her signature must be on each and every marriage license issued from her office. It is a signature of approval. She doesn't approve.

    I get the feeling she originally decided not to issue due to religious objections, and her lawyer came up with that argument after the fact.

    Her lawyer has never even attempted to make that argument. I don't know why. That is the first argument I would have made. If he had made that argument, then his client would likely not be in jail..... yet.

  • Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’

    09/04/2015 6:19:51 AM PDT · 129 of 255
    P-Marlowe to ScottinVA; xzins
    I read that the first two times you posted it to others. I completely agree with her position against homosexual “marriage,” but no matter how you interpret it — nor how many times you hit “CNTL+V” to paste it, she has a duty to fulfill as assigned.

    Under what statutory authority does she have such a duty?

    Name the statute that says she has a duty to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples?

    The Kentucky law authorizing her to issue marriage licenses was STRUCK DOWN AND IS VOID. She has no legal authority to issue any marriage licenses and neither does any other county clerk in Kentucky.

  • Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’

    09/04/2015 6:15:26 AM PDT · 122 of 255
    P-Marlowe to VanDeKoik
    Does she think she can just ignore a directive from the higher ups and still keep her job? Nope.

    By law her signature will be on any marriage license issued from her office.

    And who the Hell are her "Higher ups"? The Federal Courts? Who elected this judge? Where does he get his authority to force this woman to issue marriage licenses? How is this a Federal issue when she is simply not issuing any licenses to anyone?

  • Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’

    09/04/2015 6:12:17 AM PDT · 114 of 255
    P-Marlowe to SoothingDave
    “The law is that distinctions between sexes on marriage laws are null.”

    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.

  • Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’

    09/04/2015 6:07:39 AM PDT · 104 of 255
    P-Marlowe to ScottinVA

    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!!!!

  • Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’

    09/04/2015 6:06:51 AM PDT · 101 of 255
    P-Marlowe to VanDeKoik

    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!!!!

  • Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’

    09/04/2015 6:06:14 AM PDT · 99 of 255
    P-Marlowe to SoothingDave

    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!!!!

  • Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’

    09/04/2015 5:56:34 AM PDT · 68 of 255
    P-Marlowe to 100American; xzins
    Ywa, and like it or not he is following the Rule of Law...-

    No he is caving to a tyrannical unconstitutional court opinion which created a law in opposition to the laws of Nature.

    Show me the statute that the clerk violated. Show me where the court is given power to jail this woman.

    Trump has shown that the only backbone he has is to attack Jeb Bush and say what we want to hear on immigration. But what if the Supreme Court tells him to sit down and shut up. Will he cave?

    Time to rethink my previous support.

  • Donald Trump on Kim Davis case: ‘The Supreme Court has ruled’

    09/04/2015 5:46:47 AM PDT · 43 of 255
    P-Marlowe to GIdget2004; xzins
    tough situation, but we are a nation, as I said yesterday, we’re a nation of laws

    Since when does the Supreme Court make laws? This might be a deal breaker for me. Surrendering legislative power to the judiciary is not acceptable. If he is not willing to fight this battle, then maybe he's not willing to take on the court if it rules against him on other issues.

    It's beginning to look like its Cruz or Lose.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 10:50:39 PM PDT · 233 of 272
    P-Marlowe to All

    I’m done here. Good night.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 10:49:53 PM PDT · 232 of 272
    P-Marlowe to Patriot Babe

    It appears to be the blue shirt guy. There were only about a dozen or less protesters. The guard should have just ignored them and instead created a media firestorm by stealing their sign. If he hadn’t done that, this protest would have gotten zero attention.

    Trump doesn’t need his security people stealing signs and punching protesters. He can usually turn bad publicity into good, but sometimes someone does something that can’t be swept under the rug very easily. This could hurt his campaign.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 10:45:22 PM PDT · 227 of 272
    P-Marlowe to A CA Guy
    That picture will help Trump get elected by even higher margins.

    The guy in the Mexican Flag Shirt sure isn't helping his cause. If he likes Mexico so much, what the heck is he doing in NYC?

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 10:38:07 PM PDT · 216 of 272
    P-Marlowe to moehoward
    If the sign is being carried, maybe. That sign was posted to the planters on the sidewalk. I'm seeing litter being removed and then a man being attacked/assaulted from behind who then defends himself.

    Get your facts straight. The sign was being held by the protesters.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 10:31:23 PM PDT · 211 of 272
    P-Marlowe to gunnut
    does the sidewalk around the building belong to Trump or is it owned by the city?

    Public Sidewalks are the property of the City.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 10:28:35 PM PDT · 206 of 272
    P-Marlowe to skippyjonjones; South40

    New York Penal Code

    S 160.00 Robbery; defined.
    Robbery is forcible stealing. A person forcibly steals property and commits robbery when, in the course of committing a larceny, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of:
    1. Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking; or
    2. Compelling the owner of such property or another person to deliver up the property or to engage in other conduct which aids in the commission of the larceny.

    S 160.05 Robbery in the third degree.
    A person is guilty of robbery in the third degree when he forcibly steals property.

    Robbery in the third degree is a class D felony.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 10:20:47 PM PDT · 198 of 272
    P-Marlowe to South40
    I don't know that they were blocking any entrances. I certainly didn't see that in the video. As you can see in this video anyone on the sidewalk wishing to enter the building was free to do so.

    Don't confuse these people with the facts.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 10:19:37 PM PDT · 197 of 272
    P-Marlowe to South40; lewislynn
    I'm a conservative who doesn't support liberal Donald Trump and you equate me to Jorge Ramos?

    I support Donald Trump and lewislynn equates me with Jorge Ramos. LOL!

    What I don't support are thugs who take signs from protesters and then punch them out when they try to recover them.

    There was a pro-life demonstration at a California College where a professor stole a sign and then shoved one of the people who tried to get it back. Everyone on Free Republic demanded that she be prosecuted. She was prosecuted for assault and robbery and fired from her job. Unless this guy was legally justified (I don't see it in the video) in taking the sign, then he should be prosecuted and fired. Goose/Gander.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 10:10:47 PM PDT · 186 of 272
    P-Marlowe to lewislynn; South40

    Is that the best you can do?

    I’m looking at this from a legal standpoint, not a political one. Did you see the video? What was the guard doing with the sign? Was he part of the protest?

    See tagline.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 10:07:40 PM PDT · 185 of 272
    P-Marlowe to South40
    If you made a sign or banner saying Hillary should be jailed, took it with you to the front of her headquarters and a member of her security snatched it from you and walked away with it, would you consider that theft?

    These same people who are attacking you and me would be OUTRAGED and demand prosecution. I'm a Trump fan, but I think this was a stupid move by the guard. Obviously the sign wasn't blocking the path because he apparently was the last of the entourage to enter the building. Everyone else apparently managed to get through without stealing the sign.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 10:03:58 PM PDT · 180 of 272
    P-Marlowe to mmichaels1970
    You just drove through my sign that was blocking entrance to your driveway. Do YOU get charged. Yes or no?

    If i didn't first ask you to move, I suspect I could get charged with assault and with a car it could be considered assault with a deadly weapon. I wouldn't advise anyone do that without first making a request that the sign be moved and warning that it is your intention to drive through it if they don't.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 10:00:52 PM PDT · 176 of 272
    P-Marlowe to mmichaels1970
    So if they were blocking a building entrance without a permit, the protesters could have been engaging in illegal activity.

    I did not see them blocking the entrance. They were standing on the sidewalk. I believe that is legal until they are told by the police to move. The guard could have walked around the sign, but decided to walk through it and take the sign with him. That's the way I saw it.

    Are you one of those people who thinks you need a permit to stand on a sidewalk? Should we arrest pro-lifers because they walk around abortion mills with signs and no permit?

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 9:54:05 PM PDT · 172 of 272
    P-Marlowe to mmichaels1970
    If I blocked your driveway with a banner, and you drove through it, tearing it in half, do YOU get charged with theft and/or destruction of property?

    If I ran you over while you were holding the sign, I'd get charged with murder.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 9:36:13 PM PDT · 154 of 272
    P-Marlowe to US_MilitaryRules
    Man have you lost it! Go to new york and help the poor mexican.

    Pay my way. Put me up in Trump tower.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 9:34:32 PM PDT · 152 of 272
    P-Marlowe to Williams
    A felony to take a sign from a protestor but not to lay hands on a security officer? Thank you, judge.

    When you steal something from someone's hands and walk or run away, it is considered a strong armed robbery. I'm not making up the law. That is what it is. When you grab a security guard who is stealing your property, it is generally excused because you are entitled to use reasonable force to recover your property when you are robbed.

    If you disagree, then run for office and change the law. Make strong armed robbery legal. Then you can join the #blacklivesmatter movement.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 9:26:29 PM PDT · 138 of 272
    P-Marlowe to A CA Guy
    Whose property did that happen on?

    New York City. Trump may own the Tower, but he doesn't own the sidewalk.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 9:22:20 PM PDT · 133 of 272
    P-Marlowe to MinuteGal
    "The guard had just committed a strong-armed robbery."

    When you yank something out of the hands of someone and walk away with it, it is considered a strong armed robbery.

    Just ask Michael Brown.

    Oh wait, you need a medium to do that.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 9:20:33 PM PDT · 131 of 272
    P-Marlowe to US_MilitaryRules
    Maybe the protester smacked the guard with the sign so he yanked them away from him.

    Did you see that in the video? What the video shows is that the guard took the sign and was walking away with it. Unless you have video showing the guard had a right to steal the sign, then he would not have a lawful defense.

    Maybe the guard was having an affair with the Mexican's wife?

    Maybe the Mexican was just trying to hug the guard because he liked him so much?

    Maybe....

    Maybe....

    Maybe....

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 9:20:29 PM PDT · 130 of 272
    P-Marlowe to US_MilitaryRules
    Maybe the protester smacked the guard with the sign so he yanked them away from him.

    Did you see that in the video? What the video shows is that the guard took the sign and was walking away with it. Unless you have video showing the guard had a right to steal the sign, then he would not have a lawful defense.

    Maybe the guard was having an affair with the Mexican's wife?

    Maybe the Mexican was just trying to hug the guard because he liked him so much?

    Maybe....

    Maybe....

    Maybe....

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 9:15:11 PM PDT · 121 of 272
    P-Marlowe to dragnet2
    You should go place him under citizens arrest Marlowe.

    You can't place a person under citizen's arrest unless you are present at the time the crime is committed. Apparently the Mexican may have been attempting to do that after the guard stole his sign.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 9:10:41 PM PDT · 119 of 272
    P-Marlowe to Syncro; dragnet2
    As well as some posters on this thread apparently.

    See tag line.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 9:09:11 PM PDT · 114 of 272
    P-Marlowe to South40
    Watching it in slow motion it is clear, the security guard grabbed the man's sign and walked away with it.

    If true, then the guard committed a strong armed robbery.

    Should we here on Free Republic condone that behavior simply because we like the candidate that this guy is supposed to be protecting?

  • Has a Law Been Broken by the Lady Clerk?

    09/03/2015 9:06:48 PM PDT · 10 of 92
    P-Marlowe to Texas resident
    She did not break any laws. She refused to obey an unconstitutional court order. She obeyed the law. Kentucky law does not allow a county clerk to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple. The Supreme Court may have voided the law in its opinion, but if the law is void, then the clerk had no authority to issue any marriage licenses at all. There is no law authorizing her to do so. There is, however, a law prohibiting her from doing so.
  • Has a Law Been Broken by the Lady Clerk?

    09/03/2015 9:03:54 PM PDT · 8 of 92
    P-Marlowe to hapnHal

    I’d probably agree with you but I won’t read a post with so many capital letters. Try it again without 90% of the caps.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 8:32:49 PM PDT · 74 of 272
    P-Marlowe to VeniVidiVici
    I see the Mexican assaulting the guard.

    Why was the guard walking away with his sign?

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 8:27:07 PM PDT · 69 of 272
    P-Marlowe to Jane Long
    I’m going to wait for the ACTUAL facts to come out.

    So when it the jury going to reach a verdict?

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 8:24:37 PM PDT · 66 of 272
    P-Marlowe to Jane Long
    Let’s wait and see what the facts are before we decide things. We wouldn’t want to be Judge and Jury, on FR, would we?

    Most of the posters here have already convicted the guy who was punched. Judging just from the video, it appears that the guy was trying to recover stolen property when he was assaulted by a strong armed robber.

    How are you going to decide the "facts"? By just assuming that the guy was assaulting the guard for no reason at all?

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 8:19:26 PM PDT · 59 of 272
    P-Marlowe to chris37
    And a person has a right to defend themselves against assault.

    Not when they have just committed a robbery against you. You have a right to attempt to recover your property by the use of reasonable force.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 8:17:42 PM PDT · 56 of 272
    P-Marlowe to tinyowl

    The guard had just stolen the man’s sign. That was a protest sign that he ripped out of his arms.

    In Michael Brown terms, what that was is a STRONG ARMED ROBBERY. That is a felony.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 8:15:23 PM PDT · 49 of 272
    P-Marlowe to House Atreides
    What specifically did YOU see that differed from that?

    See post 31. The guard was walking away with that sign. Do you think the guard brought that with him? Do you think that sign was his?

    The fact of the matter is that the guard had just committed a strong armed robbery. Are we here on Free Republic going to condone that kind of behavior?

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 8:11:12 PM PDT · 36 of 272
    P-Marlowe to DoughtyOne

    Looks like the sign the guard stole.

    I’m betting Trump fires him before the weekend.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 8:10:14 PM PDT · 33 of 272
    P-Marlowe to TexasGator
    It’s NOT a sucker punch when another person attacks you with physical force grappling you from behind.

    It is when you are stealing his property and trying to get away.

  • Trump Security Guard Punches Latino Man

    09/03/2015 8:08:16 PM PDT · 29 of 272
    P-Marlowe to Jane Long
    Did you miss the part where the latino guy jumped the security guard, from behind? I didn’t see the guard stealing the signs. I saw him carrying signs, or something blue.

    Watch it again. It was a protest sign. The guard grabbed it and was walking away with it and the guy grabbed him from behind because he took his sign. Wouldn't you do the same thing if some pro-abortionist started walking away with your pro-life sign?

    Look we have to be consistent here and when someone on our side screws up, we have to be prepared to call them on it. This guard needs to be fired. I bet he is fired before Friday.