California Governor Urged to Arrest Mayor of San Francisco

Agape Press ^ | 1/16/04 | Fred Jackson, Allie Martin, and Jody Brown

[hedgetrimmer]

General Vallejo welcomed the Americans in California because he believed their support would bring growth and stability to the region and that California would benefit thereby...
http://www.militarymuseum.org/Vallejo.html

[templar]

Time for someone to put judges in their place. They are NOT to make law. Not Ever!

Well, tell you what. If a Judge ever issues a court order to you just tell him his order isn't law and you don't have to obey it. You'll get a real quick and practical education on what is and is not law.

[templar]

If repugnant to the constitution, the other three forms of 'law' are void

Well, OK, so ... according to the Constituiton: Who is given the authority to determine what is and is not repugnant to the Constitution?

[Contra]

Soon all these gay couples can go to Massachusetts and get married legally. John Kerry will have some explaining to do.

[Froggie]

Where in America does a mayor issue a marriage license. In every jurisdiction I've known, it was the perview of the County on behalf of the State to issue such license. By what authority are these "licenses" being issued? This is just another scam like the "universal life church" issuing ordination certificates - meaningless. The State must enforce it's laws or none have the teeth of authority.
Isn't it the county district attorney's responsibility here to enforce the law? And failing that, shouldn't the State Attorney General intervene? Can he just pick and choose what laws he will enforce? Is it time for another recall election in California if he refuses to act?

[tpaine]

templar wrote:
Well, OK, so ... according to the Constituiton: Who is given the authority to determine what is and is not repugnant to the Constitution?

______________________________________


Ultimately, every man is his own judge of what law he follows.
For instance, booze prohibition failed because millions of Americans refused to obey its repugnant 'law'..

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

McClintock has experience and ability whereas Arnold has name recognition and cash.

[Leatherneck_MT]

When the leaders flout the law, then there is no law.

It's time to put the leaders on notice of their lives that they too need to obey the law. Especially if others we pay to uphold the law do nothing about the lawbreakers in their midst.

[ClintonBeGone]

McClintock has experience and ability whereas Arnold has name recognition and cash.

And Arnold is 1-0 in statewide lections. McClintock is 0-2. Like Al Davis says, 'just win baby'.

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

I think the feds should come in on on this

"When three or more parties conspire to carry on an on
going criminal enterprise and/or conspiracy, it can fall under the RICCO Act. ..."

[Porterville]

Oh, he'd love to be a martyr. No, the proper step for the mayor is impeachment or recall.

[ChicagoHebrew]

Nyet. Generally to arrest a high public official for official conduct you'd need a court order that what he was doing in fact violates the law. Then if he continues doing it, you arrest him for contempt.

In short, this will go to Court, and a Court will declare the practice illegal. Then SF will stop issuing licenses or face the consequences.

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

McClintock is currently 100% right on the issues whereas Arnold is about 60% and heading South. Before Arnold came along McClintock was the top GOP vote-getter in the state, when he ran for controller in the 2002 election. He got practically no support from the state GOP and was outspent by his opponent by 5 to 1 and yet in spite of all this he only lost by less than 1 percent of the vote.

[Syncro]

If he took steroids for any length of time, those got smaller while his skull got bigger.

[reformedcrat]

Templar is absolutely correct. There are four kinds of law. I learned this in my first year of law school (Santa Clara University 1986.) Judicial (Judge-made) law is just as much law as that made by the state legislature. Like legislative law, it can be overturned by appellate judges.

Marty

[ClintonBeGone]

McClintock was the top GOP vote-getter in the state, when he ran for controller in the 2002 election. He got practically no support from the state GOP and was outspent by his opponent by 5 to 1 and yet in spite of all this he only lost by less than 1 percent of the vote.

Blah blah blah we heard this all during the election. How sad that his side basically claims "he was the best loser of the bunch in 2002! but the GOP wouldn't support him" Silly. If he can't raise his own funds, he does not belong in politics. He's clearly not a team player yet his whining supporters expect that GOP cash to support him. McClinton and his supporters have shown and shown again they're just a bunch of selfish losers.

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

Blah blah blah we heard this all during the election.

My goodness, what a well reasoned and eloquent retort. During this thread alone you have referred to Tom McClintock, a principled and passionate conservative, as a clown, a kook, a self centred greedy little punk, not conservative, unelectable, a Dem ally and as someone who works for Bustamante. God help Michigan if you’re an example of a Michigan conservative.

[cupcakes]

It really does not matter though what he personally believes. This is the law in the state of California. He should uphold it and see to it that those violating it are reprimanded harshly. Isn't this what the libs are so concerned about the right doing? That we will let our personal views get in the way of law?

[ClintonBeGone]

Lets just say I'm glad the voters in California saw through McClintock's charade AGAIN. Why did he lose anyway? I never found out who he's blaming this time for his lose.