California Governor Urged to Arrest Mayor of San Francisco

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

[Aquinasfan]

A small step in the right direction would be a statement condemning the illegal and immoral actions of the SF mayor. How about it Arnold?

He's in favor of "civil unions," which is marriage in everything but name.

[templar]

You tell us "what it is", and where it is, hotshot..

Are you admitting that you don't know then? if not, then you tell us where it is since I asked the question.

[ClintonBeGone]

So when will you tell me what's so great about Arnold?

I'll continue with two words: HE WON

[sangoo]

So when will you tell me what's so great about Arnold? I'll continue with two words: HE WON

So I guess if Clinton had put an R after his name on the ballot, you would be happy?

[inquest]

So I guess if Clinton had put an R after his name on the ballot, you would be happy?

You know he would, just as you can bet he's right behind Mayor Bloomberg all the way.

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

So now we know you come from the power at any price camp we can afford your comments the respect they warrant.

[tpaine]

templar wrote: tpaine, I've pretty much come to consider you a lunatic fringe type. You either have not read the constitution or you don't even begin to understand what you read. And you never answer any question about where something is in the constitution unless it suits your (anti-constitutional) Purposes, because much of what you claim is constitutional is not, and the constitution addresses very specific issues that you seem to ignore in favor of your own (unconstitutional) assertions. IN short, you seem to equate anarchy with constitutional government. It is not. Constitutional government is quite the opposite of anarchy.
-131-


_____________________________________



Typical.. - You can't answer my comments here: --

Replies
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1079289/replies?comment=128
-- So you call me nasty names and make declarations of your own constitutional correctness.

Take it to the backroom, and I'll answer your slurs. Otherwise, you can shove it.
137 tpaine

______________________________________


I didn't call you any nasty names,

I let you know what crowd I think you belong to. Calling you a name would be done quite differently than expressing my opinion. Since you don't (won't) address the Constitutional issue I have brought up in the form of a simple question, it's hard for me to show any "constitutional correctness" in my posts to you. Skipping the usual veiled terroristic threats, what do you find in the Constitution that decides who determines Constitutionality of any issue? Either quit pretending to be a Constitutionalist and drop the dialog or answer the question. It's very clear and readily available to anyone that wants to take a little time and read the Constitution.
140 -temp-

---

At #131 above, -- you own words show you to be a liar.

At #133 you made a statement:

"The Constitution has specific authority given for the determination of what is and is not Constitutional."

Prove it.. Cite the Article, and the words, and your reasoning for your interpretation, -- or be branded as a just another loudmouth braggart.

[biffalobull]

BTW I DO NOT want to see anymore kissing of the bride/ groom whoever is whom on TV again. And how do you know which is which?

Easy, the bride is the one with the whiskers.

[templar]

.. Cite the Article, and the words, and your reasoning for your interpretation, -- or be branded as a just another loudmouth braggart.

Well. lets see here. I think it wa, maybe, six months or so ago we went through this and I DID prove it, I stated the article and section and posted the language as well. (Short memory maybe?) You simply said nothing after I did, you quit responding. I asked you a question and you have't answered it. I will ask again that you answer my original question and will do so every time you post to me on this thread till you do. Unless you just simply admit that you either don't know or that you refuse to because it negates a whole bunch of stuff you profess. Trying to divert my attention, and avoid the question isn't going to work.

[inquest]

I think it wa, maybe, six months or so ago we went through this and I DID prove it, I stated the article and section and posted the language as well.

Sorry, I happened to miss that thread. And since you posted the contended statement to me on this thread, I'd like it if you could now back it up.

[reg45]

Why not have President Bush order the arrest of Mayor Newsom!

United States Constitution

Article IV

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, ....

This act of defiance by an arrogant executive against the legislative and judicial branches cannot be tolerated.

[inquest]

That clause is for things like military coups. Califonia's "form of government" hasn't changed. Its proper authorities are perfectly capable of dealing with this situation, whenever they should see their obligation. Every dereliction of duty somewhere in a state isn't a cause for federal intervention.

[torchthemummy]

The best move for Gov. Arnold is to pbulicly inform the Mayor that he, the Governor, is a reasonable man but that these actions are clearly against the ballot question passed in 2000(?) make his actions of conferring documents purported to be legal illegal infact and that he must immediately cease and dissist or he then will be charged.

As a caveat, I should restate my belief that I do not have anything against two people that love each other to affirm as such. I can't imagine that one with a biological preference (arguable but I believe it represents the majority) should be denied a committed relationship. That being said, declaring it marriage is not the route and only confirms that previous stated goals of civil unions was a trojan horse and at the same time served to try to undermine the importance of heterosexuals and the need for procreation. As liberals of all stripes continue to affirm, they can never be honest about the goal line.

[BikerNYC]

...or he then will be charged.

With what?

[tpaine]

.. Cite the Article, and the words, and your reasoning for your interpretation, -- or be branded as a just another loudmouth braggart.

Well. lets see here. I think it wa, maybe, six months or so ago we went through this and I DID prove it, I stated the article and section and posted the language as well. (Short memory maybe?)

You're delusional. Cite the Article, and the words, and your reasoning for your interpretation, -- or this supposed previous thread..

You simply said nothing after I did, you quit responding.

Didn't happen, or you would prove it.

I asked you a question and you have't answered it. I will ask again that you answer my original question and will do so every time you post to me on this thread till you do. Unless you just simply admit that you either don't know or that you refuse to because it negates a whole bunch of stuff you profess. Trying to divert my attention, and avoid the question isn't going to work.

Whatever.. - Cite the Article, and the words, and your reasoning for your interpretation, or look like a fool.

[torchthemummy]

Felonies galore as enumerated in the relevant statute.

[templar]

You have mail

[BikerNYC]

The statute made it a felony for a government official to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

[templar]

Whatever.. ...

I asked you a question and you have't answered it. I will ask again that you answer my original question and will do so every time you post to me on this thread till you do.

[ScottLA37]

We should all freep the gay marriage line and try to obtain marriage licenses to mary our pets, mothers, sisters, fathers, horses, and cars. These are also not allowed under California law, so why stop at same sex marriage? This will show the media just what we are all in for if we open up Pandora's box and allow same sex marriages.