Posted on 05/26/2009 9:30:07 PM PDT by jodiluvshoes
As I wrote last week, I firmly felt that the court even taking the case was akin to putting themselves in a position of authority ABOVE the constitution. In taking on the case they were essentially putting themselves in position to say that their authority outranked the document by which the entire legal system in the state of California is organized, operated, and established.
They ruled in the only way they possibly could to save face and not create absolute tyrannical legal chaos and anarchy. For if they HAD taken out the scissors and claimed that a part of the constitution was actually NOT a part of the constitution, they would have in essence destroyed the entire document.
Nothing in it would have been safe, and it would have simply become a matter of who had the most guns.
(When there is no ruling authority, it always comes down to who has the most guns, and if there is no state constitution, there is no state government, no charters for city or county governments and thereby no law enforcement with legal authority.)
(Excerpt) Read more at kevinmccullough.townhall.com ...
OK?
It was an affirmation of the state constitution, which means that the folks in Sac-of-crap-mento are in serious trouble with the voters. They all need to be thrown out; and contracts with unions must be ripped to pieces.
Praise be to Jesus, our California Republic may yet be saved.
I’m jumping on every similar thread to say: IMPEACH “JUSTICE” MORENO! Si se puerde.
It is definitely worth one’s time to read the entire column.
Excellent writing, clear thinking from Kevin McCullough.
Bush vs. Gore Attorneys Team up to Fight Prop 8 in Federal Court
Can’t you use your troll ping list?
And thats bad how?
Wow. Ted Olsen... who knew?
Ted and his boyfriend make quite a pair. It will be interesting to see if their gambit works.
“Marriage is distinct, unique, and vital for a society. It has always been the union of a man and a woman. It provides for the best possible environment for children.
And in California... at least for now... it is still a constitutionally protected institution!
Praise God!”
The above is an excerpt from the article/blog. What part of that is trollish to you?
Stop preaching and read the headline and my question.
“Stop preaching and read the headline and my question.”
I did not know that asking a question was akin to “preaching”. I do apologize for assuming that when someone posts a comment that they have taken the time to read at least part of the article. Sorry if I offended your sensibilities.
Your question has nothing to do with my comment. My comment had nothing to do with the body of the article. It was about the headline. I suggested you re-read and you’re still puzzled. Good night.
“Your question has nothing to do with my comment. My comment had nothing to do with the body of the article. It was about the headline. I suggested you re-read and you’re still puzzled. Good night.”
I thought I already explained myself, but I’ll try again....and m u c h s l o w e r....for t i r e d e y e s....
I thought your comment was based on the article. You responded that it was based on the title. I then responded to you saying that I had assumed you had read the article and thus was reponding to the article and not just the title alone.
I’m not puzzled at all. Good evening.
That is DISGUSTING that so-called “civilised” nations in the west have sanctioned incest!!!!!!!
God help us.
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.