Posted on 01/01/2015 3:04:41 PM PST by Olog-hai
A federal judge says that Florida’s county court clerks have a legal duty to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but he has stopped short of ordering them to do so.
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle issued a ruling Thursday in Tallahassee federal court responding to requests to clarify his previous order that Florida’s same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional. He stayed that order, but the stay is scheduled to expire at the end of the day Monday.
The association representing county clerks said the ruling applies only to Washington County, where a lawsuit filed by two men became a key basis for Hinkle’s order. Gay rights groups said Hinkle’s order applies statewide. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
It’s an ugly world, but that’s how it works.
That’s not how it is supposed to work in America.
If a judge issues an unlawful or unconstitutional opinion, the officers of the other branches, in order to be loyal to their own oaths, are obligated to ignore or oppose them.
To say anything else is to make a mockery of the oath.
It's one of the reasons that I support the Article V Convention movement. This can be corrected.
Doesn’t do any good to amend a document that those in office won’t follow anyhow.
And personally, I don’t think it’s a very good idea to let those who won’t follow our constitutions now pick delegates to go and screw around with those same documents.
Even Levin, the guru of this idea, offers amendments that do more harm than good. One of them even would enshrine judicial supremacy.
In other words, both “the rule of law” and the very Constitution are basically dead at this point.
Yes, that’s the conclusion I derive from all this. I no longer see an existing republic that’s worth saving.
When the federal entity goes beyond the Constitution's words to govern by penumbras and emanations, it's time to modify the words to place the government within the constitutional prison that Madison designed for it.
Again, you can’t get what you say you want, no matter what the document says, without oath-keeping officers of government.
That’s why I think the Article Five effort is, at best, a diversion from the primary task at hand.
The people elect the oath keeping officers of government. If the people don’t particularly care about the words of the Constitution, you have a problem.
The optics of that move would be incredibly bad for their side. Arresting Christians at gunpoint for adhering to their beliefs.
-- George Washington
Once the Christians are categorized as “insurgents”, the optics become easier. Think drones.
That’s where I actually think we are. With the combination of a dumbed-down (and morally degenerate) populace weened on socialist propaganda and cultural rot, along with a massive influx of foreigners who were never steeped in an American heritage of liberty, the country has developed a comfort and acceptance of governmental lawlessness, and are even transitioning into a taste for dictatorial “strongman” type leadership, akin to third-world nations.
Look into the writings of demographers John Judis and Ruy Texeira. The fastest growing religion in America is Unbelief. (Judis and Texeira capitalize the "U" because they believe it's as much a religion as Christianity.) By 2015, Unbelief will be the largest religion in America, exceeding Catholicism in magnitude. It's the "religion" of the latest great awakening.
If you're wondering why the Republican Establishment is ditching its old base for a new one, this is your answer. It's why Jeb Bush will be the 2016 nominee.
I hate the idea of Same-sex marriage but I also hate the idea of a government agent picking which laws to follow.
Do we opt for a king and a theocracy? If so, who should be the American royal family? The Bushes? Clintons? Rockefellers? What should the American established religion be, and how do we change the 1st Amendment to allow it?
Do we opt for a military dictatorship? Do we simply scrap the Constitution, salute smartly and accept our role as global hegemon in the Roman tradition?
Do we dissolve the Union and let the states form their own nations or merge with existing nations such as Mexico, Canada, Russia and China?
None of this is comfortable for me. But if people really believe that humans cannot govern themselves, then what options are left?
Judges don't make laws. That power is reserved to the legislative branch by every constitution in America.
And the laws passed by the legislative branch must conform to the Constitution, and to the laws of nature and nature's God. Otherwise they are null and void.
"Hence also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite, or to grasp at more extensive power than they are willing to entrust, is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man the right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience.""When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void."
-- Alexander Hamilton
BLOW IT OUT YOUR A$$ JUDGE!
We haven’t been fit to govern ourselves for nearly 40 years.
If you’re right, then it’s over. It’s just a matter of figuring out how America will be liquidated.
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.