Posted on 09/04/2015 5:12:31 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Bottom line, host Joe Scarborough said, is that if Supreme Court makes a decision, that’s the law of land, right?
“You have to go with it,” Mr. Trump said. “The decision’s been made, and that is the law of the land.”
“She can take a pass and let somebody else in the office do it in terms of religious, so you know, it’s a very … tough situation, but we are a nation, as I said yesterday, we’re a nation of laws,” he said. “And I was talking about borders and I was talking about other things, but you know, it applies to this, also, and the Supreme Court has ruled."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Cruz is a globalist amnesty pimp, with Trump gone and he is gone unless he walks this back, there is no one left to vote for.
If you believe there is no rule of law now, do you not wish for there to be so? Or is that to be re-instated only after the revolution?
Compare with
Well its a valid point. Trump is basically saying he agrees with Feds who will arrest people for standing up for their religious beliefs. Now I’m not a big Kim Davis fan at all but I think the punished her because the didn’t like her tone and demeanor. You can look at her and tell she’s probably not the nicest person around but hey they just arrested her for exercising her religious rights. You can see they are just kicking the can to push the envelope here and it will result in more Americans being arrested as they use this excuse to do it. The next step will be to not allow persons with a Christian faith to hold office. Can’t you see where this is going? There is more to this issue than meets the eye. These are dangerous waters they are stepping into.
Mark Levin suggests that if this stands, it effectively means religious people are barred from serving in public office.
Bow before your king, the Supreme Legislature.
Please identify the law she is breaking. The Kentucky law (which is what she is beholden to).
For your statement to hold true, there must be a law, not just a ruling invalidating law.
I completely support Kim Davis’ positions and her willingness to go to any length to defend it...
...but...
She should’ve delegated the issuances of those licenses to others or resigned her position.
Sorry, folks. Trump is right on this one.
He’s wrong on this, but very right on so much else.
*
And if Rosa Parks didn’t like riding in the back she should have walked.
Good for you!*
Come on, this is civil disobedience and it’s cause must be acknowledged.
Free Republic will continue the fight for Liberty and against godless socialism and fascist judges!
Wish I could have heard ML’s take.
> the marriage license laws need to be rewritten by the Kentucky legislature.
Nothing of the sort. Kentucky, and every State, needs to defend their people from the dictators.
This is not way out in the weeds this is basic 101 govvernment. The Supreme Court has no authority to define marriage. None, Zip, Zero, Nadda. Trump should know that. The counts can not write law.
I agree with Trump and you don't? Welcome to Irony Friday!
I went back and forth on this all day and if she is against this, then she needs to quit. She is an employee of the state, and if the state is ordering you to do X, then you do it or stop working there.
Should she be in jail? No.
Does she think she can just ignore a directive from the higher ups and still keep her job? Nope.
She is an elected official, but she isn’t a legislator or a executive, charged with the ability to ignore whatever she wants, no matter how odious it is personally.
Resigning might be honorable but she was elected to her position. They should decide. How hard is it to arrange a referendum?
..was waiting for something like this...
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!!!!
Asked and answered.
“The law is that distinctions between sexes on marriage laws are null.”
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.