It’s Time to Discuss Donald Trump’s Running Mate

Politico ^ | 09/07/2015 | By MATT LATIMER

[Theodore R.]

Do you think blacks would favor Carson? I don’t.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

And the law of the land is, I'm afraid, right with the KY woman. I know it's not popular here on FR, but she should have simply resigned. If you are a public official, you are required to carry out public laws

Yeah, but it’s complicated when you realize that

1. the law of the land when she took the job was not in conflict with Christian values. It’s not like she was a devout Methodist or Baptist teetotaler who took a job in a liquor store and then protested “religious objections” to the job she signed on for.

2. If you look at the end of the body of the Constitution, it ends with

   Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.

   . . . because “We the people” in whose name the Constitution was framed and whose support was required to ratify the Constitution were not Hindu, they were not Buddhist, they were not Muslim - they were Christian. Of various denominations - but Christian, and many states had established churches (not that you are unaware, but . . .).

3. Accordingly if

   no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

   or

   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

   had any meaning at all when ratified, they applied to Christian religious belief and practice.

4. The laws of the State of Kentucky as written do not cause Mrs Davis any religious conflict.

5. The position Mrs Davis holds is one to which she was elected and, presumably, from which she could be removed - much less jailed for noncompliance - would require impeachment.

6. There is no record of clerks who did give out licenses to same sex couples when at the time that was not legal in their jurisdictions, and SCOTUS had not imposed their “law of the land" being disciplined, let alone jailed.

IMHO that is a lot of freight for Philosopher-King Kennedy’s sympathy for same sex couples, and Judge Bunning’s ambition, to presume to carry.

It certainly is an argument for the repeal or substantive modification of the Seventeenth Amendment . . .

[CyberAnt]

Well, if you’ve been watching FOX, you will rarely even hear Cruz’s name mentioned.

So, get on one of the Cruz ping lists here at FR, and you’ll see how popular he is with the public; how much money he has raised; how many people are showing up at his events; how his staff is constantly having up upgrade the meeting locations to accommodate the people.

You’ll never hear any of that on FOX (or any other network).

[LS]

Appears to be temporarily moot as the judge has let her out. But I agree the "no religious test" needs to be addressed. This was originally meant for the OPPOSITE, though, of this situation, namely that you could not require a person to be a Christian to hold federal office. But the reverse has to be true, namely that no one can be prohibited from holding office because he is a Christian. However, you can be prohibited from holding office if you can't do the job of the office, and that's where it gets tricky, because if you say my religion won't let me, well you're out of luck. Find another job. We don't MAKE conscientious objectors serve as combat soldiers. But if one tried, I would exclude him, not per se on his religion, but on the fact that BECAUSE of his religion he can't do the job.

And it is further complicated by the fact that after she was elected, in essence, the job requirements changed. Again, it would have been best for her to resign. That was the correct "protest."

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “It’s Time to Discuss Donald Trump’s Running Mate” <<

.
Is Donald Duck available?
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Trump is the epitome of what we don’t need right now!

He is devoid of understanding of what our true situation is, and lacks the tools to get anything done.

He is a 14 year old boy in a billionaire’s body.

A stick of dynamite in a brain surgeon’s hand.
.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

it would have been best for her to resign. That was the correct "protest."

. . . for the Christian who has more law behind her - but not for the atheist protesting the opposite actual black letter law. Asymmetrical warfare at its finest.

[apocalypto]

Good choice. Rove was on Greta on Friday and criticized Trump, Carson, and Fiorina for not having held political office. Not a problem for me.

However, in attracting voters, Trump should consider somebody with political experience, preferably somebody who has been a Senator or governor. (Just never, ever the devious Nikki Haley. There is a petition to remove her from office on change.org)

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “However, you can be prohibited from holding office if you can’t do the job of the office...” <<

.
She is doing the job required of the office, and doing it well.

It is the SCOTUS that has not done the job of their office.

The case before them required them to determine whether Gays had the right to demand that the definition of marriage, as it has been for 6000 years, be changed.

They punted on that, and pretended that the plaintiffs had been prevented from participating in Marriage, which they had not, and then ruled in a vacuum on an issue that was not before them.

That is a total denial of the legal process as it has existed for a thousand years.

An appellate court cannot rule on an issue that has not been placed before them.
.

[LS]

Well, no. You’re not doing it “well” if the job requires you sign a paper. This is very simple.

[editor-surveyor]

.
The ‘paper’ they want signed doesn’t exist.

SCOTUS didn’t rule that the definition of marriage is changed.

They ruled that some had been denied what marriage is, and that is false.

SCOTUS does not have the power to demand legislation that changes the definition of marriage.
.

[usconservative]

Trump / Gringrich ..... Now that’s sure to make millions of liberal heads explode!! LOL!!!!!!

[LS]

Better take that up with them.

[editor-surveyor]

.
You’re jumping out of the tub before your bath is done.

Do you disagree that for the county’s clerk to lawfully issue a “marriage certificate or license” to two persons of the same sex, the state’s definition of what marriage is would have to be changed?

And did you see that change of definition in the court’s decision?
.

[ASA Vet]

For VP, I like the most hated man in Washington - Jeff Sessions - with a special mandate from President Trump to downsize the Administration, closing several agencies

Great Minds Think Alike

[LS]

No, you’re the one jumping the shark. She never PLEADED those points. She pleaded that it was against her religion, end of story. She might have had more legal grounds to stand on if she had in fact used your logic.

[editor-surveyor]

No, she didn’t plead that it was against her religion. She stated that it was contrary to the law.

[RC one]

I think some of them definitely will and I think we only need some of them to and only in a few counties in a few battleground states.

[Theodore R.]

If I were a Palmetto person, I would already having signed the petition against Haley. I won’t support anyone who chooses her for V.P.

[apocalypto]

I agree. I am surprised Nikki Haley won as governor. Then again S.C. gave us L. Graham. I hope recall of Nikki H. succeeds.