Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jwalsh07
Court orders are not laws, they are court orders.I fthey were laws Judges would issue 'laws' not court orders.

Now you're arguing semantics.

Of course the federales see no difference because since they actually think they, rather than Moses, are the law-givers.

What is it the Bible says about obeying the ruling authorities? Further, are you arguing that court orders shouldn't be legally binding? Do you honestly want to live in a nation where we can ignore any court order simply because we don't agree with it?

100 posted on 08/29/2003 6:41:50 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies ]


To: Thane_Banquo
What is it the Bible says about obeying the ruling authorities?

Thous shalt worship at the feet of SCOTUS. That one?

Further, are you arguing that court orders shouldn't be legally binding?

Nope.

Do you honestly want to live in a nation where we can ignore any court order simply because we don't agree with it?

Court orders are court orders and the refusal to abide by same come with penalties. Judge Moore has decide to accept those penalties because he sees the issue of the courts issuing anti Constitutional rulings as worth it. His stance is one of civil disobedience and he will pay the price for it while the frogs in the pot go merrily on their way to the boiling point.

Is there legal precedence for disobeying unlawful orders? Certainly. Does that come with consequences. Of course.

And I'm not arguing semantics, you are. You stated that court orders were in fact laws. That is a false statement. Correct

105 posted on 08/29/2003 7:05:08 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson