Posted on 10/16/2014 7:10:29 PM PDT by This Just In
I am using a figure of speech.
The church is an institution. As an institution, the church-as a body of believers- does not relinquish its freedom to assemble and worship simply because the board of elders/governing body file a 501 c3.
I agree.
The subpoena was from the City Council, not a court. Sort of like Congress can issue subpoenas to admin officials. The Mayor and City Attorney cannot pretend they weren’t the prime movers behind it.
The fastest way to stop this dead is for another mayor in a red state to go after black churches using the exact and I mean exact words, methods and statements of this crew. Just cite their own electioneering.
Never again will you see a lib go after a church.
Is it ‘right’? Not at all. Should they do it? Absolutely. Hardball.
I am a big fan of the last 6 words of 18 USC 242.
This is what I can’t understand. The mayor’s actions are so anti-first amendment I just an’t believe that anyone, even a raging lesbian democrat, could do such a thing.
I guess she really thinks that people are so dumb and ignorant that she could get away with it. And I find that unbelievable.
By way of circumstantial evidence, this tells a different story, it isn’t just Congress who has that limitation placed on them;
“Who’s Afraid of ‘Rocky Mountain Heist’?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3216319/posts
THE men whom the people ought to choose to represent them are too busy to take the jobs. But the politician is waiting for it. He’s the pestilence of modern times. What we should try to do is make politics as local as possible. Keep the politicians near enough to kick them. The villagers who met under the village tree could also hang their politicians to the tree. It’s terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged today.
— G.K. Chesterton: Cleveland Press interview,March 1, 1921.
There needs to be SOME consequence.
I don’t understand - how would that help in the war on Christianity?
No, the text clearly says Congress, not "the legislature", or even more broadly "the government".
Where this comes into play is via the second sentence of Amd 14's Sec 1:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Then show how the order is a violation of the TX constitution regarding religion and there you have it.
No, if you can’t defeat the unconstitutional federal government at the federal level then you’ve got to do it at the state level beginning with nullifying unconstitutional federal acts and weaning yourself off of federal funding. The two go hand-in-hand if you want to again be independent and free.
And the 14th Amendment incorporates that onto state and local governments.
Satan’s two choices.....1. Don’t “judge others” and accept deviant behavior on the grounds of “Christian tolerance”. 2.Make the matter a political, constitutional question and reject deviant behavior as a matter of patriotic freedom.
Thanks.
As decided in the Slaughterhouse Cases in 1873, there was no overarching "incorporation clause" in the 14th Amendment. The original intent of the 14th Amendment, as confirmed by the Slaughterhouse Cases, gave the feds ONE SPECIFIC power over the states: to forbid state laws forcing segregation of former slaves, blacks. THAT'S IT. As the Slaughterhouse opinion warned, anything more is not only not the original intent of the post-civil war amendment, but would give the feds carte blanche, destroying the Constitution and its limitations on the federal government.
Such has been the case since the 20th Century SCOTUS has overturned the Slaughterhouse precedent and twisted the 14th Amendment to allow the federal government to run amok with no Constitution-based justification or reasoning to do so.
Proper application of the Constitution requires finding the original intent of what was written. The 14th Amendment is especially a case in point because it was unfortunately so badly and hastily written. The 14th Amendment is only meant to allow the feds to prohibit state (not individual or business) segregation requirements ("equal protection"). You need to do a non-Progressive-tailored study of the post-civil-war reconstruction period when the 14th Amendment was passed and the opinion of Justice Miller in the Slaughterhouse Cases.
You can argue whatever you want. Actual Supreme Court justices see it differently, and for better or worse, it’s their opinions that count.
Who may issue subpoenas
•A clerk of a district, county, or justice court
•An attorney authorized to practice in Texas
•An officer authorized to take depositions in Texas.
–Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.4(a)-(c).
No judge is involved.
Absolutely agree, now show me a governor that is willing to do that. Alfalfa Bill Murry is long dead, and George Wallace wimped out, so did Governor Brewer. Not one Governor is willing to stand up and defend their constitution against these rogue Federal Judges who are violating their State Constitutions.
State Sovereignty died with matching funds.
There will always be a fight for freedom because there will always be those who want to take your freedom, rights, power, and money to assume it upon themselves. Those who willingly acquiesce become their slaves.
Those who are not willing to bow to tyranny have options. First, they realize that unconstitutional Supreme Court majority opinions or Congressional acts or Presidential fiats count as much as the states and the people it count. States have the power to nullify unconstitutional federal acts and may chart a course of financial independence from the federal government
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.