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 ...
One of the things being exposed by Kim Davis’ courage in Kentucky is that Donald Trump IS Jeb Bush, on the most important matters of natural law and the proper constitutional functioning of our republican form of government.
So if SCOTUS rules some state gun law to be unconstitutional, do you also consider it “lawlessness” when officials no longer follow the passed gun law that was struck down?
Are those gun laws still the law of the state until they are rewritten? I sure dont remember that being the case.
You cant have it both ways.
That’s a stupid non sequitur.
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!!!!
Not to mention he is correct.
I agree. She could have made her primary argument that it violates her faith, which it does, but she could easily have argued that she was properly awaiting the action of the Ky Legislature to rewrite the Ky statute. If Rand Paul's idea or Matt Bevin's ideas are followed, then there will no longer be marriage as we know it now in Kentucky. That's probably a good thing.
But the homosexualist agenda is foremost, and those agitating to flaunt the receipt of a 'marriage license' somehow have the mantle of those denied equality. In reality, this lady is in jail, so it's her faith and her rights that clearly are being violated.
Paul/Bevin have separately come up with ideas that would protect any person, and that would satisfy Scotus' requirement of equal protection.
The marriage license is the implementing document that authorizes the “wedding”. Her religious beliefs prevent her from allowing her signature on the license. Her signature on the license makes her a participant in the wedding. A very important participant. Her signature is required for the license to be valid. Only she can sign the marriage license.
What happens when, say, Califorina votes to ignore Citizens United?
That's what I've been wondering. What IS the current law that authorizes, or requires a County Clerk to issue a marriage license in Kentucky?
I see absolutely NO BASIS for jailing Davis. There are means for redress, like.. impeachment. But, jailing? Give me a break.
If this is a “lost cause” as you say, then America is a lost cause.
I’ll happily see America die in flames before I’ll accept this. In fact, I’ll be willing to lend the matches to get things started.
“seperation = separation. But you knew that.:)”
Really? That matters to you? But if you’re going to get pissy about spelling, please direct it to the right person. I haven’t posted “seperation” or “separation” this morning.
“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.”
So what the hell is the cause then?
They will STILL have to re-write it to allow for gays to get a license. It isn’t like they can write it so they still cant, nor can they stall for years either.
In the end she will still have to give them a license, whether she likes it or not.
There is no “win” for her here.
-- President Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address
I think the baker was a different issue. It was a personal business not a public agency and should have the right to refuse service.
FYI... Kim Davis is a Democrat
A man like Trump, who has no understanding of religious freedom, is not presidential material.
It’s not about personalities. It’s about the Constitution. Trump is unfit to lead the country.
I consider Secular Humanism a religion and the Marxist left is imposing Secular Humanism on the country in a clear violation of our Constitution. I have been saying this for over 20 years.
I find it hard to believe another representative couldn't be sworn in to perform that duty. This can't be that difficult.
I can’t make excuses for that. As a supporter of Trump, he is is dead wrong to come out with that. People have commented on some gaffe he would make to stop his momentum, as if it would be something outlandish. He probably just did, and it is something very politically correct.
Jane, our taxes our being used for a whole host of things that are insane and immoral. We are paying taxes to a government that is dismantling the country from the inside out. That, in and of itself, is HIGHLY immoral. The country is in critical condition. This election is our last chance at peaceful change. If we fail, people are going to have a lot more to worry about than so called “gay marriage.” If people want to go after Trump for not advocating the law and order, then this country is already lost, and we all better prepare for some kind of violent revolution. I want peaceful, orderly change.
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.