Posted on 09/04/2015 5:12:31 AM PDT by GIdget2004
I just said.....Oh dear..
I didn’t say I was throwing him out with the bathwater.
The SCOTUS decision does not void the entire law, only the law as it applies to gay marriages.
Your (and others') interpretation that it voids the entire existing law is incorrect.
Wasn’t “getting pissy” at all.
I was correcting my own post.
You are the OP so every generic comment defaults to you. Was not dirrected at you.
You ought to be referring to 5 members of the Supreme Court with that statement.
I would like to know exactly where in the Constitution a Federal Court's power to annul a State Constitution's distinctions between sexes on marriage is enumerated.
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1
The County clerk swore an oath to uphold that Constitution. Ought she violate her oath because a Federal Judge commands it?
If the Kentucky statute's distinction between sexes on marriage has been nullified, where is the positive written Kentucky Statute that would authorize her to issue a marriage license to two homosexuals?
The U.S. Constitution was drafted and ratified in the form of a civil covenant, one of the elements of which is the consent of the governed:
Not surprisingly, when the time came for consideration of a United States Constitution, it was drafted in the form of a civil covenant patterned after the biblical model. Additionally, many of the covenant principles found expressed in the text of the U.S. Constitution are analogous to a foundational principle of American constitutional law.The authority of the Constitution is founded on “We the people. . ..” Although the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was authorized by the states only to modify the Articles of Confederation, the convention conceived an instrument which rested on an authority apart from the state legislatures. The Constitution could have formed “a more perfect Union” only upon ratification by the source of the various states’ authority – the people.
The analogous principle of constitutional law is the doctrine of enumerated powers. The true basis of authority for instituting governments among men is the people, consequently, the authority of civil government is always delegated, never inherent, being constrained by the enumeration of its powers. What has not been delegated by the people is retained by them, as expressly acknowledged in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Mutuality in the Constitution is expressed in the Preamble: “We the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Mutuality is also indicated in Article VII by the need for ratification by the the people in each state which is to be bound by the Constitution. The analogous principle of constitutional law is government by “the consent of the governed,” as expressed in the Declaration of Independence."
Covenants and Constitutions
If you consent to this present depravity and instrumental abuse of the law and give your support to it as though it were legitimate law that must be obeyed then you are actually jeopardizing your own rights and freedoms. The legitimate authority of magistrates is only derivative and when they begin to act in an arbitrary way and ignore the derivative character of their official powers, they are effectively ignoring the sovereignty of God, the ultimate Source of those just powers. And as William Penn observed, "those people who will not be goverened by God will be governed by tyrants".
Cordially,
I suggest you educate yourself about Ted Cruz.
When he was running for the Senate, he was polling, according to some estimates, -1, according to the margin of error. No one had a clue who he was, and he was running against an extremely wealthy self-funding candidate.
I’m reading right now about his “grassroots guerrilla campaign” strategies (from his book).
As a Cruz supporter, I am not at ALL worried about him.
She is the elected head of that office. How can she step aside for someone else to do that duty?
It's like asking "can't someone else be sheriff for 5 minutes?"
Religious freedom is fine.
But for a government official not to uphold what is constitutionally held to be a right of others (though I disagree with that finding) is not acceptable.
Would you support our having Islamic government officials only conduct business that is sharia compliant?
“”“You have to go with it,” Mr. Trump said. “The decision’s been made, and that is the law of the land.” “”
Trump bows down and kisses ring of the establishment, sounds like
I did consider supporting Trump for five minutes several weeks ago. Quickly got over that impulse and this confirms my instinct was right.
She should refuse to obey the court AND she should be punished for doing so.
That’s civil disobedience and it works.
Irony: IIRC this ‘gay marriage’ movement included the civil disobedience of a clerk issuing a license illegally to perverts.
Ted and Rand took Kim’s side
Are you equating homosexuality with race?
"Little black kids" are born as little black kids.
Despite their claims to the contrary, there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is an inborn trait. There is no evidence that homosexuality is anything other than the mental disorder that it was correctly classified as in the psychiatric community until very recently.
When the federal government starts jailing people for not following unconstitutional laws that humor degenerates and mentally disordered activists, it's a sad day in this nation.
See post 142. Then piss off.
+1
” He’s the only one who’s a force of nature who can clean up the DC sewer”
Please. Just, please. he won’t.
He was meeting with RNC when all of this went down, so how would he have had time to meet with an advisor over this???
“What happens when, say...”
I’ll give that some deep thought today at work, Dave. Meanwhile, the rule of law is being replaced by the rule of lawyers. And in this case I would support a spontaneous uprising with tar and feathers, torches and pitchforks, never mind a genteel show of hands. So would any of the Founding Fathers of this decrepit republic.
Judges derive their powers from the consent of the governed. The way to withdraw consent may vary in various circumstances. Elected officials one way...appointed judges another, for instance.
Trump is passing the buck to the courts. It is their souls that are on the line...not his. Hope their Karma stays in tact.
People seem to have overlooked the prohibiting the free exercise thereof part of the Establishment Clause.
A Christian woman acting on her beliefs was led out of court in leg irons and sits in a Kentucky jail.
I guess that doesn't bother you, does it Donald?
14th amendment. Equal protection.
That is the "winning argument," not that I personally agree with it.
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It says so itself. If it guarantees liberties to all, no state law or Constitution can void them.
We like it when a DC gun control law is struck down, right?
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.