Posted on 09/04/2015 5:12:31 AM PDT by GIdget2004
You and all of the other newbies pushing Trump are certainly entertainin.
‘If you want to turn this country around in a moral sense..... get off Trump and get on your knees’
I guess you don’t know me very well
Prayer is my first, last and foremost defense.....I ask God for wisdom, discernment and eyes to see, ears to hear......and not be deceived.
Hey troll, and yes I mean you skippy, hasn't anyone bothered to tell you that it's impolite to refer to another FReeper without pinging them?
We have BLM declaring war on cops and whites. We have Mexico declaring war on our southern border and we have Marxist and homosexuals declaring war on Christians (and Jews), we have the GOPe declaring war on tea partiers, and Wall St/K St declaring war on the middle class something is going blow the folks are very unhappy. Will this tiger mass civil disobedience? Lets see what happen with Huckabees’ rally on Tuesday.
Actually, I don’t know you at all. I am glad to hear you are praying. I do hope you are not one of those easily offended Christians who hold grudges. My remarks were not directed to you but were general in nature. Have a blessed day.
We are as likely to re-instate Dred Scott as we are to overturn Obergefell.
What time do you start the revolution and how many are going to follow you?
You mean severance clause.
When a law is passed by the legislature that includes some provision that is found to be unconstitutional, the entire statute that contains the governor's signature is voided and the legislature then needs to rewrite the law and get it passed. If there was another previous statute that was overturned or amended when the unconstitutional law was passed, then that statute goes back into effect.
Courts strike down state (and local) laws all the time, every day, across the country. Sometimes federal courts do it. Sometimes state courts do it. Sometimes they are criminal laws. Sometimes they are civil laws. In some situations, it may even involve a provision found in a state constitution.
A court can strike down all of a law (if applicable to the circumstances). A court can rule narrower, striking down only part. This is by no means a black/white, 100% of the time this way or that way, kind of thing. So many variables can potentially go into why something may or may not get struck down and to what degree.
If you don't know already, the answer to any legal question is - "it depends".
You say courts do not have a "line item veto". Of course, as you know, that is the wrong terminology. But, as far as the idea, sometimes they essentially do. And they do it all the time. To say an entire law gets thrown out 100% of the time anytime a court strikes it down - with or without a severance clause - is not reflected in reality whatsoever.
Sometimes, in fact, it is necessary to pass new legislation before the government function or duty can be resumed following an adverse court ruling. But not always. Not by a long shot. That would be absolute judicial and legislative chaos.
So those states that have those words are currently operating either under a previous law that did not contain those provisions or they are operating without any marriage laws whatsoever.
Again, you have this wrong.
Tell you what, since you are advancing this "theory", why not contact Davis's lawyers with this finding of yours that apparently has escaped every conservative legal scholar, law professor, former/current judge, former/current prosecutor, etc?
People playing armchair attorney and saying Kim Davis has no law to operate under embarrass themselves.
Suppose the “one issue” was on immigration and Trump was pro-amnesty?
I’ll bet you would criticize Trump so fast it would make your head spin - if he went the wrong way on that “one issue”.
Religious freedom is my litmus test issue and Trump has failed miserably.
Call it like I see it.
Nice to see you sticking up for Pee-mellow. People are know for their company. Yours stinks.
No, that isn’t my point. Kim should not have been jailed. I’m just saying that if she wants to adhere to the Bible in purity - then she should also refuse to issue marriage licenses to adulterers, fornicators, etc. This jail decision is the judge’s decision, and I suspect if she refused to issue a license to an adulterer, the outcome would be the same. From what I heard, she has been married 4 times herself. Sounds like she has repented though.
While I more than agree with you.....
..yes, it was directed to me, my name is on the post.
USSC in Obergefell held:
“The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold - and it now does hold - that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.”
For the moment I will stipulate to this part: “there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character”
Here is the error:
“The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States.”
This commandeers the legislative process of the States. The federal government has no say in marriage laws, laws which have always been within the purview of the States.
The people of Kentucky have decided that marriage is between man & woman.
There is no 14th Amend “equal protection” issue, the advocates of this novel definition of “marriage” are free to avail themselves of the process prescribed by Kentucky law to change the laws to incorporate this novel description. This in no way inhibits or infringes upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights.
There is no *right* to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose.
Judges are not Legislators.
‘Easily offended Christians who hold grudges’
It’s what you say....AND how you say it.
Really, you believe that someone who has been a known conservative FReeper for well over a decade is a troll because they don't agree with you on Trump?
John Boehner? Mitch McConnell? Is that you?
It's always the right time to stand up for and fight for what's right.
Putting aside for the moment that it's not the SC job to "make" law, I believe the following quote applies regardless: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing-Edmund Burke"
"Resigning honorably" is doing precisely nothing.
I suppose that being a newbie you don’t realize that P-Marlowe is a very respected, long-standing member of Free Republic.
If you can find a thread in which P-M takes a liberal position, I will buy you a cup of coffee.
You’ve got to realize that both Cruz and Trump are solidly supported here. The Cruz/Trump combo is the forum favorite.
But that doesn’t mean we ignore the warts on our favorite candidates. In my mind, Cruz has earned 3 demerits. Trump has just earned another one with his sleepy, uninvolved answer on Kim Davis.
And Huckabee and Paul have elevated themselves again in my opinion, on Kim Davis.
Trump’s support on Free Republic is based on his willingness to demolish the GOP, so there’s something new to build upon. We know it’s a gamble.
I've known P-Marlowe for a long time and I plan to know him for a long time to come.
I don't know anything about you skippy, but that doesn't matter because I have a feeling your time on FR is rapidly approaching expiration.
Why exactly do you disagree with P-Marlowe? Do you agree that sodomites should be allowed to "marry" each other? Do you think that the Supreme Court can make laws?
Come on troll, answer some questions and quit throwing insults.
Bullseye! Center of Target!
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.