Delusions of the Pope

[Perd Hapley]

Doesn't matter the law, if they took an oath office and refuse to follow/enforce laws they don't agree with, they should be held accountable to them. Now if they don't particularly like a law or set od laws, the should be advocate for change, either by lobbying the legislature or through their professional society.

Civil disobedience is also one method.

Speaking of malfeasance, too bad the Supremes can't be held accountable.

[charby]

Sounds good.  Now Charby, why is not this woman behind bars for defying a Circuit court of appeals order?

http://libertynews.com/2015/09/the-left-thinks-clerk-kim-davis-should-be-in-jail-well-what-about-this-california-elected-official-who-refuses-to-issue-ccw-permits/

If I was in charge she'd be issuing permits or be waiting in a jail cell until she did or her term was up.

[charby]

Civil disobedience is also one method.

Speaking of malfeasance, too bad the Supremes can't be held accountable.

And one should except the punishment for their actions. Supremes can be impeached, just need enough members of congress to do it.

[roo_ster]

I read her oath.  IMO, she is adhering to the letter of it as long as the state of Kentucky does not pass a law legalizing gay pseudomarriage.

The federal judge in this case needs, at minimum, a stiff dose of tar and feathers.

[charby]

I read her oath.  IMO, she is adhering to the letter of it as long as the state of Kentucky does not pass a law legalizing gay pseudomarriage.

The federal judge in this case needs, at minimum, a stiff dose of tar and feathers.

10th Amendment says otherwise.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If you go on a tangent about it has to be spelled out word for word in the Constitution, please see United States v. Darby Lumber.

[Scout26]

Then perhaps you can point to the section of the US Code that covers marriage....

[De Selby]

Then perhaps you can point to the section of the US Code that covers marriage....

The US Constitution, amendment 14, covers equal protection of the law and specifically empowers the federal government to enforce it against the states

[White Horseradish]

So you are verifying that its true?

I don't know how you can take what I said as verifying anything. What's true? I'm confused.

So that means they're secretly gay, right?

I don't know.

See, I have gay friends. They never say stuff like that. They never talk about what it is they like to do and how they like to do it in a conversation outside the bedroom. I assume they do talk about it in the bedroom, but I am not in the habit of observing my friends having sex, so I don't know for sure. They also don't describe straight people in terms of which appendage they put into which orifice. Yet, people who disagree with  LGBT on something always have to talk in terms of who sticks what where.   

You tell me what that means.

[brimic]

I don't know how you can take what I said as verifying anything. What's true? I'm confused.
I don't know.

See, I have gay friends. They never say stuff like that. They never talk about what it is they like to do and how they like to do it in a conversation outside the bedroom. I assume they do talk about it in the bedroom, but I am not in the habit of observing my friends having sex, so I don't know for sure. They also don't describe straight people in terms of which appendage they put into which orifice. Yet, people who disagree with  LGBT on something always have to talk in terms of who sticks what where.   

You tell me what that means.

Strawmen aside, I learned more than I ever needed to know by reading Dan Savage.

[roo_ster]

10th Amendment says otherwise.

I was referring to the Constitution of the United States. 

Your copy of COTUS might be one of the new stylish ones that get revised to suit the fashions and fantasies of the moment, but the 10th Amendment I am familiar with reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Show me where in the Articles the COTUS takes over administration of common law from the states, if you would be so kind?  I missed that power delegation to the federal gov't of the United States.

[charby]

I was referring to the Constitution of the United States. 

Your copy of COTUS might be one of the new stylish ones that get revised to suit the fashions and fantasies of the moment, but the 10th Amendment I am familiar with reads:
Show me where in the Articles the COTUS takes over administration of common law from the states, if you would be so kind?  I missed that power delegation to the federal gov't of the United States.

You didn't even read my reply did you?

[roo_ster]

You didn't even read my reply did you?

I read it but wanted to give you another chance at comprehension.  Because you are making like otto from a fish called wanda.

[charby]

I read it but wanted to give you another chance at comprehension.  Because you are making like otto from a fish called wanda.

Let me know how your opinion has worked out in the history of the US.

[Hawkmoon]

I read it but wanted to give you another chance at comprehension.  Because you are making like otto from a fish called wanda.

No, you are apparently pretending that the 14th Amendment, which was duly adopted according to the rules spelled out in the base document of the Constitution, is somehow less an integral part of the Constitution than the 10th Amendment. We don't get to pick and choose which amendments we like and which we don't like. All of the amendments are part of the Constitution.

Here is the oath she took:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of _______ according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

The duties of her office include issuing and recording marriage licenses. I fail to understand how she can be "adhering to the letter of" her oath when she refuses to carry out one of the basic duties of her office. How does the fact that the State of Kentucky hasn't enacted a law legalizing same-sex marriage become justification for not doing her job? Remember, that which is not illegal is legal. Kentucky's law was ruled to be invalid, therefore same-sex marriage is legal. It doesn't need a new law to say so.

She's wrong. She is violating her oath of office. I happen to agree with her religious opinion regarding same-sex marriage, but she took an oath to perform the duties of her office "according to the law." IMHO if she's not willing to do her job, she should resign.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

No, you are apparently pretending that the 14th Amendment, which was duly adopted according to the rules spelled out in the base document of the Constitution, is somehow less an integral part of the Constitution than the 10th Amendment. We don't get to pick and choose which amendments we like and which we don't like. All of the amendments are part of the Constitution.

Here is the oath she took:

The duties of her office include issuing and recording marriage licenses. I fail to understand how she can be "adhering to the letter of" her oath when she refuses to carry out one of the basic duties of her office. How does the fact that the State of Kentucky hasn't enacted a law legalizing same-sex marriage become justification for not doing her job? Remember, that which is not illegal is legal. Kentucky's law was ruled to be invalid, therefore same-sex marriage is legal. It doesn't need a new law to say so.

She's wrong. She is violating her oath of office. I happen to agree with her religious opinion regarding same-sex marriage, but she took an oath to perform the duties of her office "according to the law." IMHO if she's not willing to do her job, she should resign.

The state if Kentucky constitution and laws are in fact what she supports. That conflicts with a judicial decision

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[charby]

The state if Kentucky constitution and laws are in fact what she supports. That conflicts with a judicial decision

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Feds trump states (or districts), same reason Alabama can't discriminate against blacks anymore or Washington DC ban ownership of firearms.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Federal law indeed trumps state law. When do you expect them to pass that law? As opposed to a judicial ruling


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hawkmoon]

The state if Kentucky constitution and laws are in fact what she supports. That conflicts with a judicial decision

A judicial decision that is from a level high enough to have invalidated the Kentucky provisions she claims to be "upholding." The legal reality is that the laws she claims to be upholding simply don't exist, in any enforceable way. Her position is a fiction.

She needs to resign. Otherwise, she's a hypocrite.

[Hawkmoon]

Federal law indeed trumps state law. When do you expect them to pass that law? As opposed to a judicial ruling

Laws aren't typically enacted to say what is legal, they are enacted to say what is NOT legal. If it's not illegal -- it's legal.

The courts with jurisdiction in the matter have ruled that the Kentucky laws in question are invalid because they are in violation of the U.S. Constitution, which is the highest law of the land. There is no need for the Feds to enact any laws. Her position is devoid of legal integrity.

[Perd Hapley]

See, I have gay friends. They never say stuff like that. They never talk about what it is they like to do and how they like to do it in a conversation outside the bedroom. I assume they do talk about it in the bedroom, but I am not in the habit of observing my friends having sex, so I don't know for sure. They also don't describe straight people in terms of which appendage they put into which orifice. Yet, people who disagree with  LGBT on something always have to talk in terms of who sticks what where.   

You tell me what that means.

It means that descriptions of sodomy are more likely to arouse disgust, and to embarrass those who practice it, or who defend it.

[charby]

Laws aren't typically enacted to say what is legal, they are enacted to say what is NOT legal. If it's not illegal -- it's legal.

The courts with jurisdiction in the matter have ruled that the Kentucky laws in question are invalid because they are in violation of the U.S. Constitution, which is the highest law of the land. There is no need for the Feds to enact any laws. Her position is devoid of legal integrity.

You worded it better than I ever could, thanks!

[White Horseradish]

It means that descriptions of sodomy are more likely to arouse disgust, and to embarrass those who practice it, or who defend it.

So it's just a cheap manipulative tactic? Got it.

BTW, I really don't see why I should be embarrassed by the way some people somewhere are entertaining themselves.

[Perd Hapley]

So it's just a cheap manipulative tactic? Got it.

Is it cheap or manipulative to be specific about the nature of a thing? But you're missing your own point. You asked why one side was more likely to use the tactic. Your side has plenty of cheap, manipulative tactics that work better for you. Comparing same-sex unions to miscegenation, for example. Or claiming that homosexuals weren't "allowed" to marry. Very cheap; very effective.

BTW, I really don't see why I should be embarrassed by the way some people somewhere are entertaining themselves.

Then by all means, don't be embarrassed.

[MillCreek]

Your side has plenty of cheap, manipulative tactics that work better for you. Comparing same-sex unions to miscegenation, for example. Or claiming that homosexuals weren't "allowed" to marry. Very cheap; very effective.

You mean like lying is bad, unless you are lying for Jesus, in which case it is ok?  Case in point: the Liberty Counsel claiming that 100,000 people in Peru rallied for Kim Davis:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/09/liberty-council-lies-about-100000-person-prayer-rally-for-kim-davis/  http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/09/28/3706199/kim-davis-prayer-rally-peru/ 

But I am sure this is just the gay-infested liberal media trying to smear the good folk at Liberty Counsel.

[De Selby]

You mean like lying is bad, unless you are lying for Jesus, in which case it is ok?  Case in point: the Liberty Counsel claiming that 100,000 people in Peru rallied for Kim Davis:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/09/liberty-council-lies-about-100000-person-prayer-rally-for-kim-davis/  http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/09/28/3706199/kim-davis-prayer-rally-peru/ 

But I am sure this is just the gay-infested liberal media trying to smear the good folk at Liberty Counsel.

In biblical times, random large numbers just meant "a lot."  They were never intended to be accurate counts.  They're just following biblical methods of survey and math.