Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    04 Sep '15 22:581 edit
    These lawless acts have got to stop. We are not a nation of men, we are a nation of laws. The laws on the books need to be administered without preferential treatment. We should not be a respecter of men, but respect the laws of society.

    But enough about President Obama, the clerk in Kentucky needs to do her job or quit. Does she really think she can take on the entire US government? 🙄
  2. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    05 Sep '15 04:19
    I wonder how many conservatives would lose their little minds if someone stopped issuing gun licences because doing so violated their beliefs.
  3. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    05 Sep '15 06:06
    Originally posted by whodey
    These lawless acts have got to stop.
    They already have since she was jailed for refusing to comply with the court's order to issue marriage licences.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    05 Sep '15 13:24
    https://www.facebook.com/312383761871/photos/a.313018011871.150599.312383761871/10153204518456872/?type=1&theater
  5. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    05 Sep '15 16:42
    Originally posted by whodey
    These lawless acts have got to stop. We are not a nation of men, we are a nation of laws. The laws on the books need to be administered without preferential treatment. We should not be a respecter of men, but respect the laws of society.

    But enough about President Obama, the clerk in Kentucky needs to do her job or quit. Does she really think she can take on the entire US government? 🙄
    I appears that the Kentucky legislature could bring impeachment charges against her.

    Impeachment in Kentucky:

    http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/IB176.pdf
  6. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    05 Sep '15 16:47
    Originally posted by vivify
    I wonder how many conservatives would lose their little minds if someone stopped issuing gun licences because doing so violated their beliefs.
    I wonder how liberals would react if the Supreme Court declared that all states must legalize conceal weapons license and create conceal and carry permits as well as honor any other permits from other states.

    According to the US Constitution the Federal government has no right to comment on marriage licenses at all. It is reserved to the States. But hey, who ever said the US government actually follows the Constitution? At the moment we have a rogue government.
  7. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    05 Sep '15 16:47
    Originally posted by JS357
    I appears that the Kentucky legislature could bring impeachment charges against her.

    Impeachment in Kentucky:

    http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/IB176.pdf
    Good luck getting that one passed. The people who would impeach her wouldn't get re-elected.
  8. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    05 Sep '15 17:06
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I wonder how liberals would react if the Supreme Court declared that all states must legalize conceal weapons license and create conceal and carry permits as well as honor any other permits from other states.

    According to the US Constitution the Federal government has no right to comment on marriage licenses at all. It is reserved to the States. But hey, ...[text shortened]... the US government actually follows the Constitution? At the moment we have a rogue government.
    I suggest you take a gander at the 14th Amendment like the SCOTUS did.
  9. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    05 Sep '15 17:08
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I suggest you take a gander at the 14th Amendment like the SCOTUS did.
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

    Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]



    I see nothing about the Federal government having a say in marriage and state issued marriage licenses.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    05 Sep '15 17:11
    Originally posted by Eladar
    [b]Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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, o ...[text shortened]... othing about the Federal government having a say in marriage and state issued marriage licenses.
    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.

    Doesn't say "except for marriage laws and licenses" there.
  11. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    05 Sep '15 17:141 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    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; [b]nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Doesn't say "except for marriage laws and licenses" there.[/b]
    Marriage is not a right.

    A single person has the same protections as a married person.

    If single people are not given equal protection then single people are being mistreated, not just the homosexual single people.
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    05 Sep '15 17:24
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Marriage is not a right.

    A single person has the same protections as a married person.

    If single people are not given equal protection then single people are being mistreated, not just the homosexual single people.
    Thanks for your astute legal reasoning.

    The SCOTUS doesn't and hasn't agreed with it since at least 1888. http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/
  13. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    05 Sep '15 17:29
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Thanks for your astute legal reasoning.

    The SCOTUS doesn't and hasn't agreed with it since at least 1888. http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/
    Sorry to break it to you, but Supreme Court does not create laws nor does it give rights.

    I know that's how things have evolved, but that just goes to show how the US government no longer follows the Constitution.
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    05 Sep '15 17:33
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Sorry to break it to you, but Supreme Court does not create laws nor does it give rights.

    I know that's how things have evolved, but that just goes to show how the US government no longer follows the Constitution.
    Sorry to break it to you, but the States can't violate the Natural Rights of the People. One of the main jobs of the SCOTUS since the 14th Amendment was ratified is to make sure they do not.

    The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution. Why you think States can violate it is hard to fathom.
  15. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    05 Sep '15 17:41
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Sorry to break it to you, but the States can't violate the Natural Rights of the People. One of the main jobs of the SCOTUS since the 14th Amendment was ratified is to make sure they do not.

    The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution. Why you think States can violate it is hard to fathom.
    Replace Natural Rights with Constitutional rights and you have what America is supposed to be about.

    Replace Constitutional with Natural and you open up the possibility of a Rogue State that we have today.
Back to Top