Kentucky Clerk, Kim Davis

[little2add]

https://youtu.be/R8OWNspU_yE

i'll be your huckberry

 

Edited September 6, 2015 by little2add

[Peace]

Good video. Huckabee makes an interesting argument. What if KY refuses to enforce the ruling? Is the SC gonna send in  Federal Troops to enforce it? That would be interesting to see.

Anyhow - there is potential to get that decision reversed depending on who gets elected president next year.

But I don't think it really matters all that much since the public is by an large in favor of gay marriage. Even the Southern States will eventually flip and vote it in unless Christians somehow manage to change the public debate over it . . .

[Winchester]

what about the 1st amendment, is that invalid too?

Why wouldn't it be? (insofar as the constitution is valid amongst the states as political entities)

 

Let's assume it isn't, though. Where do you see in the constitution a delegated power for the federal government to restrict speech? Like the second amendment, the first is redundant.

Edited September 6, 2015 by Winchester

[Ash Wednesday]

I don't have a problem with same-sex fishing licenses.

Sorry. Carry on. 

[Winchester]

Huckabee: "Marriage is between a man and a woman, after the government issues a permission slip"

 

To the modern American Christian, the Christ is government. Huckabee is a idolator.

[little2add]

Why wouldn't it be? (insofar as the constitution is valid amongst the states as political entities)

 

Let's assume it isn't, though. Where do you see in the constitution a delegated power for the federal government to restrict speech? Like the second amendment, the first is redundant.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of is redundant to the right of the people to keep and bear Arms?

you sure about that,  Winchester ?

 

[Winchester]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of is redundant to the right of the people to keep and bear Arms?

you sure about that,  Winchester ?

 

It's not that the second is redundant to the first--that isn't at all what I said. Show me where there is an enumerated power in the constitution for the federal government to make a law prohibiting free speech.  The federal government only has enumerated powers. Even without the bill of rights, it would gain no power to abridge the right to keep and bear arms (for instance) without a enumerated power to do so. That is how a constitution works. When the anti-federalists wanted a bill of rights, it was protested that such would be redundant. Point of fact it was, but they were right to be concerned. The constitution is not a document enumerating the rights of the people, but a compact between the states creating a general (not a national) government of enumerated powers. Of course, it hasn't remained so, but that's the funny thing about contracts: They do not enforce themselves. The federal government, in contravention of its founding documents, now operates as a national government. 

[superblue]

 i was wondering when someone would hit on the fact that , this should be more about how the " law " came to be that same sex unions should be legal,

 

from what i can remember, there was no bill brought forward, no vote, and nothing signed and or ratified by our government.

All that happened was the supreme court heard the case and casted their opinion. Upon what they thought they could do. which they do not have the right to do.

The debate should be about the ability to heavy handedly interpret our laws in our constitution and bill of rights. an a discussion about limiting presidents " executive action rights ".  The constitution and bill of rights were set up for a reason, checks and balances were put in place for a reason. laws are to made and voted on, not campaigned for and enacted due to mob pressure, an laws are not supposed to be created by the supreme court.

I think the clerk lost from the beginning just claiming to be " christian " and there fore can not act because of her beliefs....  i am curious how this would have turned had she said, i am Roman Catholic, i follow church teaching, and i believe in the authority of the pope.  To just label oneself as Christian in the public eye of judgement doesn't hold as much as the title of being Roman Catholic.   

Also, i think a lot of Catholics would be surprised if they took the time to have personal conversations with their clergy, and ask for their opinion on such things.  The opinions of clergy do matter , they influence our lives to a big degree, we rarely get to hear their opinion in mass, and we do need their leadership on such issues on how to discern on such issues.

In regards to clergy being locked up over this, i doubt it will happen, Holy Matrimony is a Sacrament, all bishops have to do is order that priests no longer issue marriage licenses and that aspect is over. The government can not force any religion to do anything even if they make a law stating they have to. If the democrat party and the homosexual community did try to force the church to perform an license SS unions, it would force the papacy to respond and act.

[Winchester]

Really doesn't matter. Even if Congress made a law regarding marriage, it would be unconstitutional. The feds do not enjoy plenary legal power, and there is no enumerated power to even have an opinion on marriage. DOMA was unconstitutional, in spite of Congress voting in the majority to pass it.

[superblue]

ya could of just sumed it up by stopping at, Really doesn't matter.

 

So many inconsisties with the way our laws are made, the way our constitution and bill of rights are interrprited and it is sad that as a nation, people assume that the ones they vote in, those who are nominated to be on commities and judges etc, actually know how things are supposed to run.

 

it is as if saying yes the country was set up to run in this way, but the reality is it is run in a different manner because of other outside influences.

 

and then what is the only other alternative, either roll over and die, protest and hope it matters an that the desired out come is achieved, wait and vote in someone new, or resort to civil disobedience, and then the line no one ever comes close to is revolting.

 

An what did this clerk really accomplish ? She may have held on to her beliefs, but did she change any minds or hearts... i guess if anything she kept the issue alive for a few more days.

 

 

[Winchester]

No I couldn't. It wouldn't offend the nationalist turds on pm.

[little2add]

No I couldn't. It wouldn't offend the nationalist turds on pm.

 shouldn't  Or doesn't  the 10th amendment apply?  Is that what your saying. 

Edited September 6, 2015 by little2add

[Socrates]

This is the debate forum. There is not much to debate when it comes to the Supreme Court decision. I would think that most of us would agree that it is wrong and needs to be overturned.

This is a variation of your "abortion is more serious so you cannot discuss any other issues other than abortion" argument all over again - isn't it?

It may not be an argument, but it's perfectly legitimate to point out misplaced outrage.

Going on and on attacking that woman's personal character is not an argument either, and serves no actual positive purpose.

She got sent to the federal pen, so those who hate her should be happy and shut up.

The whole purpose of those idiotic "memes" whose postings started the thread is to avert attention from the unjustness of the decision by attacking the clerk.

 

And, of course, (since you feel compelled to keep bringing it up), nobody ever actually said no one should discuss issues other than abortion.  Saying that abortion is more serious than other problems (whether you agree or not) is not the same as saying those other issues must never be discussed.

[Socrates]

 

The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice, but also prevents the government officials (Kim Davis) from officially recognizing or favoring any religion.

 

Wrong.  

The clause of the first amendment you're misrepresenting actually says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  

In other words, Congress can't establish an official national Church, subsidized by tax dollars (such as the Church of England across the pond).

In law, the term "establishment of religion" referred to such a state Church.

That has nothing to do with the current Kentucky clerk case, which involves neither Congress nor making  laws establishing a national church.

 

The root problem here was the Supreme Court essentially legislating from the bench, and granting the federal government new powers outside those enumerated in the Constitution.

[little2add]

Wrong.  

The clause of the first amendment you're misrepresenting actually says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  

In other words, Congress can't establish an official national Church, subsidized by tax dollars (such as the Church of England across the pond).

In law, the term "establishment of religion" referred to such a state Church.

That has nothing to do with the current Kentucky clerk case, which involves neither Congress nor making  laws establishing a national church.

 

The root problem here was the Supreme Court essentially legislating from the bench, and granting the federal government new powers outside those enumerated in the Constitution.

The state of Kentucky, Rowan County clerk works for the government, not an established religion.  As I stated earlier she could resign due to her convictions and should have if she is truly sincere.   

The first amendment does apply in my opinion.