Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
03 29, 24, 03:20:29:AM

Login with username and password

Biden Does NOT need a BILL to close the border
He only needs a PEN. Thats all he needed to open it.
Thats all he needed to close it. Thats all Trump needed.
Maybe this is just Proof Trump is better than Biden.

Search:     Advanced search
2653664 Posts in 297946 Topics by 306 Members
Latest Member: chachamukhtar
* Website Home Help Login Register
 |  All Boards  |  Current Events  |  Topic: So my question is... 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3  Print
Author Topic: So my question is...  (Read 206 times)
LadyRavensWing
Sr. Member

Posts: 20043


« Reply #24 on: 09 04, 15, 11:30:52:PM » Reply

Wrong again, Lak..

But you just keep your poor delusions..

Dismissed..,

Ldy R.*   
Bob Huntress
Honored Member

Posts: 9907


« Reply #25 on: 09 04, 15, 11:38:53:PM » Reply

The judges, including the Supreme Court's, have completely disregarded the actual law, impossing their dictates in it's stead. Now I couldn't care less if anyone obeys their tyranny. There is a reason we call Congressmen and Senators, "Lawmakers". The more our judges refuse to uphold law, the more people will disregard those who disregarded the law when it was their duty to uphold it.
1965hawks
Sr. Member

Posts: 26544


« Reply #26 on: 09 05, 15, 12:09:04:PM » Reply

lakitss: The left must persecute christians [sic], whites and conservatives. It gives their pathetic fucking lives some purpose.

Not surprisingly, since lakitss can't providecredible evidence to justify Kim Davis's contempt of court, she played the Christian, white, right-wingnut victim card. Her red herring is a desperate attempt to shift blame away from the victimisers (those who routinely deny rights granted by the Constitution) and place it on the victims (those who are routinely denied rights  afforded by that document). Apparently fucking over those who reject their sanctimonious beliefs gives right-wingers some kind of perverted   sense of pleasure.   
caserio1
Sr. Member

Posts: 89405


« Reply #27 on: 09 05, 15, 12:11:34:PM » Reply

their pleasure will be short live when on judgement day they pay
1965hawks
Sr. Member

Posts: 26544


« Reply #28 on: 09 05, 15, 12:52:13:PM » Reply

Bob Huntress: The judges, including the Supreme Court's, have completely disregarded the actual law, impossing their dictates in it's stead.

You're confused again, Bobby Wayne. The US Constitution gives the US Supreme Court power to be the final arbitrator in controversies arising from that document. The Court "discarded" state bans on same-sex marriages by striking down those "actual" laws when a majority of Supreme Court Justices found those "actual" laws unconstitutional. Did the high court "impose" its own  "dictates" as you've insinuated here? No. In actuality, What it did in Obergefell v. Hodges was to reaffirm the fundamental right of marriage.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/in-historic-decision-court-strikes-down-state-bans-on-same-sex-marriage-in-plain-english/

Now I couldn't care less if anyone obeys their tyranny. There is a reason we call Congressmen and Senators, "Lawmakers". [sic] The more our judges refuse to uphold law, the more people will disregard those who disregarded the law when it was their duty to uphold it.

Explain why you believe courts are "tyrannous" when they overturn laws that are unconstitutional. Explain why you believe laws passed and enacted by local, state, and federal governmental officials--with the enthusiastic support of a majority of the governed-- is automatically constitutional and, therefore, immune to a challenge of its constitutionality; explain why you believe judges should uphold unconstitutional laws. And finally, explain why you believe the governed should continue to defend laws that have been found unconstitutional and deprecate those who found those laws unconstitutional.   
1965hawks
Sr. Member

Posts: 26544


« Reply #29 on: 09 05, 15, 01:31:26:PM » Reply

WWV10MHZ: WHAT, exactly, is the Fed Law that Ms. Davis violated?

WWV10MHZ,

What exactly was it that sent Kim's ass to the slammer, her violating a federal law or contempt (her failure to obey a court order)?

She took an oath to uphold the Laws of Kentucky.

She broke that oath when she, own her own volition, decided to stop issuing marriage licenses.

Same sex "marriage" is not legal as written in current Kentucky Law.

Apparently you're still confused, WWV10MHZ. The Supreme Court of the United States struck down Kentucky's law banning same-sex marriages. The "current Kentucky law" that you and others in this forum keep harping on is now null and void; it's unenforceable. In other words, it's irrelevant, not worth the paper on which it's written. 

In order to be in contempt in a Fed Court, you must have been ordered to obey a particular Fed Law. WHAT IS IT?

No, WWV10MHZ. Here's the real question: What the fuck are you babbling about? In other words, I'm demanding you support your repeated allegation with factual evidence. If there exists an actual statute that says a person or entity can only be held in contempt in a federal court if that person or entity failed to obey a particular federal law, then WHAT IS IT? 

 
chuck_curtis
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 68575

Let's go Brandon!


« Reply #30 on: 09 05, 15, 02:15:11:PM » Reply

The flaw in the SC's reasoning is that a marriage license is a protected right, when it is a privilege granted at the pleasure of the State.  Marriage is a right.  A marriage license is not a right.  It all hinges on whether you accept the SC's flawed reasoning, or not.
sweetwater5s9
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 99142


« Reply #31 on: 09 05, 15, 02:19:54:PM » Reply

Why did the 14th amendment only give former slaves equal protection under the law when passed in 1868?    When and who changed it to mean something outside of its original intent?

cont @

http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?topic=213838.msg1723866#msg1723866
1965hawks
Sr. Member

Posts: 26544


« Reply #32 on: 09 05, 15, 04:24:58:PM » Reply

sweetwater5s9: Why did the 14th Amendment  give only former slaves equal protection under the law when ratified in 1868?When and who changed it to mean something outside of its original intent?

The purpose and intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to repeal the Supreme Court's infamous opinion handed down in the landmark case Scott v. Sanderford (1857). But, not surprisingly, you've apparently either completely ignored or missed the point entirely of that constitutional amendment's significance. As unbelievable as it seems today, until ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, there was nothing in the US Constitution that explicitly defined American citizenship. That definition applied to all persons--including former slaves and free blacks-- born within the limits  and jurisdiction of the United States   
Pages: 1 2 3  Print 
 |  All Boards  |  Current Events  |  Topic: So my question is...
Jump to:  

AesopsRetreat Links


AesopsRetreat
YouTube Channel



Rules For Radicals.



2nd Amendment Source



5 minute Education




Join Me at KIVA
My Kiva Stats


Truth About
Slaves and Indians




r/K Theory




White Privilege




Conservatives:
What Do We Believe


Part 1:
Small Govt & Free Enterprise

Part 2:

The Problem with Elitism

Part 3:
Wealth Creation

Part 4:
Natural Law



Global Warming Scam



Lend a hand


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © AesopsRetreat
Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.248 seconds with 35 queries.