Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your failure to find a death threat is noted.Cool. Not a death threat though.An example of a death threat against the pizza place please.
I'll do you one better:
So? If you're willing to commit arson, what stops you from killing someone?
Your failure in logic is noted.
.So stop being lazy and do the research. Point to the specific section of the Constitution..
Findlaw has the exact words of the Constitution. Choose a different source if you wish. There is only one Constitution.
We await your scholarly direction...
.
You made this claim;
"Federal law only trumps State law in very specific situations. Civics studies 101."
Onus is on you to prove it since you were called out on it.
.
Actually, I called you out on:
"Oh and FYI, Federal law trumps state law. Social studies 101."
If you want me to do your homework for you, you are going to have to compensate me for it some how...
.
You will have the satisfaction of me admitting that I am wrong if you can prove your claim.
.
I would be more satisfied if you would demonstrate that you are right. Let's set that as our mutual satisfaction goal.
.
Article 6 Clause 2 makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
States cannot violate the Constitution ergo Federal law trumps state law.
Your turn!
.You made this claim;
"Federal law only trumps State law in very specific situations. Civics studies 101."
Onus is on you to prove it since you were called out on it.
.
Actually, I called you out on:
"Oh and FYI, Federal law trumps state law. Social studies 101."
If you want me to do your homework for you, you are going to have to compensate me for it some how...
.
You will have the satisfaction of me admitting that I am wrong if you can prove your claim.
.
I would be more satisfied if you would demonstrate that you are right. Let's set that as our mutual satisfaction goal.
.
Article 6 Clause 2 makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
States cannot violate the Constitution ergo Federal law trumps state law.
Your turn!
"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."
- See more at: Tenth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw"
Thus, as you have so eloquently pointed out, federal law only trumps state law if the law is in the Constitution.
There are many federal laws which are not part of the Constitution, and the States seem to do as they please.
Want to smoke a doobie in Colorado?
I can't find that anywhere in the Constitution.
Your turn...
.
No really! Who is being the more intolerant party here? Is it Christians? Is it Gays?
From the reaction I've seen from the pro-gay rights crowd against Christian business owners, they seem to be the most intolerant of the two. Are Christians intolerant? Only if they refuse to believe what you believe. Hold it! I'm not saying that there aren't any, I'm simply stating that there are some who simply don't agree with gay marriage or with homosexuality in general. They shouldn't be destroyed for it.
For example, instead of civil discourse, so called supporters of "gay rights" are more interested in engaging in ambush tactics against businesses who stand up for their religious beliefs launching smear tactics, death threats, you name it, all things Saul Alinsky would be proud of. What I am hearing these days is an outrage. Let me be blunt: I support gay marriage, and I made that deadly clear a couple of weeks ago, but I'll be damned before I stand here and let people of my faith be snuffed out and vilified in the public square because they believe a certain way. This is patently ludicrous.
Let me ask any homosexual on this board a couple of questions: if at any point you felt like an outcast in society for being gay or lesbian, would it be right to make those of faith feel the same way? At some point America will reach this point, and those with religious beliefs will be forced into obscurity. But why? If you knew the pain and anguish of being an obscure minority, an outcast, why would you inflict the same type of pain and anguish on those who think your sexual orientation is a sin? It's one thing to have passion, its another to be zealous.
So, I heard a story tonight about Memories Pizza, a small Pizzeria in Walkerton, Indiana. The owners are strong Christians. Yesterday, a local TV station walks in to the restaurant and asks the owners their opinions on Indiana's new RFRA law, along with a purely hypothetical question on whether they would cater same sex weddings. To the former, they replied that they supported Pence, and the law; to the latter, they answered that they would not in fact cater to gay weddings.
The backlash was overly vicious to say the least, so vicious in fact that the Pizzeria was forced to close, leading one local high school coach to tweet that he wanted to burn the establishment to the ground, there were so many death threats as a result, that the local police had to get involved for the protection of the owner and his employees. But, I'll just let you see for yourself:
The owners of an Indiana pizza restaurant have closed their doors after receiving backlash for stating that they wouldn't cater a gay wedding.
Trace Gallagher reported on "The Kelly File" tonight that the owners of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Ind., have strong Christian values and said they supported Gov. Mike Pence for signing the controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Gallagher said that yesterday a local TV station came into the restaurant to get the owners' opinion about the new law.
“We’re not discriminating against anyone, that’s just our belief, and anyone has the right to believe in anything,” Crystal O'Connor, the restaurant owner's daughter, said.
Indiana Pizzeria Forced to Close After Backlash for Refusal to Cater Gay Wedding
The story went national, with coverage from outlets like Mediaite, MSNBC, Mother Jones, Gawker, ABC News, and yes, The Daily Caller. #MemoriesPizza went viral on Twitter, and outraged Internet denizens responded by bombarding the pizzeria’s Yelp page with one-star reviews.
Conservative radio host Dana Loesch claimed on Twitter to have spoken to the owners, who said they were considering closing up shop and had even received death threats.
Loesch’s claim seems to backed up by a (now-deleted) tweet by the local reporter who broke the story, which showed a South Bend Police Department car parked outside of Memories Pizza. Likewise, an Indiana high school coach on Twitter spoke openly about burning the pizzeria to the ground.
Anti-Gay Marriage Pizzeria Owners Receive Death Threats The Daily Caller
I've had enough. Enough. There is a big difference between discrimination and discretion But when someone has a closely held belief and happens to be a business owner, it isn't the right of anyone else to seek out and destroy them for their opinions as long as they are complying with the law.
This Pizzeria had no history of discriminating against anyone, nor did they advertise themselves as a catering service. But for one simple, honest answer, which happened not to mesh with the beliefs of gay rights supporters, the full wrath of the movement was brought to bear on a small pizzeria who stood no chance of surviving the rabid deluge. People should be able to have an opinion, and as long as they aren't discriminating against gays in the first place, why come down on them so unmercifully? Who, in fact, is being more intolerant here? What honor is there in this kind of behavior? If Christians are supposedly dishonorable for discriminating against gays, what honor is there in this? What honor is there in someone making terroristic threats against someone else who doesn't agree with them?
I'm done. This kind of behavior is something I would expect from Islamic Extremists or ISIS, but from American citizens? There is no shame. No remorse. Only intolerance.
..
Actually, I called you out on:
"Oh and FYI, Federal law trumps state law. Social studies 101."
If you want me to do your homework for you, you are going to have to compensate me for it some how...
.
You will have the satisfaction of me admitting that I am wrong if you can prove your claim.
.
I would be more satisfied if you would demonstrate that you are right. Let's set that as our mutual satisfaction goal.
.
Article 6 Clause 2 makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
States cannot violate the Constitution ergo Federal law trumps state law.
Your turn!
"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."
- See more at: Tenth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw"
Thus, as you have so eloquently pointed out, federal law only trumps state law if the law is in the Constitution.
There are many federal laws which are not part of the Constitution, and the States seem to do as they please.
Want to smoke a doobie in Colorado?
I can't find that anywhere in the Constitution.
Your turn...
.
Glad you picked that option. Your only other choice was gay marriage and we all know where that is headed.
But let's first correct a couple of your mistakes above;
"There are many federal laws which are not part of the Constitution,"
All Federal law is assumed to be constitutional until challenged in court. If the courts find it to be unconstitutional then the law is overturned. ObamaCare was challenged and found to be constitutional, DOMA was challenged and found to be unconstitutional.
" and the States seem to do as they please."
States can pass legislation that violates Federal law such as those banning gay marriage. When they are challenged as being unconstitutional they are overturned.
So now let's address the topic of legalizing marijuana. Not every Federal law is constitutional either fully or in part. e.g. DOMA. The law classifying marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug with no other redeeming benefit is clearly an overreach and as such it is being challenged. Rather than tackling it directly in Federal court it has taken a different path. Studies have shown that marijuana does have medical benefits and this has resulted in states passing laws legalizing medical marijuana use. To date no one has challenged medical marijuana in Federal court but the Executive branch has effectively suspended prosecution of those using medical marijuana in those states.
So the Federal law is being rendered moot by evolving attitudes and a more adult approach. The histrionic anti-drug fever is changing to a more realistic stance. At some point the Federal law will be amended or the FDA will just remove marijuana from being a Schedule 1 drug. Most likely it will be the latter IMO.
.You will have the satisfaction of me admitting that I am wrong if you can prove your claim.
.
I would be more satisfied if you would demonstrate that you are right. Let's set that as our mutual satisfaction goal.
.
Article 6 Clause 2 makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
States cannot violate the Constitution ergo Federal law trumps state law.
Your turn!
"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."
- See more at: Tenth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw"
Thus, as you have so eloquently pointed out, federal law only trumps state law if the law is in the Constitution.
There are many federal laws which are not part of the Constitution, and the States seem to do as they please.
Want to smoke a doobie in Colorado?
I can't find that anywhere in the Constitution.
Your turn...
.
Glad you picked that option. Your only other choice was gay marriage and we all know where that is headed.
But let's first correct a couple of your mistakes above;
"There are many federal laws which are not part of the Constitution,"
All Federal law is assumed to be constitutional until challenged in court. If the courts find it to be unconstitutional then the law is overturned. ObamaCare was challenged and found to be constitutional, DOMA was challenged and found to be unconstitutional.
" and the States seem to do as they please."
States can pass legislation that violates Federal law such as those banning gay marriage. When they are challenged as being unconstitutional they are overturned.
So now let's address the topic of legalizing marijuana. Not every Federal law is constitutional either fully or in part. e.g. DOMA. The law classifying marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug with no other redeeming benefit is clearly an overreach and as such it is being challenged. Rather than tackling it directly in Federal court it has taken a different path. Studies have shown that marijuana does have medical benefits and this has resulted in states passing laws legalizing medical marijuana use. To date no one has challenged medical marijuana in Federal court but the Executive branch has effectively suspended prosecution of those using medical marijuana in those states.
So the Federal law is being rendered moot by evolving attitudes and a more adult approach. The histrionic anti-drug fever is changing to a more realistic stance. At some point the Federal law will be amended or the FDA will just remove marijuana from being a Schedule 1 drug. Most likely it will be the latter IMO.
.
There is no intent to take any of your post out of context, but you just posted:
"Not every Federal law is constitutional either fully or in part."
Which is sort of the point. I am glad that we agree on something.
You have an additional contention that the Judicial branch of government plays a role in the determination of the Constitutionality of Federal law, and thus whether or not it can trump State law in any specific circumstance. Indeed, these things happen from time to time. As an example, I might point to Hobby Lobby...
"The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A).
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
It is nice to see that a law signed by William Jefferson Clinton was upheld by the Supreme Court.
.
that would only matter here if federal law has created a protected class for homosexuals. I am not aware that it is a federal protected class at this time.Lol. I find it ironic that you're angry about the supposed "special right" you believe they law granted them, while demanding special rights for homosexuals. You hypocrite.I've had enough. Enough. There is a big difference between discrimination and discretion But when someone has a closely held belief and happens to be a business owner, it isn't the right of anyone else to seek out and destroy them for their opinions as long as they are complying with the law.
Discrimination is a violation of the law for any corporation that deals with the public.
The law passed in Indiana was granting "special rights" to the owner of that pizza parlor to allow her to discriminate. That is a violation of Federal law and therefore unconstitutional.
Gays don't have special rights and neither to Christians. Everyone is equal under the law. That is how the system works.
If you want to violate the law and discriminate then you have to deal with the consequences.
Moreover, Indiana has no laws recognizing homosexuals s a protected class, there are also no laws banning discrimination against homosexuals. There was no law to violate, and no reason for the homosexual community to engage in these militant tactics, which I glean from you It's something you support, death threats and all.
Ironic given that you are the person who has anger management issues.
I suggest you ask an adult to explain what I actually posted as opposed to what your reading comprehension shortcoming makes you imagine that I posted.
Oh and FYI, Federal law trumps state law. Social studies 101.
Newsflash winning a few court decisions doesn't mean you have achieved change and acceptance, its a faux win.
