Judge Roy Moore defies feds: 'Law is very clear'

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SLYHUNTER SAID:

“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”

The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

 

[Kosh]

SLYHUNTER SAID:

“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”

The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

Oh my the far left just goes to show how they run the narrative..

 

[Slyhunter]

SLYHUNTER SAID:

“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”

The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

Why are you arguing a Republican talking point instead of a Democratic one? Aren't you a Democrat? Don't you believe in Democracy? Methinks you are in the wrong party.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SLYHUNTER SAID:

“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”

The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

Why are you arguing a Republican talking point instead of a Democratic one? Aren't you a Democrat? Don't you believe in Democracy? Methinks you are in the wrong party.

It's not a 'talking point,' it's a fundamental tenet of Constitutional law, and it belongs to all the people, not one party or political doctrine.

 

[Kosh]

SLYHUNTER SAID:

“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”

The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

Why are you arguing a Republican talking point instead of a Democratic one? Aren't you a Democrat? Don't you believe in Democracy? Methinks you are in the wrong party.

It's not a 'talking point,' it's a fundamental tenet of Constitutional law, and it belongs to all the people, not one party or political doctrine.

It is a far left talking point as you are far left drone that uses it often..

 

[Slyhunter]

SLYHUNTER SAID:

“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”

The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

Why are you arguing a Republican talking point instead of a Democratic one? Aren't you a Democrat? Don't you believe in Democracy? Methinks you are in the wrong party.

It's not a 'talking point,' it's a fundamental tenet of Constitutional law, and it belongs to all the people, not one party or political doctrine.

Democrats are supposed to be for Democracy. If your not then you're a hypocrite. Republicans are for the Republic.

 

[Syriusly]

SLYHUNTER SAID:

“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”

The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

Why are you arguing a Republican talking point instead of a Democratic one? Aren't you a Democrat? Don't you believe in Democracy? Methinks you are in the wrong party.

Do you even know what our form of government is?

 

[Syriusly]

SLYHUNTER SAID:

“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”

The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

Why are you arguing a Republican talking point instead of a Democratic one? Aren't you a Democrat? Don't you believe in Democracy? Methinks you are in the wrong party.

It's not a 'talking point,' it's a fundamental tenet of Constitutional law, and it belongs to all the people, not one party or political doctrine.

Democrats are supposed to be for Democracy. If your not then you're a hypocrite. Republicans are for the Republic.

LOL.....and where did you get that idea?

 

[Slyhunter]

SLYHUNTER SAID:

“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”

The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

Why are you arguing a Republican talking point instead of a Democratic one? Aren't you a Democrat? Don't you believe in Democracy? Methinks you are in the wrong party.

It's not a 'talking point,' it's a fundamental tenet of Constitutional law, and it belongs to all the people, not one party or political doctrine.

Democrats are supposed to be for Democracy. If your not then you're a hypocrite. Republicans are for the Republic.

LOL.....and where did you get that idea?

Why do they call themselves Democrats if they don't believe in Democracy?

 

[Skylar]

SLYHUNTER SAID:

“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”

The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

Why are you arguing a Republican talking point instead of a Democratic one? Aren't you a Democrat? Don't you believe in Democracy? Methinks you are in the wrong party.

It's not a 'talking point,' it's a fundamental tenet of Constitutional law, and it belongs to all the people, not one party or political doctrine.

Democrats are supposed to be for Democracy. If your not then you're a hypocrite. Republicans are for the Republic.

LOL.....and where did you get that idea?

Why do they call themselves Democrats if they don't believe in Democracy?

The term 'democrat' dates back to the Democratic Republican Party. We're a democratic republic. Or more accurately, a democratic constitutional republic. We use democracy, but we temper it with the guarantee of rights.

 

[Syriusly]

SLYHUNTER SAID:

“Not if you abide by the wishes of the voters.”

The voters have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights; citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – this is why we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

Why are you arguing a Republican talking point instead of a Democratic one? Aren't you a Democrat? Don't you believe in Democracy? Methinks you are in the wrong party.

It's not a 'talking point,' it's a fundamental tenet of Constitutional law, and it belongs to all the people, not one party or political doctrine.

Democrats are supposed to be for Democracy. If your not then you're a hypocrite. Republicans are for the Republic.

LOL.....and where did you get that idea?

Why do they call themselves Democrats if they don't believe in Democracy?

The First Party System of the United States featured the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party (Anti-Federalist). The Federalist Party grew from Washington's Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, who favored a strong united central government, close ties to Britain, a centralized banking system, and close links between the government and men of wealth. The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by James Madison and by Washington's Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who strongly opposed Hamilton's agenda.[49]

In 1829, the Second Party System saw a split of the Democratic-Republican Party into the Jacksonian Democrats, who grew into the modern Democratic Party, led by Andrew Jackson, and the Whig Party, led by Henry Clay.

The Democrats supported the primacy of the Presidency over the other branches of government, and opposed the Bank of the United States as well as modernizing programs that they felt would build up industry at the expense of the taxpayer.

The Whigs, on the other hand, advocated the primacy of Congress over the executive branch as well as policies of modernization and economic protectionism. Central political battles of this era were the Bank War and the Spoils system of federal patronage.

The Third Party System stretched from 1854 to the mid-1890s, and was characterized by the emergence of the anti-slavery Republican Party, which adopted many of the economic policies of the Whigs, such as national banks, railroads, high tariffs, homesteads and aid to land grant colleges. Civil war and Reconstruction issues polarized the parties until theCompromise of 1877, which ended the latter.

 

[Kosh]

Why are you arguing a Republican talking point instead of a Democratic one? Aren't you a Democrat? Don't you believe in Democracy? Methinks you are in the wrong party.

It's not a 'talking point,' it's a fundamental tenet of Constitutional law, and it belongs to all the people, not one party or political doctrine.

Democrats are supposed to be for Democracy. If your not then you're a hypocrite. Republicans are for the Republic.

LOL.....and where did you get that idea?

Why do they call themselves Democrats if they don't believe in Democracy?

The term 'democrat' dates back to the Democratic Republican Party. We're a democratic republic. Or more accurately, a democratic constitutional republic. We use democracy, but we temper it with the guarantee of rights.

Another far left drone that will post propaganda over actual history..

 

[Kosh]

Why are you arguing a Republican talking point instead of a Democratic one? Aren't you a Democrat? Don't you believe in Democracy? Methinks you are in the wrong party.

It's not a 'talking point,' it's a fundamental tenet of Constitutional law, and it belongs to all the people, not one party or political doctrine.

Democrats are supposed to be for Democracy. If your not then you're a hypocrite. Republicans are for the Republic.

LOL.....and where did you get that idea?

Why do they call themselves Democrats if they don't believe in Democracy?

The First Party System of the United States featured the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party (Anti-Federalist). The Federalist Party grew from Washington's Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, who favored a strong united central government, close ties to Britain, a centralized banking system, and close links between the government and men of wealth. The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by James Madison and by Washington's Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who strongly opposed Hamilton's agenda.[49]

In 1829, the Second Party System saw a split of the Democratic-Republican Party into the Jacksonian Democrats, who grew into the modern Democratic Party, led by Andrew Jackson, and the Whig Party, led by Henry Clay.

The Democrats supported the primacy of the Presidency over the other branches of government, and opposed the Bank of the United States as well as modernizing programs that they felt would build up industry at the expense of the taxpayer.

The Whigs, on the other hand, advocated the primacy of Congress over the executive branch as well as policies of modernization and economic protectionism. Central political battles of this era were the Bank War and the Spoils system of federal patronage.

The Third Party System stretched from 1854 to the mid-1890s, and was characterized by the emergence of the anti-slavery Republican Party, which adopted many of the economic policies of the Whigs, such as national banks, railroads, high tariffs, homesteads and aid to land grant colleges. Civil war and Reconstruction issues polarized the parties until theCompromise of 1877, which ended the latter.

See the far left drones want the president to be dictator it is their history and why they do not oppose Obama when he does such things..

 

[Slyhunter]

It's not a 'talking point,' it's a fundamental tenet of Constitutional law, and it belongs to all the people, not one party or political doctrine.

Democrats are supposed to be for Democracy. If your not then you're a hypocrite. Republicans are for the Republic.

LOL.....and where did you get that idea?

Why do they call themselves Democrats if they don't believe in Democracy?

The First Party System of the United States featured the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party (Anti-Federalist). The Federalist Party grew from Washington's Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, who favored a strong united central government, close ties to Britain, a centralized banking system, and close links between the government and men of wealth. The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by James Madison and by Washington's Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who strongly opposed Hamilton's agenda.[49]

In 1829, the Second Party System saw a split of the Democratic-Republican Party into the Jacksonian Democrats, who grew into the modern Democratic Party, led by Andrew Jackson, and the Whig Party, led by Henry Clay.

The Democrats supported the primacy of the Presidency over the other branches of government, and opposed the Bank of the United States as well as modernizing programs that they felt would build up industry at the expense of the taxpayer.

The Whigs, on the other hand, advocated the primacy of Congress over the executive branch as well as policies of modernization and economic protectionism. Central political battles of this era were the Bank War and the Spoils system of federal patronage.

The Third Party System stretched from 1854 to the mid-1890s, and was characterized by the emergence of the anti-slavery Republican Party, which adopted many of the economic policies of the Whigs, such as national banks, railroads, high tariffs, homesteads and aid to land grant colleges. Civil war and Reconstruction issues polarized the parties until theCompromise of 1877, which ended the latter.

See the far left drones want the president to be dictator it is their history and why they do not oppose Obama when he does such things..

They'll change their tone when Walker wins the Presidency.

 

[Syriusly]

Democrats are supposed to be for Democracy. If your not then you're a hypocrite. Republicans are for the Republic.

LOL.....and where did you get that idea?

Why do they call themselves Democrats if they don't believe in Democracy?

The First Party System of the United States featured the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party (Anti-Federalist). The Federalist Party grew from Washington's Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, who favored a strong united central government, close ties to Britain, a centralized banking system, and close links between the government and men of wealth. The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by James Madison and by Washington's Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who strongly opposed Hamilton's agenda.[49]

In 1829, the Second Party System saw a split of the Democratic-Republican Party into the Jacksonian Democrats, who grew into the modern Democratic Party, led by Andrew Jackson, and the Whig Party, led by Henry Clay.

The Democrats supported the primacy of the Presidency over the other branches of government, and opposed the Bank of the United States as well as modernizing programs that they felt would build up industry at the expense of the taxpayer.

The Whigs, on the other hand, advocated the primacy of Congress over the executive branch as well as policies of modernization and economic protectionism. Central political battles of this era were the Bank War and the Spoils system of federal patronage.

The Third Party System stretched from 1854 to the mid-1890s, and was characterized by the emergence of the anti-slavery Republican Party, which adopted many of the economic policies of the Whigs, such as national banks, railroads, high tariffs, homesteads and aid to land grant colleges. Civil war and Reconstruction issues polarized the parties until theCompromise of 1877, which ended the latter.

See the far left drones want the president to be dictator it is their history and why they do not oppose Obama when he does such things..

They'll change their tone when Walker wins the Presidency.

In the unlikely event that Walker were to win the Presidency my very first act will be to wish for him to be a very successful President.

That is what I did with Obama
It is what I did for Bush.

 

[WinterBorn]

No- that is just your bizarre strawman.

Americans have a right to marriage- even the gay Americans you despise.

LOL. You guys are amazing. Only several years ago every major political candidate supported traditional marriage. Same with states, even California. Now you malicious assholes are trying to label everyone that supports traditional marriage as despising gays. You're deranged.

Why else would someone be against same sex marriage? It does not effect anyone else in any way.

And "just a few years ago"? It was "just a few years ago" that gays lost their jobs of someone found out they were gay, and they were often beaten up just for being gay.

Oh shut the **** up. We are talking about marriage, not hanging queers by their balls. So all those Democrats were intolerant homophobes to you huh? I, like the majority of Americans, think we have the right to define marriages. The male/female union has always been the foundation, we reserve the right to recognize genders for what they are and prefer to not pretend genders are irrelevant.

Sorry, I don't shut up just because you have issues.

And if you would like to remove the +/- 1,400 benefits that straight married couples enjoy from federal state and local gov'ts, there would be no lack of equal protection under the law. Try doing that.

Otherwise, get used to same sex marriages. It shouldn't be difficult. They don't change your marriage at all.

I don't have issues, you're the fat turd trying to smear me because I believe in traditional marriage. That makes you the insecure one here, not me. You guys are the ones pushing for radical changes yet you want to pretend everyone else is wrong, evil, cruel, blah blah blah. Like some stupid brat trying to get his way.

Of course gay marriage changes what marriage has always been, you denying it doesn't make it so. The primary objection I have is that it forces government to participate in the lie that genders are irrelevant and the male/female role has no special place in society. I've said that numerous times yet you continue to act like I don't have the right to my opinion.

You are welcome to your opinion. You are not welcome to make a certain group into second class citizens.

 

[WinterBorn]

Democrats are supposed to be for Democracy. If your not then you're a hypocrite. Republicans are for the Republic.

LOL.....and where did you get that idea?

Why do they call themselves Democrats if they don't believe in Democracy?

The First Party System of the United States featured the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party (Anti-Federalist). The Federalist Party grew from Washington's Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, who favored a strong united central government, close ties to Britain, a centralized banking system, and close links between the government and men of wealth. The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by James Madison and by Washington's Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who strongly opposed Hamilton's agenda.[49]

In 1829, the Second Party System saw a split of the Democratic-Republican Party into the Jacksonian Democrats, who grew into the modern Democratic Party, led by Andrew Jackson, and the Whig Party, led by Henry Clay.

The Democrats supported the primacy of the Presidency over the other branches of government, and opposed the Bank of the United States as well as modernizing programs that they felt would build up industry at the expense of the taxpayer.

The Whigs, on the other hand, advocated the primacy of Congress over the executive branch as well as policies of modernization and economic protectionism. Central political battles of this era were the Bank War and the Spoils system of federal patronage.

The Third Party System stretched from 1854 to the mid-1890s, and was characterized by the emergence of the anti-slavery Republican Party, which adopted many of the economic policies of the Whigs, such as national banks, railroads, high tariffs, homesteads and aid to land grant colleges. Civil war and Reconstruction issues polarized the parties until theCompromise of 1877, which ended the latter.

See the far left drones want the president to be dictator it is their history and why they do not oppose Obama when he does such things..

They'll change their tone when Walker wins the Presidency.

First, lets clarify that I did not vote for Obama (or any democrat) in my lifetime. This idea that only "far left drones" are in favor of same sex marriage is lunacy.

And second, my tone will be exactly the same then as it is now.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yeah....because of course its not a Constitutional issue until the Supreme Court makes a final decision.....

So no one thought to bring it up before?

If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one.

Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard.
Zablocki v. Rehail was the first marriage case regarding the right to marry if someone owes child support.

The first case regarding same gender marriage to reach the Supreme Court, they let the ruling stand that it was unconstitutional.
As they have for every case that has ruled that same gender marriage bans are unconstitutional that has reached them.

Now one Appellate Court has said that same gender marriage bans are okay- the Supreme Court will now review the issue- but every opportunity before that- the Supreme Court didn't think that there was any Constitutional issue the court needed to address-they left the lower courts ruling stand- and that is why same gender marriage is legal in most of the United States.

Here we are again with the far left narrative that being "gay" is a race..

Really? You read that post and see a claim that homosexuality is a race? Wow. Just wow.

Yeah just wow.

"Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard."

And in the context of that post, they certainly did NOT say homosexuality is a race. They gave examples of first cases in different areas of marriage that have been ruled on by the higher courts.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh don't be coy- quote my entire post

If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one.

Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard.
Zablocki v. Rehail was the first marriage case regarding the right to marry if someone owes child support.

The first case regarding same gender marriage to reach the Supreme Court, they let the ruling stand that it was unconstitutional.

Feel free to show how I claimed that homosexuality is a race- and why you didn't also decide that i meant that 'owing child support' is a race.

I posted the relevant portion I responded to. Do you understand? Your purpose for bring race into it was what if not to tether the gay cause to racism?

The sentence before the mention of Loving v. Virginia explains why. "If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one."

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh don't be coy- quote my entire post

If there is any case at all- the first one will be the first one.

Loving v. Virginia was the first case regarding mixed race marriage the Supreme Court heard.
Zablocki v. Rehail was the first marriage case regarding the right to marry if someone owes child support.

The first case regarding same gender marriage to reach the Supreme Court, they let the ruling stand that it was unconstitutional.

Feel free to show how I claimed that homosexuality is a race- and why you didn't also decide that i meant that 'owing child support' is a race.

I posted the relevant portion I responded to. Do you understand? Your purpose for bring race into it was what if not to tether the gay cause to racism?

Since I raised two Supreme Court decisions regarding marriage- Loving and Zablocki- why do you decide that my post was about race, and ignore the second case- Zablocki?

I was responding to a stupid post that whined about the gay marriage case finally having the Constitutionality addressed-

So I pointed out two other Federal marriage decisions that the Supreme Court made that over-ruled State marriage laws because they were unconstitutional.

Yet you saw only race.

Because that was what the case was about? Do you understand far left drone?

And it was the first case concerning interracial marriage. And since she was posting about first cases, it was an example. There was no statement that said race and homosexuality are the same. None.