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.
Claiming that the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to rule against a law is like claiming that the Executive Authority to enforce the law doesn't include the authority to arrest anyone.
.
HAHA. What a ridiculous analogy. Time for you to admit you don't have the evidence. The constitution does NOT give the courts authority to repeal laws by declaring them unconstitutional. It's a power they simply granted themselves. In fact, the tenth amendment gives the power to the states.
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Federalist Paper 78
Good idea, as long as you love lawsuits, lawyers, legal bills, judges, courtrooms, jails, and drastic career changes. By all means...
What you believe protects your bigotry, and that of others, doesn't. PA laws are constitutional.Good idea, as long as you love lawsuits, lawyers, legal bills, judges, courtrooms, jails, and drastic career changes. By all means...
Or unless you claim a religious objection to being forced to participate in or promote a BEHAVIOR that your faith strictly forbids you to do...a mortal sin..
Read the 9th Amendment Paint. Your aggressive blackmail will only make it that far and no farther.
HAHA. What a ridiculous analogy. Time for you to admit you don't have the evidence. The constitution does NOT give the courts authority to repeal laws by declaring them unconstitutional. It's a power they simply granted themselves. In fact, the tenth amendment gives the power to the states.
Obviously it does. The judicial power includes the authority to rule against a law. My analogy is spot on. As the Federalist Papers make crystal clear:
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Federalist Paper 78
Not only does the judicial power include the power to rule against a law, it was always meant to.
Unless you think you know better than the Federalist Papers. Again, Speed.....there's a reason you lost this issue.
Well let's see. On her side is reality, the courts agree, Congress, everyone who matters, and on your side is a position that was tossed out more than 200 years ago. Yes, I see the defeat clearly...HAHA. What a ridiculous analogy. Time for you to admit you don't have the evidence. The constitution does NOT give the courts authority to repeal laws by declaring them unconstitutional. It's a power they simply granted themselves. In fact, the tenth amendment gives the power to the states.
Obviously it does. The judicial power includes the authority to rule against a law. My analogy is spot on. As the Federalist Papers make crystal clear:
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Federalist Paper 78
Not only does the judicial power include the power to rule against a law, it was always meant to.
Unless you think you know better than the Federalist Papers. Again, Speed.....there's a reason you lost this issue.
Hey einstein. You still haven't shown where the constitution grants courts the power to repeal laws. The federalist paper quote you cited is just one man's opinion. Thomas Jefferson had a very different opinion. Ever hear of him???
Defeating you loony libs is so easy.
What the cities do is Don't Ask, so there is nothing To Tell, which is in no way breaking the law.How about heterosexual sanctuary cities? If the radical left can ignore federal law regarding criminal aliens with sanctuary cities the heterosexual sanctuary cities can at least avoid going to jail for refusing to bake wedding cakes for hairy freakazoid drag queens.
Hell - if cities can ignore federal immigration laws , then they can ignore all laws. That's how i see it.
Yes, I'm sure there are a lot of prisons that can hold homosexuals violating Christian's civil rights to the 1st Amendment.Go for it. We have lots of prisons around.How about heterosexual sanctuary cities? If the radical left can ignore federal law regarding criminal aliens with sanctuary cities the heterosexual sanctuary cities can at least avoid going to jail for refusing to bake wedding cakes for hairy freakazoid drag queens.
If they do, that can be done, but if you think requiring reactionary and bigoted Christian business owners to obey the law is such a thing, it isn't. See Elaine's Photography, in which is the SC said, by not taking her appeal, Do Your Fucking Job...Yes, I'm sure there are a lot of prisons that can hold homosexuals violating Christian's civil rights to the 1st Amendment.Go for it. We have lots of prisons around.How about heterosexual sanctuary cities? If the radical left can ignore federal law regarding criminal aliens with sanctuary cities the heterosexual sanctuary cities can at least avoid going to jail for refusing to bake wedding cakes for hairy freakazoid drag queens.
PA laws are constitutional.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Ninth Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
When Phyllis Schlafly dies, I will be taking the time to visit her grave....with my dog...so he can relieve himself.Judges can't write laws though they did here. The first words of the constitution after the preamble are "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states". The states should ignore this court-made law and say "you want a law legalizing this, then have congress pass it".
Schlafly Treat Gay Marriage Ruling Like Abe Lincoln Treated Infamous Dred Scott Case We Don t Have to Obey
july 31 2015 Long-time conservative activist, best selling author, and syndicated columnist Phyllis Schlafly said the 5 (of 9) judges on the Supreme Court who voted for homosexual marriage “made it up” because there is nothing in the Constitution about such arrangements, and added that Americans, like Abraham Lincoln, should treat the ruling like the Dred Scott case: don’t accept it or obey it.
“That’s right, there's nothing in the Constitution about homosexual marriage,” said Schlafly during a July 29 interview on PIJN News, hosted by Gordon Klingenschmit.
“The judges made it up,” she said, “and some people think that because they did, and the Supreme Court has spoken, therefore we have to accept it. We don't.”
PA laws and gay marriage are both constitutional. You lost, and have nowhere to go. Bake the damn cake, the SC has been very clear on this.PA laws are constitutional.
So is the 1st Amendment ....and no Constitutional provision may impinge upon the rights enjoyed in another. So says the 9th Amendment. Again, you may want to brush up on it...oh..what the hell...here...idiot..
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Ninth Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
That includes the 1st Amendment Paint. Read it and weep. If LGBTs were not just some of the Court's favorite deviant sex behaviors/mental fixations...and if only they were an actual race of people...when the contest of the 1st vs Gay Marriage comes to the Arena...the 14th might have forced Christians to accomodate "gay" weddings. But the 9th will tame the 14th and ask it: "is gay a static state like race, inborn and forever fixed or is it merely a behavior?" Because the question of squelching the 1st Amendment is THAT important...the dissection of law (and the false premise "race = just some sex behaviors" )will be very, very deep to find the right Ruling...
Oh, btw...thanks for supporting gay rights with your signature picture.Good idea, as long as you love lawsuits, lawyers, legal bills, judges, courtrooms, jails, and drastic career changes. By all means...
Or unless you claim a religious objection to being forced to participate in or promote a BEHAVIOR that your faith strictly forbids you to do...a mortal sin..
Read the 9th Amendment Paint. Your aggressive blackmail will only make it that far and no farther.
Do you enjoy making stuff up like that?What the cities do is Don't Ask, so there is nothing To Tell, which is in no way breaking the law.How about heterosexual sanctuary cities? If the radical left can ignore federal law regarding criminal aliens with sanctuary cities the heterosexual sanctuary cities can at least avoid going to jail for refusing to bake wedding cakes for hairy freakazoid drag queens.
Hell - if cities can ignore federal immigration laws , then they can ignore all laws. That's how i see it.
Don't ask? The dirty little secret is that angry sodomites shop for discrimination and they get their kicks (and a couple of bucks) by forcing conservative Christians to be part of their agenda. On the other hand idiot left wing savants don't give a damn about the safety of women and children as long as they can offer sanctuary to criminals illegally in the Country who might one day vote for democrats.
Do you enjoy making stuff up like that?
That includes the 1st Amendment Paint.Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Ninth Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
You made the comment: " The dirty little secret is that angry sodomites shop for discrimination and they get their kicks (and a couple of bucks) by forcing conservative Christians to be part of their agenda. "Do you enjoy making stuff up like that?
Not making up the 1st Amendment ....and no Constitutional provision may impinge upon the rights enjoyed in another. So says the 9th Amendment. Again, you may want to brush up on it...
That includes the 1st Amendment Paint.Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Ninth Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
If LGBTs were not just some of the Court's favorite deviant sex behaviors/mental fixations...and if only they were an actual race of people...when the contest of the 1st vs Gay Marriage comes to the Arena...the 14th might have forced Christians to accomodate "gay" weddings. But the 9th will tame the 14th and ask it: "is gay a static state like race, inborn and forever fixed or is it merely a behavior?" Because the question of squelching the 1st Amendment is THAT important...the dissection of law (and the false premise "race = just some sex behaviors" )will be very, very deep to find the right Ruling...
You won't mind a military-grade floodlight on that dissection will you gang? Nothing to fear there, right?
[
Well let's see. On her side is reality, the courts agree, Congress, everyone who matters, and on your side is a position that was tossed out more than 200 years ago. Yes, I see the defeat clearly...
PA laws and gay marriage are both constitutional..
The Constitution doesn't say anything about straight marriage either, but the Supreme Court has something to say on both, which means, you and she are both fucked...PA laws and gay marriage are both constitutional..
HAHAHA, As Schafly says, the constitution says absolutely nothing about queer marriage.
Really, and where is that?[
Well let's see. On her side is reality, the courts agree, Congress, everyone who matters, and on your side is a position that was tossed out more than 200 years ago. Yes, I see the defeat clearly...
But where does the constitution say courts have authority to repeal laws? I've shown you where it says they do NOT have such authority.
HAHA. What a ridiculous analogy. Time for you to admit you don't have the evidence. The constitution does NOT give the courts authority to repeal laws by declaring them unconstitutional. It's a power they simply granted themselves. In fact, the tenth amendment gives the power to the states.
Obviously it does. The judicial power includes the authority to rule against a law. My analogy is spot on. As the Federalist Papers make crystal clear:
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Federalist Paper 78
Not only does the judicial power include the power to rule against a law, it was always meant to.
Unless you think you know better than the Federalist Papers. Again, Speed.....there's a reason you lost this issue.
Hey einstein. You still haven't shown where the constitution grants courts the power to repeal laws. The federalist paper quote you cited is just one man's opinion. Thomas Jefferson had a very different opinion. Ever hear of him???
Defeating you loony libs is so easy.
