Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples

[Seawytch]

That gay couple who was whipped with some kind of metal lash. Who could really blame the people who did that? They look at what's happening here and certainly don't want this in their country.

The best part of this post...Tipsy probably considers herself a good Christian woman...

 

[Seawytch]

That's the dichotomy? Either the court must have a perfect record.....or any horseshit you want to make up must be the law of the land?

Um, no.

Again, bullshit. You're feeding yourself a pseudo-legal fantasy.

The court is the interpreter of the law and the constitution by design. It is the epitome of hapless horseshit to conclude that the judicial power only includes the power to AFFIRM laws. But never the authority to overturn them. That would be as braindead as assuming that the Executive Power doesn't include the authority to arrest anyone in the enforcement of the law.

Of course the courts can rule in favor or against a law when determining its compatibility the constitution. The concept of judicial review predates the Constitution itself. And has always been part of the Judicial Power.

But lets see if you abide your own standards. If Judicial review is invalid.......then you believe that McDonald v. Chicago is beyond the court's authority to rule upon? And any ordinance passed by any city or State limiting access to guns is beyond the court's authority to rule against?

If not, why not?

You can't have it both ways. The court doesn't have authority to overturn unconstitutional laws ONLY when you agree with them. But even when you don't. You're nobody. Your personal agreement isn't the threshold of the judicial power.

God, can't you come up with a hard one, Chicago's ban was in direct conflict with the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

If the judiciary doesn't have the authority to overturn laws or interpret the constitution, how then could they have dealt with any such 'direct conflict'?

Laughing........why look! Like magic, the judicial power suddenly DOES include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.

How did I know that was coming, hypocrite?

It's called simple application of the Constitution as written and please point out where I said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law.

Again, if the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to intepret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.....how could they overturn the Chicago gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Its quite the pickle your in, hypocrite. Either the Judicial Power does include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it...in which case McDonald v. Chicago would be legimate, or the Judicial Power doesn't include any such authority. And McDonald v. Chicago was a gross over step of federal authority.

Pick one. We both already know which one you'll pick. We both already know even you don't buy your hapless bullshit regarding the judiciary. We both already know that your recognition of the judicial power is based solely on whether or not you agree with a given ruling.

But I want to hear you say it.

Hey dumb ****, I never said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law, in fact I have consistently said they have an obligation to overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution. The authority they don't have is to tweak or amend a law, if it doesn't fit with the Constitution they have to overturn it and leave it to the legislature that passed it to fix.

That didn't happen in Obergefell v Hodges.

 

[Seawytch]

Sure, as Rosa Parks was jailed for violating a messed up law. That is the consequence
of civil disobedience. Even Dr. King ended up in jail and was criticized by fellow ministers
who saw breaking the law as negative and not obeying civil authority. This does happen.

In this case, the rulings and laws are messed up on both sides.
If they support gay marriage they violate beliefs of opponents who don't approve of those beliefs endorsed by the state; if they deny gay marriage they violate the equal protection and free exercise of beliefs of those who do believe in marriage equality. Either way it is a catch-22 because both sides' beliefs are equal under law.
The Judiciary and the legislators before them messed up by FAILING to recognize both the religious beliefs and the political beliefs at stake here, that all are equal in the eyes of the law. Big fat FAIL and everyone's paying.

I seems that you are always trying to see both sides of the issue and to find ways to accommodate everyone. While that is commendable it is often not realistic or appropriate to do so. Sometimes wrong is just wrong. This is not a matter of civil disobedience to protest an unjust law. It’s a matter of hiding behind the claim of religious freedom in order to discriminate. I have to wonder how many marriage licenses she issued to people who were previously married. Isn’t divorce also against here religion. ? It represents the height of hypocrisy.

The constitution protects the free exercise of religion. All freedoms have their limitations and end where ones behavior in the name of the exercise of that freedom infringes on the rights of others. In addition, religious freedom has no greater value than other freedoms.

The lawmakers and the judiciary did not “mess up” in any way. The clerk still has her religious beliefs in tack and none can take that away from here. She is free to liver HER life according to those beliefs but so is everyone else, including those who believe-on religious or any grounds – should be allowed to marry.


You might want to consider this:

1. Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice. 2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.

The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."

One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm

.

Hi ProgressivePatriot
I agree that it is violating the law,
what I am saying is this could have been prevented in the first place.

Similar to not passing ACA mandates penalizing citizens with fines
so that if they don't comply then it CREATES a violation.

If the laws were written properly to begin with this wouldn't happen.

You act like it is impossible.
Well, I listed a number of ways the conflicts could be kept out of govt.
A. separating benefits and health care/marriage terms/policies by party
so the tax breaks and what people pay for are consistent with their beliefs
without interfering with the same of others, and everyone is required to cover
for their health care without imposing on taxpayers
B. Agreeing to word the laws so neutrally, they don't involve any reference
to the beliefs in conflict, yet still allow all people to exercise their own equally.
C. Agreeing to accept gay marriage even if it is against people's beliefs,
if references to God, crosses, Bibles, creation etc. is also allowed without
suing either even if it is against other people's beliefs.

It's not impossible. Treating it like it is
is part of the problem. That's like saying
"it is impossible to prevent abortion without banning it"
"it is impossible to avoid the death penalty without banning it"
"it is impossible to ensure gun safety without penalizing law abiding gun owners"
and then justifying one person or group's belief to write laws a certain way
just because THEY believe it is the only way. While others are screaming no it isn't.

That is what is wrong with the ACA mandates also,
which penalize citizens for not buying insurance
when there are other ways to provide for public health care
while keeping insurance an optional choice.

I agree that the violations are wrong,
what I am saying is to AVOID them in the first place
by working out the conflicts in advance.

TheProgressivePatriot you think it is unrealistic,
well, I'm saying it is LEGALLY NECESSSARY.

I have plenty of friends who have worked out these issues
without pushing it to this point. It is not only possible to work out difference
but Constitutionally NECESSARY to prevent violations on both sides.

This is unacceptable.

I find it unrealistic to expect people to change their beliefs
because govt requires them or penalizes them, that just makes it worse!

Lastly TheProgressivePatriot
Do you or do you not make a distinction between
people who are TRULY being discriminatory and unfair against gay people
versus people who just don't believe in gay marriage and by their convictions
are not supposed to associate or do business with people who don't recognize this conflict.

Do you understand that not everyone is doing this for
unlawful discrimination reasons. There is a difference.

So as much as it is wrong to deprive others of their equal rights and access,
it is wrongful to condemn, punish or deprive liberties of people who don't have
any abusive, unlawful or ill intent BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS WHO DO.

The same way people who believe in gun rights want a SAY in how laws are written
so they don't overcorrect and impose too much, people who have beliefs against
gay marriage want to have equal say and representation in how laws are
written and implemented so they don't cross the line and impose too much the other way EITHER.

That is not unreasonable, that is just plain ETHICAL to respect
the beliefs and sides equally, or else REMOVE marriage from govt.

Marriage does not need to be through govt.
If need be, just the civil contracts can be handled through govt
and keep all the other language and terms managed locally, statewide or nationally through other means.

If people want their beliefs seriously enough, those people will pay the costs to separate them.

If they don't want to pay the costs, then they might be willing to compromise
and pool all the beliefs together under govt; and it may provide incentive to
offer to allow equal references to God, prolife, crosses, Bibles, creation, etc.
so people don't feel discriminated against for their beliefs while mandating other beliefs.

If we are going to remove OTHER references to beliefs not everyone shares,
it is only fair to remove references to gay marriage as another belief not everyone shares.

Either allow all references, or remove them all, or negotiate how to deal with the differences.
But imposing one way through govt, while others are SCREAMING isn't going to work.
Coercion does not work when it comes to people's inherent BELIEFS at stake on BOTH SIDES.

The only thing I have ever seen work is inclusion and mediation that respects
consent of all parties in an equally mutually agreed upon consensus.

Anything else is going to be contested and cause conflicts, where beliefs are involved.

Thinking this can be overridden by govt is against human nature.
Both sides will keep fighting to defend their interests until ALL
grievances and objections are addressed and resolved. That is human nature.

Nobody I know consents to govt overriding their beliefs!!!

You need to try to get focused and present ideas in a coherent way. You are all over the map with a lot of flowery and lofty language that leaves me wondering how it translates into pragmatic and workable solutions. Just one example of something that you said:

. separating benefits and health care/marriage terms/policies by party
so the tax breaks and what people pay for are consistent with their beliefs
without interfering with the same of others, and everyone is required to cover
for their health care without imposing on taxpayers

Will you please translate that into English? Can you explain how it would actually be implemented.? People will pay taxes according to their beliefs? Everyone will cover their own health care without government assistance from taxes. ?? Really?

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
The system of either paying for or crediting for health care through taxes,
can be handled by party-based administration.

Similar to how Vets go through their own VA to handle their health care benefits.
Why not have the Democrats and Republicans set up their own Health Administrations
and members can sign up, fund, participate, and democratically decide what terms they want to be under?

We could separate policies on gay marriage, abortion and prolife, etc. this way.

It is similar to when married couples AGREE what expenses go through their JOINT account,
and when they have personal expenses or projects they want to fund through SEPARATE private accounts
that the other partner does not have any part in.

Why not have SEPARATE tracks or accounts for programs that only ONE party supports but not the other;
and keep PUBLIC and GOVT funding and taxes for programs and policies that all parties agree on as central.

Not everything has to be done this way.
I would reserve it for just the most contentious unresolved issues of conflicting BELIEFS
that otherwise cause such backlash and bullying that the legal actions threaten the rights and beliefs of others.

For example, issues like:
* abortion funding and stem cell/embryonic research that not all people belief in
(alternatives can be offered in funding medical research and development in spiritual healing, for example)
* gay marriage and terms of benefits
* funding the death penalty vs. paying for life imprisonment
* funding war vs. funding benefits and care for Veterans, reconstruction and restitution for collateral damage as part of the military budget
* funding corporate or social welfare vs. funding microloans for business development and education
* mandates requiring paying private insurance companies or federal govt to run exchanges
vs. tax breaks for investing in building teaching hospitals and expanding medical education and internships
to provide public health services

Why don't we just go back to having slave states and free states.? All of these other things will most likely fall into place along those same lines.

Let's try an exercise. Since this thread is about same sex marriage in the great state of Texas, where it is still a hot issue, what would your system look like there, in concrete, operational and practical day to day reality? Please be very specific as to how conflict can be avoided and how everybody can be accommodated/

How would that look? You put a clean air bubble around Austin and let the rest of the state poison itself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jroc, yes, LGBT can be just as hateful as straights. That has nothing to with confusing the clerk's right to believe with her lack of right to deny marriage certificates.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is a Constitutional Amendment that secures the right to guns. There is no Constitutional right to marry.

Even so, a sales person with an objection to guns would be permitted not to ring up a gun sale.

There is no Constitutional right to marry. ?? Yes there is. The Supreme court has rules on numerous occasions that marriage is a right, and now, since Obergefell v. Hodges, same sex marriage is a right. It is a binding precedent -part of constitutional law as valid as any enumerated right.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's the dichotomy? Either the court must have a perfect record.....or any horseshit you want to make up must be the law of the land?

Um, no.

Again, bullshit. You're feeding yourself a pseudo-legal fantasy.

The court is the interpreter of the law and the constitution by design. It is the epitome of hapless horseshit to conclude that the judicial power only includes the power to AFFIRM laws. But never the authority to overturn them. That would be as braindead as assuming that the Executive Power doesn't include the authority to arrest anyone in the enforcement of the law.

Of course the courts can rule in favor or against a law when determining its compatibility the constitution. The concept of judicial review predates the Constitution itself. And has always been part of the Judicial Power.

But lets see if you abide your own standards. If Judicial review is invalid.......then you believe that McDonald v. Chicago is beyond the court's authority to rule upon? And any ordinance passed by any city or State limiting access to guns is beyond the court's authority to rule against?

If not, why not?

You can't have it both ways. The court doesn't have authority to overturn unconstitutional laws ONLY when you agree with them. But even when you don't. You're nobody. Your personal agreement isn't the threshold of the judicial power.

God, can't you come up with a hard one, Chicago's ban was in direct conflict with the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

If the judiciary doesn't have the authority to overturn laws or interpret the constitution, how then could they have dealt with any such 'direct conflict'?

Laughing........why look! Like magic, the judicial power suddenly DOES include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.

How did I know that was coming, hypocrite?

It's called simple application of the Constitution as written and please point out where I said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law.

Again, if the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to intepret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.....how could they overturn the Chicago gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Its quite the pickle your in, hypocrite. Either the Judicial Power does include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it...in which case McDonald v. Chicago would be legimate, or the Judicial Power doesn't include any such authority. And McDonald v. Chicago was a gross over step of federal authority.

Pick one. We both already know which one you'll pick. We both already know even you don't buy your hapless bullshit regarding the judiciary. We both already know that your recognition of the judicial power is based solely on whether or not you agree with a given ruling.

But I want to hear you say it.

Hey dumb ****, I never said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law, in fact I have consistently said they have an obligation to overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution. The authority they don't have is to tweak or amend a law, if it doesn't fit with the Constitution they have to overturn it and leave it to the legislature that passed it to fix.

And your understanding of what the court did with those state laws banning same sex marriage is what, exactly?

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is a Constitutional Amendment that secures the right to guns. There is no Constitutional right to marry.

Even so, a sales person with an objection to guns would be permitted not to ring up a gun sale.

There is a Constitutional Amendment that secures the right to guns. There is no Constitutional right to marry. ?? Yes there is. The Supreme court has rules on numerous occasions that marriage is a right, and now, since Obergefell v. Hodges, same sex marriage is a right. It is a binding precedent -part of constitutional law as valid as any enumerated right.

Yes, the right to marry is a constitutional right; any who says different simply is ignorant of the law.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hi ProgressivePatriot
I agree that it is violating the law,
what I am saying is this could have been prevented in the first place.

Similar to not passing ACA mandates penalizing citizens with fines
so that if they don't comply then it CREATES a violation.

If the laws were written properly to begin with this wouldn't happen.

You act like it is impossible.
Well, I listed a number of ways the conflicts could be kept out of govt.
A. separating benefits and health care/marriage terms/policies by party
so the tax breaks and what people pay for are consistent with their beliefs
without interfering with the same of others, and everyone is required to cover
for their health care without imposing on taxpayers
B. Agreeing to word the laws so neutrally, they don't involve any reference
to the beliefs in conflict, yet still allow all people to exercise their own equally.
C. Agreeing to accept gay marriage even if it is against people's beliefs,
if references to God, crosses, Bibles, creation etc. is also allowed without
suing either even if it is against other people's beliefs.

It's not impossible. Treating it like it is
is part of the problem. That's like saying
"it is impossible to prevent abortion without banning it"
"it is impossible to avoid the death penalty without banning it"
"it is impossible to ensure gun safety without penalizing law abiding gun owners"
and then justifying one person or group's belief to write laws a certain way
just because THEY believe it is the only way. While others are screaming no it isn't.

That is what is wrong with the ACA mandates also,
which penalize citizens for not buying insurance
when there are other ways to provide for public health care
while keeping insurance an optional choice.

I agree that the violations are wrong,
what I am saying is to AVOID them in the first place
by working out the conflicts in advance.

TheProgressivePatriot you think it is unrealistic,
well, I'm saying it is LEGALLY NECESSSARY.

I have plenty of friends who have worked out these issues
without pushing it to this point. It is not only possible to work out difference
but Constitutionally NECESSARY to prevent violations on both sides.

This is unacceptable.

I find it unrealistic to expect people to change their beliefs
because govt requires them or penalizes them, that just makes it worse!

Lastly TheProgressivePatriot
Do you or do you not make a distinction between
people who are TRULY being discriminatory and unfair against gay people
versus people who just don't believe in gay marriage and by their convictions
are not supposed to associate or do business with people who don't recognize this conflict.

Do you understand that not everyone is doing this for
unlawful discrimination reasons. There is a difference.

So as much as it is wrong to deprive others of their equal rights and access,
it is wrongful to condemn, punish or deprive liberties of people who don't have
any abusive, unlawful or ill intent BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS WHO DO.

The same way people who believe in gun rights want a SAY in how laws are written
so they don't overcorrect and impose too much, people who have beliefs against
gay marriage want to have equal say and representation in how laws are
written and implemented so they don't cross the line and impose too much the other way EITHER.

That is not unreasonable, that is just plain ETHICAL to respect
the beliefs and sides equally, or else REMOVE marriage from govt.

Marriage does not need to be through govt.
If need be, just the civil contracts can be handled through govt
and keep all the other language and terms managed locally, statewide or nationally through other means.

If people want their beliefs seriously enough, those people will pay the costs to separate them.

If they don't want to pay the costs, then they might be willing to compromise
and pool all the beliefs together under govt; and it may provide incentive to
offer to allow equal references to God, prolife, crosses, Bibles, creation, etc.
so people don't feel discriminated against for their beliefs while mandating other beliefs.

If we are going to remove OTHER references to beliefs not everyone shares,
it is only fair to remove references to gay marriage as another belief not everyone shares.

Either allow all references, or remove them all, or negotiate how to deal with the differences.
But imposing one way through govt, while others are SCREAMING isn't going to work.
Coercion does not work when it comes to people's inherent BELIEFS at stake on BOTH SIDES.

The only thing I have ever seen work is inclusion and mediation that respects
consent of all parties in an equally mutually agreed upon consensus.

Anything else is going to be contested and cause conflicts, where beliefs are involved.

Thinking this can be overridden by govt is against human nature.
Both sides will keep fighting to defend their interests until ALL
grievances and objections are addressed and resolved. That is human nature.

Nobody I know consents to govt overriding their beliefs!!!

You need to try to get focused and present ideas in a coherent way. You are all over the map with a lot of flowery and lofty language that leaves me wondering how it translates into pragmatic and workable solutions. Just one example of something that you said:

. separating benefits and health care/marriage terms/policies by party
so the tax breaks and what people pay for are consistent with their beliefs
without interfering with the same of others, and everyone is required to cover
for their health care without imposing on taxpayers

Will you please translate that into English? Can you explain how it would actually be implemented.? People will pay taxes according to their beliefs? Everyone will cover their own health care without government assistance from taxes. ?? Really?

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
The system of either paying for or crediting for health care through taxes,
can be handled by party-based administration.

Similar to how Vets go through their own VA to handle their health care benefits.
Why not have the Democrats and Republicans set up their own Health Administrations
and members can sign up, fund, participate, and democratically decide what terms they want to be under?

We could separate policies on gay marriage, abortion and prolife, etc. this way.

It is similar to when married couples AGREE what expenses go through their JOINT account,
and when they have personal expenses or projects they want to fund through SEPARATE private accounts
that the other partner does not have any part in.

Why not have SEPARATE tracks or accounts for programs that only ONE party supports but not the other;
and keep PUBLIC and GOVT funding and taxes for programs and policies that all parties agree on as central.

Not everything has to be done this way.
I would reserve it for just the most contentious unresolved issues of conflicting BELIEFS
that otherwise cause such backlash and bullying that the legal actions threaten the rights and beliefs of others.

For example, issues like:
* abortion funding and stem cell/embryonic research that not all people belief in
(alternatives can be offered in funding medical research and development in spiritual healing, for example)
* gay marriage and terms of benefits
* funding the death penalty vs. paying for life imprisonment
* funding war vs. funding benefits and care for Veterans, reconstruction and restitution for collateral damage as part of the military budget
* funding corporate or social welfare vs. funding microloans for business development and education
* mandates requiring paying private insurance companies or federal govt to run exchanges
vs. tax breaks for investing in building teaching hospitals and expanding medical education and internships
to provide public health services

Why don't we just go back to having slave states and free states.? All of these other things will most likely fall into place along those same lines.

Let's try an exercise. Since this thread is about same sex marriage in the great state of Texas, where it is still a hot issue, what would your system look like there, in concrete, operational and practical day to day reality? Please be very specific as to how conflict can be avoided and how everybody can be accommodated/

How would that look? You put a clean air bubble around Austin and let the rest of the state poison itself.

Homosexuals are so compassionate...Actually outside of their own circle so many are very hateful. You'd be one of those people I see

Did you have something relevant to contribute?

 

[OKTexas]

Not when there are less restrictive means to meet the requirement. Hint, you little fuckers won't be allowed to destroy the lives of everyone who disagrees with you. Remember pendulums swing both ways.

You little fuckers, OK, will obey the law. You will not destroy lives any more. You don't have the power. And neither does the clerk under the 1st Amendment. She can believe anything she wants. But she cannot enforce her religious opinion in her official role on others.

All this bullshit and none have shown what law the clerk broke, FOAD fakey.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All this bullshit and none have shown what law the clerk broke, FOAD fakey.

Yes, many have, and you, like shootspeeders and other goofs, think your interpretation of the law dictates the world. Son, it doesn't, it won't, it never will.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is a Constitutional Amendment that secures the right to guns. There is no Constitutional right to marry.

Even so, a sales person with an objection to guns would be permitted not to ring up a gun sale.

There is no Constitutional right to marry. ?? Yes there is. The Supreme court has rules on numerous occasions that marriage is a right, and now, since Obergefell v. Hodges, same sex marriage is a right. It is a binding precedent -part of constitutional law as valid as any enumerated right.

Just like separate but equal, right?

 

[OKTexas]

God, can't you come up with a hard one, Chicago's ban was in direct conflict with the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

If the judiciary doesn't have the authority to overturn laws or interpret the constitution, how then could they have dealt with any such 'direct conflict'?

Laughing........why look! Like magic, the judicial power suddenly DOES include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.

How did I know that was coming, hypocrite?

It's called simple application of the Constitution as written and please point out where I said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law.

Again, if the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to intepret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.....how could they overturn the Chicago gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Its quite the pickle your in, hypocrite. Either the Judicial Power does include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it...in which case McDonald v. Chicago would be legimate, or the Judicial Power doesn't include any such authority. And McDonald v. Chicago was a gross over step of federal authority.

Pick one. We both already know which one you'll pick. We both already know even you don't buy your hapless bullshit regarding the judiciary. We both already know that your recognition of the judicial power is based solely on whether or not you agree with a given ruling.

But I want to hear you say it.

Hey dumb ****, I never said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law, in fact I have consistently said they have an obligation to overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution. The authority they don't have is to tweak or amend a law, if it doesn't fit with the Constitution they have to overturn it and leave it to the legislature that passed it to fix.

That didn't happen in Obergefell v Hodges.

No, they just invented discrimination where none existed, all men and women were bound by the same law regardless of orientation. That's not discrimination or unequal protection.

 

[Skylar]

That's the dichotomy? Either the court must have a perfect record.....or any horseshit you want to make up must be the law of the land?

Um, no.

Again, bullshit. You're feeding yourself a pseudo-legal fantasy.

The court is the interpreter of the law and the constitution by design. It is the epitome of hapless horseshit to conclude that the judicial power only includes the power to AFFIRM laws. But never the authority to overturn them. That would be as braindead as assuming that the Executive Power doesn't include the authority to arrest anyone in the enforcement of the law.

Of course the courts can rule in favor or against a law when determining its compatibility the constitution. The concept of judicial review predates the Constitution itself. And has always been part of the Judicial Power.

But lets see if you abide your own standards. If Judicial review is invalid.......then you believe that McDonald v. Chicago is beyond the court's authority to rule upon? And any ordinance passed by any city or State limiting access to guns is beyond the court's authority to rule against?

If not, why not?

You can't have it both ways. The court doesn't have authority to overturn unconstitutional laws ONLY when you agree with them. But even when you don't. You're nobody. Your personal agreement isn't the threshold of the judicial power.

God, can't you come up with a hard one, Chicago's ban was in direct conflict with the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

If the judiciary doesn't have the authority to overturn laws or interpret the constitution, how then could they have dealt with any such 'direct conflict'?

Laughing........why look! Like magic, the judicial power suddenly DOES include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.

How did I know that was coming, hypocrite?

It's called simple application of the Constitution as written and please point out where I said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law.

Again, if the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to intepret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.....how could they overturn the Chicago gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Its quite the pickle your in, hypocrite. Either the Judicial Power does include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it...in which case McDonald v. Chicago would be legimate, or the Judicial Power doesn't include any such authority. And McDonald v. Chicago was a gross over step of federal authority.

Pick one. We both already know which one you'll pick. We both already know even you don't buy your hapless bullshit regarding the judiciary. We both already know that your recognition of the judicial power is based solely on whether or not you agree with a given ruling.

But I want to hear you say it.

Hey dumb ****, I never said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law, in fact I have consistently said they have an obligation to overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution.

Oh, I believe you. But this guy says you're completely full of shit:

Also the only thing that gave the court interpretative power over the Constitution or laws is the court. It is not now and never has been a power granted them by the Constitution itself. Judges are there to apply the Constitution and laws as written, not sit in judgment of what they may or may not mean. Constitutionally that is left to legislatures.

Post 520
OKTexas
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...rriage-licenses-to-gay-couples.427323/page-52

So you never said the court's don't have the authority to interpret the law or the constitution. You only said that the courts don't have the authority to interpret the law or the constitution.

And of course you're contradicted by the Federalist Paper themselves:

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

Yeah, but what would the federalist papers know compared to you. You've clearly got it all figured out. And have concluded that the judiciary doesn't have the authority to interpret the constitution or overturn unconstitutional laws...

.....unless you like the ruling.

If not for double standards, you'd have none at all.

 

[OKTexas]

God, can't you come up with a hard one, Chicago's ban was in direct conflict with the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

If the judiciary doesn't have the authority to overturn laws or interpret the constitution, how then could they have dealt with any such 'direct conflict'?

Laughing........why look! Like magic, the judicial power suddenly DOES include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.

How did I know that was coming, hypocrite?

It's called simple application of the Constitution as written and please point out where I said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law.

Again, if the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to intepret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.....how could they overturn the Chicago gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Its quite the pickle your in, hypocrite. Either the Judicial Power does include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it...in which case McDonald v. Chicago would be legimate, or the Judicial Power doesn't include any such authority. And McDonald v. Chicago was a gross over step of federal authority.

Pick one. We both already know which one you'll pick. We both already know even you don't buy your hapless bullshit regarding the judiciary. We both already know that your recognition of the judicial power is based solely on whether or not you agree with a given ruling.

But I want to hear you say it.

Hey dumb ****, I never said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law, in fact I have consistently said they have an obligation to overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution. The authority they don't have is to tweak or amend a law, if it doesn't fit with the Constitution they have to overturn it and leave it to the legislature that passed it to fix.

And your understanding of what the court did with those state laws banning same sex marriage is what, exactly?

See post #573

 

[Skylar]

If the judiciary doesn't have the authority to overturn laws or interpret the constitution, how then could they have dealt with any such 'direct conflict'?

Laughing........why look! Like magic, the judicial power suddenly DOES include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.

How did I know that was coming, hypocrite?

It's called simple application of the Constitution as written and please point out where I said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law.

Again, if the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to intepret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.....how could they overturn the Chicago gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Its quite the pickle your in, hypocrite. Either the Judicial Power does include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it...in which case McDonald v. Chicago would be legimate, or the Judicial Power doesn't include any such authority. And McDonald v. Chicago was a gross over step of federal authority.

Pick one. We both already know which one you'll pick. We both already know even you don't buy your hapless bullshit regarding the judiciary. We both already know that your recognition of the judicial power is based solely on whether or not you agree with a given ruling.

But I want to hear you say it.

Hey dumb ****, I never said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law, in fact I have consistently said they have an obligation to overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution. The authority they don't have is to tweak or amend a law, if it doesn't fit with the Constitution they have to overturn it and leave it to the legislature that passed it to fix.

That didn't happen in Obergefell v Hodges.

No, they just invented discrimination where none existed, all men and women were bound by the same law regardless of orientation. That's not discrimination or unequal protection.

Why that's the exact same logic that was used with interracial marriage bans. Since it applied to black and whites, it was thus 'equal'. Alas, back in reality the standards of the law themselves must meet constitutional muster. And both same sex marriage bans and interracial marriage bans failed utterly. As they had no valid legislative end, satisfied no legitimate state interest, nor even had a rational reason.

Says who? Says the Supreme Court. You disagree. Um....who gives a shit?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So in effect Cruz is supporting the establishment of sanctuary county courthouses,

for anti-gay bigots.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OKTexas has clearly lost the discussion.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If the judiciary doesn't have the authority to overturn laws or interpret the constitution, how then could they have dealt with any such 'direct conflict'?

Laughing........why look! Like magic, the judicial power suddenly DOES include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.

How did I know that was coming, hypocrite?

It's called simple application of the Constitution as written and please point out where I said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law.

Again, if the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to intepret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.....how could they overturn the Chicago gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Its quite the pickle your in, hypocrite. Either the Judicial Power does include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it...in which case McDonald v. Chicago would be legimate, or the Judicial Power doesn't include any such authority. And McDonald v. Chicago was a gross over step of federal authority.

Pick one. We both already know which one you'll pick. We both already know even you don't buy your hapless bullshit regarding the judiciary. We both already know that your recognition of the judicial power is based solely on whether or not you agree with a given ruling.

But I want to hear you say it.

Hey dumb ****, I never said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law, in fact I have consistently said they have an obligation to overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution. The authority they don't have is to tweak or amend a law, if it doesn't fit with the Constitution they have to overturn it and leave it to the legislature that passed it to fix.

And your understanding of what the court did with those state laws banning same sex marriage is what, exactly?

See post #573

I did . It is horseshit!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is a Constitutional Amendment that secures the right to guns. There is no Constitutional right to marry.

Even so, a sales person with an objection to guns would be permitted not to ring up a gun sale.

There is no Constitutional right to marry. ?? Yes there is. The Supreme court has rules on numerous occasions that marriage is a right, and now, since Obergefell v. Hodges, same sex marriage is a right. It is a binding precedent -part of constitutional law as valid as any enumerated right.

Just like separate but equal, right?

Where is separate part?

 

[OKTexas]

God, can't you come up with a hard one, Chicago's ban was in direct conflict with the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

If the judiciary doesn't have the authority to overturn laws or interpret the constitution, how then could they have dealt with any such 'direct conflict'?

Laughing........why look! Like magic, the judicial power suddenly DOES include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.

How did I know that was coming, hypocrite?

It's called simple application of the Constitution as written and please point out where I said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law.

Again, if the Judicial Power doesn't include the authority to intepret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it.....how could they overturn the Chicago gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Its quite the pickle your in, hypocrite. Either the Judicial Power does include the authority to interpret the constitution and overturn laws that violate it...in which case McDonald v. Chicago would be legimate, or the Judicial Power doesn't include any such authority. And McDonald v. Chicago was a gross over step of federal authority.

Pick one. We both already know which one you'll pick. We both already know even you don't buy your hapless bullshit regarding the judiciary. We both already know that your recognition of the judicial power is based solely on whether or not you agree with a given ruling.

But I want to hear you say it.

Hey dumb ****, I never said the court doesn't have the authority to overturn a law, in fact I have consistently said they have an obligation to overturn laws that conflict with the Constitution.

Oh, I believe you. But this guy says you're completely full of shit:

Also the only thing that gave the court interpretative power over the Constitution or laws is the court. It is not now and never has been a power granted them by the Constitution itself. Judges are there to apply the Constitution and laws as written, not sit in judgment of what they may or may not mean. Constitutionally that is left to legislatures.

Post 520
OKTexas
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...rriage-licenses-to-gay-couples.427323/page-52

So you never said the court's don't have the authority to interpret the law or the constitution. You only said that the courts don't have the authority to interpret the law or the constitution.

And of course you're contradicted by the Federalist Paper themselves:

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

Yeah, but what would the federalist papers know compared to you. You've clearly got it all figured out. And have concluded that the judiciary doesn't have the authority to interpret the constitution or overturn unconstitutional laws...

.....unless you like the ruling.

If not for double standards, you'd have none at all.

You want to use the federalist papers, Madison said in federalist 41 that the general welfare clause was specifically limited to the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 and not a general power unto itself. Are you on board with that? Or are you a hypocrite?