Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
lol. so the new law the supreme court made is the 14th amendment to the constitution?
You have a different 14th than I do. Mine says nothing about redefining marriage to please a special interest.
Oh Christ!! Not that idiocy again!! The 14th does not say ANYTHING about any specific right except for birthright citizenship, voting due process and equal protection under the law. Yet it has been used numerous times to secure other rights:
The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.
The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.
First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.
Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
And consider this as well:
On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:
The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.
On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:
Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]
On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution
so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in that instrument[11] (emphasis added).
This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.
It’s pretty clear what the intent was. It has been applied in a wide variety of cases that did not involve race
WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.
In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.
“Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.
In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.
“We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825
You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established Marriage as a Fundamental Right http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/
Here are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment. Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is in fact a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.
Again, sexual preference is not something the 14th has ever protected. Suddenly the SCOTUS has discovered a brand new right....
Bottom line, this is political payola to a special interest in exchange for support of the party,
A nice, tight pussy??
Ahhh, judge Bunning is now ordering her to be released from jail. So much for Ted Cruz' big day.
Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
The brand new right is equality before the law. It's been around for a while now...
Youre entitled to your wrong opinion but you are not entitled to prevent gay people from getting married. Do you understand the difference now? If you dont we can arrange to have the dumb bitch put back in jail if you are influencing her.The brand new right is equality before the law. It's been around for a while now...
Preference as a basis for protected class is an absurd foundation.
lol. so the new law the supreme court made is the 14th amendment to the constitution?
You have a different 14th than I do. Mine says nothing about redefining marriage to please a special interest.
Oh Christ!! Not that idiocy again!! The 14th does not say ANYTHING about any specific right except for birthright citizenship, voting due process and equal protection under the law. Yet it has been used numerous times to secure other rights:
The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.
The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.
First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.
Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
And consider this as well:
On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:
The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.
On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:
Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]
On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution
so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in that instrument[11] (emphasis added).
This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.
It’s pretty clear what the intent was. It has been applied in a wide variety of cases that did not involve race
WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.
In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.
“Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.
In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.
“We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825
You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established Marriage as a Fundamental Right http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/
Here are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment. Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is in fact a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.
Again, sexual preference is not something the 14th has ever protected. Suddenly the SCOTUS has discovered a brand new right....
Bottom line, this is political payola to a special interest in exchange for support of the party,
Pretty quick on the trigger there with your reply, dude. Shows me that you don't even have the intellectual curiosity to actually read it, leave alone the ability to understand it.You are truly a hopeless fucking case.
Oh no, she's going back to breaking the law again soon...Evidently, she is getting out with an understanding she will not interfere with her staff issuing licenses
Does this mean her 15 minutes of fame as a conservative freedom fighter is over?
The brand new right is equality before the law. It's been around for a while now...
Preference as a basis for protected class is an absurd foundation.
Ms. Davis made it known in her court filings that she would have no problem with a deputy clerk issuing the licenses so long as her name wasn't on them. The status report shows that the deputy clerks removed her name and issued the licenses. Kim Davis and her counsel said the licenses are void and not worth the paper they're written on, but they are wrong. The applicants qualified for the licenses, they paid for the licenses, they received the licenses, they will have their marriages solemnized, and their marriages will be recorded upon return of the paperwork to the clerk's office. The only people who would have standing to challenge the validity of the marriages are the parties to the marriage. Thus, the judge may release Kim Davis from jail and she has no reason to interfere with the rights of future applicants for licenses. After all, even if she attempted to enforce her "no marriage license" policy and order her deputies not to issue licenses, the judge made it clear to the deputy clerks that would be an unlawful order and they would be in contempt of his order to issue the licenses. The judge also made it clear that Kim Davis could not lawfully retaliate against them in their employment with the county.
More evidence that you did not read the opinion. Gays were not established as a protected class. But keep on foolishly blathering about what you know little about and no desire to learn.Pretty quick on the trigger there with your reply, dude. Shows me that you don't even have the intellectual curiosity to actually read it, leave alone the ability to understand it.You are truly a hopeless fucking case.
Yes, because this is the very first time the subject has been broached and the leftist talking points listed....
Changing the foundation of protected class to one of preference in behavior is a substantial change in the basis of American jurisprudence. Alcohol content in beer is not relevant, nor in fact is race.
She was nothing of the kind, and won't be out for long...Ms. Davis made it known in her court filings that she would have no problem with a deputy clerk issuing the licenses so long as her name wasn't on them. The status report shows that the deputy clerks removed her name and issued the licenses. Kim Davis and her counsel said the licenses are void and not worth the paper they're written on, but they are wrong. The applicants qualified for the licenses, they paid for the licenses, they received the licenses, they will have their marriages solemnized, and their marriages will be recorded upon return of the paperwork to the clerk's office. The only people who would have standing to challenge the validity of the marriages are the parties to the marriage. Thus, the judge may release Kim Davis from jail and she has no reason to interfere with the rights of future applicants for licenses. After all, even if she attempted to enforce her "no marriage license" policy and order her deputies not to issue licenses, the judge made it clear to the deputy clerks that would be an unlawful order and they would be in contempt of his order to issue the licenses. The judge also made it clear that Kim Davis could not lawfully retaliate against them in their employment with the county.
Keeping Davis in jail is a bit like keeping a lump of plutonium in your pocket. The judge had nothing to gain and everything to lose by keeping a political prisoner locked up.
The judge gained the publics respect by making sure Davis couldnt discriminate.Ms. Davis made it known in her court filings that she would have no problem with a deputy clerk issuing the licenses so long as her name wasn't on them. The status report shows that the deputy clerks removed her name and issued the licenses. Kim Davis and her counsel said the licenses are void and not worth the paper they're written on, but they are wrong. The applicants qualified for the licenses, they paid for the licenses, they received the licenses, they will have their marriages solemnized, and their marriages will be recorded upon return of the paperwork to the clerk's office. The only people who would have standing to challenge the validity of the marriages are the parties to the marriage. Thus, the judge may release Kim Davis from jail and she has no reason to interfere with the rights of future applicants for licenses. After all, even if she attempted to enforce her "no marriage license" policy and order her deputies not to issue licenses, the judge made it clear to the deputy clerks that would be an unlawful order and they would be in contempt of his order to issue the licenses. The judge also made it clear that Kim Davis could not lawfully retaliate against them in their employment with the county.
Keeping Davis in jail is a bit like keeping a lump of plutonium in your pocket. The judge had nothing to gain and everything to lose by keeping a political prisoner locked up.
Uncensored:
The right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental right. Two classes of persons: 1) Opposite sex couples who want to marry, and 2) same sex couples who want to marry. Both classes of persons are similarly situated. However, the state allows the first class the right to marry and forbids the second class from marrying. Because the state has no compelling reason to deprive the second class of fundamental liberty and equal protection under the law, the state law that forbids same sex couples from marrying is unconstitutional.
That is basic constitutional law.
Please educate yourself, Uncensored. The way you and others like you flaunt your ignorance is an embarrassment to this country.
She was nothing of the kind, and won't be out for long...
She was nothing of the kind, and won't be out for long...
Sadly, the judge in the case is far smarter than you and grasped the implications that you cannot.
Are you talking to yourself? The judge said she had to get her ass straight or go back to jail. I know you are uneducated but even you should realized the implications of that.She was nothing of the kind, and won't be out for long...
Sadly, the judge in the case is far smarter than you and grasped the implications that you cannot.
Ms. Davis made it known in her court filings that she would have no problem with a deputy clerk issuing the licenses so long as her name wasn't on them. The status report shows that the deputy clerks removed her name and issued the licenses. Kim Davis and her counsel said the licenses are void and not worth the paper they're written on, but they are wrong. The applicants qualified for the licenses, they paid for the licenses, they received the licenses, they will have their marriages solemnized, and their marriages will be recorded upon return of the paperwork to the clerk's office. The only people who would have standing to challenge the validity of the marriages are the parties to the marriage. Thus, the judge may release Kim Davis from jail and she has no reason to interfere with the rights of future applicants for licenses. After all, even if she attempted to enforce her "no marriage license" policy and order her deputies not to issue licenses, the judge made it clear to the deputy clerks that would be an unlawful order and they would be in contempt of his order to issue the licenses. The judge also made it clear that Kim Davis could not lawfully retaliate against them in their employment with the county.
Keeping Davis in jail is a bit like keeping a lump of plutonium in your pocket. The judge had nothing to gain and everything to lose by keeping a political prisoner locked up.
There are two types of contempt: Criminal (punitive) and Civil (remedial, i.e., coercive).
The deputy clerks were instructed by the judge that Kim Davis's "no marriage license" policy was unlawful. The judge had the deputy clerks in the courtroom to watch as he placed Kim Davis into custody and had the federal authorities escort her to jail. He put the deputy clerks on notice that he would hold them in contempt if they reinstated her unlawful policy and violated his lawful order. He also put the deputy clerks on notice that Kim Davis could not retaliate against them in their employment; it would not be a wise thing for her to attempt such a thing.
The deputy clerks removed Kim Davis's name from the marriage licenses (appeasing their boss's demands) and issued the marriage licenses. Thus, the situation has been remedied through the judge's swift action. Upon receiving official word this morning through a status report that the situation is resolved, there is no reason to continue to keep Ms. Davis in jail because it would no longer be remedial (it would be punitive). She is released and may stay released so long as she doesn't take steps to enforce an unlawful policy and thereby harm someone. For instance, if she attempts to fire her deputy clerks who agreed to follow the court's order, she will probably go back to jail until she promises not to retaliate against the employees.
Your reference to Kim Davis as a "political prisoner" only places your ignorance on display, again ... and probably for the millionth plus time you have done that.
