Understanding What Kim Davis' Legal Argument Will Be..

[Montrovant]

From a "right wing" site. LOL
Can the President Refuse to Enforce or Defend a Law? | RedState

to say nothing of complaints that W refused to enforce immigration.

It's 'cute'...and quite pathetic...how whenever a Liberal is faced with something that threatens their delusion they always respond the same way - they declare whatever the source is to be 'NOT Credible'...because they say so...in an effort to protect and defend their illusion. The 2nd tactic, also demonstrated above, is to revert to bringing up a guy who hasn't been President for nearly a decade in an attempt to divert attention away from the man who is President NOW!

Man, it's tough being a Liberal. Are those conditions covered under Obamacare?

ROFLOL!

Not at all, and I generally vote gop. But presidents have always picked out laws they don't enforce. It's a tool of governance. For you to find something "horrible" here is simply a sign of your lack of education.

Not only that, as I understand it there is some question as to whether a sitting president can even face criminal charges without being impeached and removed from office first. If nothing else, there's the possibility of a president pardoning him/her self if convicted of a crime while in office.

Where in the Constitution does it say a President has the authority to pardon himself?

Where does it deny that ability? Article 2, section 2 : "and he [The President] shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." I don't see any reason that, if still in office, a president could not pardon him- or her-self in that. As long as it isn't a matter of impeachment the constitution seems to give the president authority to pardon whomever.

 

[easyt65]

[QUOTE="rightwinger, post: 12261406, member: 20321
She could get a job on FoxNews if she were blonde, got a boob job, lost 80 lbs, was 20 years younger and wasn't so freak'n ugly[/QUOTE]

Andrea Mitchell, CNN, had an interview with Hillary and did not ask her one question about her e-mail scandal. when she was asked why she didn't her response was that SHE WAS AFRAID HILLARY WOULD END THE INTERVIEW so she kept asking her fluff questions. Yeah, not THAT'S 'journalism' for you! LOL!

 

[BULLDOG]

A Christian's sins are forgiven, past, present and future.
But that doesn't mean they will go on sinning willfully.
If they do, they are not a Christian.
A genuine born again Christian will not want to sin and will repent and turn away from their sin.
Christian's WILL sin, they don't become "God" - but, they will become more Christ-like .... a work in progress as they grow in their Christianity.

Bullshit there is no evidence of forgiveness from God
It's a great way to duck responsibility though.

If someone is using God to get away with things, they don't really believe in or know God.
Do you believe in God at all?

Bullshit !
No I'm an atheist .

THAT much is obvious...yet still does not keep you from speaking as an expert on Christianity and what Christians believe.

If you are an atheist perhaps you can answer the question about why atheists do not believe God exists but go completely ape-Shi'ite over Christianity. I mean no one believes in Witches or Werewolves at Halloween or Santa Clause at Christmas, but we don't see atheists going crazy about people's belief in or celebrating of those....

As soon as witches, werewolves, or Santa Clause start infringing on the rights of atheists, they will be opposed too. So far they have all been no problem.

 

[daws101]

I am not defending Davis actions, however...

Kim Davis' defense could be extremely simple: She is in jail now for following the precedence / example set by the President of the United States.

One of Obama's very 1st acts as President was to nearly immediately declare that he was going to violate his recent oath of office by REFUSING TO OBEY AND ENFORCE THE LAW. Obama declared to the nation that because HE did not agree with the Defense of Marriage Act, a law passed by Congress, he and his administration would refuse to enforce it.

Since then Obama has violated both Constitution and law numerous times. He had already been and is currently in violation of Contempt of court for refusing to obey a judge's order to release still-held documents regarding the Fast and Furious scandal / crime that has resulted in the deaths of a US BPA and more recently the death of a policeman (gun found was linked to the F&F scandal)!

President Obama, who has committed the same 'crime' Davis has, many more times than she has done, though, is not in jail, though?

We keep hearing about how there is not '1 Americas', but this example destroys that argument and shows that our Federal Government has most definitely created 2 Americas - one for the elitist ruling class and one for the rest of us!

I keep hearing that over and over, and each time I hear it, it's just dumber and dumber.

You mean the expectation for a government employee to do their job in accordance with the law being applicable to the President of the United States is dumb? If that is the liberal mindset, that explains a lot.

In reality if you don't mind.

 

[rightwinger]

[QUOTE="rightwinger, post: 12261406, member: 20321
She could get a job on FoxNews if she were blonde, got a boob job, lost 80 lbs, was 20 years younger and wasn't so freak'n ugly

Andrea Mitchell, CNN, had an interview with Hillary and did not ask her one question about her e-mail scandal. when she was asked why she didn't her response was that SHE WAS AFRAID HILLARY WOULD END THE INTERVIEW so she kept asking her fluff questions. Yeah, not THAT'S 'journalism' for you! LOL![/QUOTE]

Sean Hannity question to Ted Cruz: Why do you love America so much?

 

[BULLDOG]

I am not defending Davis actions, however...

Kim Davis' defense could be extremely simple: She is in jail now for following the precedence / example set by the President of the United States.

One of Obama's very 1st acts as President was to nearly immediately declare that he was going to violate his recent oath of office by REFUSING TO OBEY AND ENFORCE THE LAW. Obama declared to the nation that because HE did not agree with the Defense of Marriage Act, a law passed by Congress, he and his administration would refuse to enforce it.

Since then Obama has violated both Constitution and law numerous times. He had already been and is currently in violation of Contempt of court for refusing to obey a judge's order to release still-held documents regarding the Fast and Furious scandal / crime that has resulted in the deaths of a US BPA and more recently the death of a policeman (gun found was linked to the F&F scandal)!

President Obama, who has committed the same 'crime' Davis has, many more times than she has done, though, is not in jail, though?

We keep hearing about how there is not '1 Americas', but this example destroys that argument and shows that our Federal Government has most definitely created 2 Americas - one for the elitist ruling class and one for the rest of us!

I keep hearing that over and over, and each time I hear it, it's just dumber and dumber.

You mean the expectation for a government employee to do their job in accordance with the law being applicable to the President of the United States is dumb? If that is the liberal mindset, that explains a lot.

No, Obama has had the authority to do every thing he has done, That dumb clerk doesn't have the authority to not issue marriage licenses.

 

[daws101]

A Christian's sins are forgiven, past, present and future.
But that doesn't mean they will go on sinning willfully.
If they do, they are not a Christian.
A genuine born again Christian will not want to sin and will repent and turn away from their sin.
Christian's WILL sin, they don't become "God" - but, they will become more Christ-like .... a work in progress as they grow in their Christianity.

Bullshit there is no evidence of forgiveness from God
It's a great way to duck responsibility though.

If someone is using God to get away with things, they don't really believe in or know God.
Do you believe in God at all?

Bullshit !
No I'm an atheist .

THAT much is obvious...yet still does not keep you from speaking as an expert on Christianity and what Christians believe.

If you are an atheist perhaps you can answer the question about why atheists do not believe God exists but go completely ape-Shi'ite over Christianity. I mean no one believes in Witches or Werewolves at Halloween or Santa Clause at Christmas, but we don't see atheists going crazy about people's belief in or celebrating of those....

As soon as witches, werewolves, or Santa Clause start infringing on the rights of atheists, they will be opposed too. So far they have all been no problem.

Couldn't have said it better myself!
Bravo!

 

[bendog]

From a "right wing" site. LOL
Can the President Refuse to Enforce or Defend a Law? | RedState

to say nothing of complaints that W refused to enforce immigration.

It's 'cute'...and quite pathetic...how whenever a Liberal is faced with something that threatens their delusion they always respond the same way - they declare whatever the source is to be 'NOT Credible'...because they say so...in an effort to protect and defend their illusion. The 2nd tactic, also demonstrated above, is to revert to bringing up a guy who hasn't been President for nearly a decade in an attempt to divert attention away from the man who is President NOW!

Man, it's tough being a Liberal. Are those conditions covered under Obamacare?

ROFLOL!

Not at all, and I generally vote gop. But presidents have always picked out laws they don't enforce. It's a tool of governance. For you to find something "horrible" here is simply a sign of your lack of education.

Not only that, as I understand it there is some question as to whether a sitting president can even face criminal charges without being impeached and removed from office first. If nothing else, there's the possibility of a president pardoning him/her self if convicted of a crime while in office.

Where in the Constitution does it say a President has the authority to pardon himself?

Where does it deny that ability? Article 2, section 2 : "and he [The President] shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." I don't see any reason that, if still in office, a president could not pardon him- or her-self in that. As long as it isn't a matter of impeachment the constitution seems to give the president authority to pardon whomever.

It's not even that difficult. It goes back farther than Andrew Jackson, to whom a quote is incorrectly ascribed "Mr. Marshall has his law, now let him enforce it," when he refused to comply with a law negatively affecting his ability to genocide against the native americans. Worcester v. Ga. Jackson having won actually 3 presidential elections largely on his view that western American settlers should have the benefit of laws wanted laws effectuating that purpose. Hardly shocking. Obama in the DOMA was less than forthright, and Roberts was annoyed. The DOMA was unconstitutional, but Obama first chose not to defend it, and then forced the court to decide. Usually, it's less "sexy" with more of refusing to enforce environmental regulations .... or affirmative action .....

 

[easyt65]

As soon as witches, werewolves, or Santa Clause start infringing on the rights of atheists, they will be opposed too. So far they have all been no problem.

A pastor refusing to conduct a same-sex marriage does not infringe on their rights - they can go somewhere else and find someone who WILL perform the ceremony. If the pastor who refused was the ONLY pastor who could do such a thing then maybe. The same-sex couple still has a choice, something liberals are trying to take away from the pastor in this case, a choice protected by the Constitution.

In the same way regarding abortions, I personally don't want to take away anyone's right to have an abortion (except in the case where the baby is capable of surviving outside the womb - specifically the barbaric later-term abortions or 'partial birth' abortions). Have as many as you want - I am not trying to take that right away from you. On the flip side, though, Liberals are stripping people who oppose abortions of their right NOT to engage in it or support it by SEIZING their tax dollars without their consent in order to pay for the abortions. Have all the abortions you want, but YOU pay for it, as it is an elective surgery.

But back to the main argument above - witches, werewolves, and Santa Clause -

How does having a manger scene up at Christmas time count as 'stripping you your rights or infringing on your rights'? There are pumpkins up at Halloween, Shamrocks up on Saint Patricks day, and no one who believes in Halloween or an Irish Holiday in America goes ape-Shi'ite to prevent those decorations on those holidays. And if you don't believe in God, a manger scene is nothing more than another holiday decoration....but it drives atheists nuts like no other decoration during any other holiday. It doesn't infringe on any right, but you guys act like its garlic to a vampire of kryptonite to superman.

Just really weird that something you don't believe in that does not effect you at all freaks you guys out so much and bring s out such rabid hatred.

Maybe the fact that the whole reason this country was founded was based on religious freedom is what freaks you out and makes you so angry / hostile?!

 

[bendog]

As soon as witches, werewolves, or Santa Clause start infringing on the rights of atheists, they will be opposed too. So far they have all been no problem.

A pastor refusing to conduct a same-sex marriage does not infringe on their rights - they can go somewhere else and find someone who WILL perform the ceremony. If the pastor who refused was the ONLY pastor who could do such a thing then maybe. The same-sex couple still has a choice, something liberals are trying to take away from the pastor in this case, a choice protected by the Constitution.

In the same way regarding abortions, I personally don't want to take away anyone's right to have an abortion (except in the case where the baby is capable of surviving outside the womb - specifically the barbaric later-term abortions or 'partial birth' abortions). Have as many as you want - I am not trying to take that right away from you. On the flip side, though, Liberals are stripping people who oppose abortions of their right NOT to engage in it or support it by SEIZING their tax dollars without their consent in order to pay for the abortions. Have all the abortions you want, but YOU pay for it, as it is an elective surgery.

Verily, that pastor shall be imprisoned and sexually violated until he agrees to marry any GLBT minor incompetent ... goat ... who so wishes!

 

[easyt65]

No, Obama has had the authority to do every thing he has done, That dumb clerk doesn't have the authority to not issue marriage licenses.

This is also a PROVEN LIE because he has already been found GUILTY by federal judges on numerous occasions and has had to reverse his decisions / cease and desist because so. The latest such case was when Obama was forced to repeal amnesty he had illegally given out to illegals. he is currently in jeopardy of being found Guilty of Contempt of Court again for not repealing ALL of the amnesty he illegally bestowed.

The point is that the statement above is an opinion not supported by fact (or reality)...but your loyalty to the man is respected.

 

[BULLDOG]

As soon as witches, werewolves, or Santa Clause start infringing on the rights of atheists, they will be opposed too. So far they have all been no problem.

A pastor refusing to conduct a same-sex marriage does not infringe on their rights - they can go somewhere else and find someone who WILL perform the ceremony. If the pastor who refused was the ONLY pastor who could do such a thing then maybe. The same-sex couple still has a choice, something liberals are trying to take away from the pastor in this case, a choice protected by the Constitution.

In the same way regarding abortions, I personally don't want to take away anyone's right to have an abortion (except in the case where the baby is capable of surviving outside the womb - specifically the barbaric later-term abortions or 'partial birth' abortions). Have as many as you want - I am not trying to take that right away from you. On the flip side, though, Liberals are stripping people who oppose abortions of their right NOT to engage in it or support it by SEIZING their tax dollars without their consent in order to pay for the abortions. Have all the abortions you want, but YOU pay for it, as it is an elective surgery.

Pastors have always refused to perform marriages for lots of reasons. NOBODY is going to make them perform a marriage they don't want to perform. ONLY crazy right wingers are even mentioning that to scare and stir up other crazy right wingers.
Partial birth abortion was outlawed in 2003. Someone caught doing that goes to jail.
The Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal funding for abortions became effective in 1976, and was widened in 93. There is no federal funding for abortions, even if right wing radio tells you there is,

Everything you complain about is false.

 

[Asclepias]

My source says Davis was put in jail. Thats not an opinion. Thats a fact.

That one was never in question. Congratulations - you're making progress. lol

Youre making progress. That was the only topic this thread was about. Congratulations.

 

[BULLDOG]

No, Obama has had the authority to do every thing he has done, That dumb clerk doesn't have the authority to not issue marriage licenses.

This is also a PROVEN LIE because he has already been found GUILTY by federal judges on numerous occasions and has had to reverse his decisions / cease and desist because so. The latest such case was when Obama was forced to repeal amnesty he had illegally given out to illegals. he is currently in jeopardy of being found Guilty of Contempt of Court again for not repealing ALL of the amnesty he illegally bestowed.

The point is that the statement above is an opinion not supported by fact (or reality)...but your loyalty to the man is respected.

Please link to any guilty verdict. There have been some SC rulings that required him changing his actions, but that is the way our system of government works. When same sax marriage was allowed, was anyone found guilty?

 

[Montrovant]

As soon as witches, werewolves, or Santa Clause start infringing on the rights of atheists, they will be opposed too. So far they have all been no problem.

A pastor refusing to conduct a same-sex marriage does not infringe on their rights - they can go somewhere else and find someone who WILL perform the ceremony. If the pastor who refused was the ONLY pastor who could do such a thing then maybe. The same-sex couple still has a choice, something liberals are trying to take away from the pastor in this case, a choice protected by the Constitution.

In the same way regarding abortions, I personally don't want to take away anyone's right to have an abortion (except in the case where the baby is capable of surviving outside the womb - specifically the barbaric later-term abortions or 'partial birth' abortions). Have as many as you want - I am not trying to take that right away from you. On the flip side, though, Liberals are stripping people who oppose abortions of their right NOT to engage in it or support it by SEIZING their tax dollars without their consent in order to pay for the abortions. Have all the abortions you want, but YOU pay for it, as it is an elective surgery.

But back to the main argument above - witches, werewolves, and Santa Clause -

How does having a manger scene up at Christmas time count as 'stripping you your rights or infringing on your rights'? There are pumpkins up at Halloween, Shamrocks up on Saint Patricks day, and no one who believes in Halloween or an Irish Holiday in America goes ape-Shi'ite to prevent those decorations on those holidays. And if you don't believe in God, a manger scene is nothing more than another holiday decoration....but it drives atheists nuts like no other decoration during any other holiday. It doesn't infringe on any right, but you guys act like its garlic to a vampire of kryptonite to superman.

Just really weird that something you don't believe in that does not effect you at all freaks you guys out so much and bring s out such rabid hatred.

Maybe the fact that the whole reason this country was founded was based on religious freedom is what freaks you out and makes you so angry / hostile?!

A manger scene is only a problem if it is being promoted by the government. There is usually a lot of contention about just what constitutes governmental promotion or not.

As far as the difference between that and Halloween or St. Patrick's Day decorations, it depends on a few factors I suppose. How it is depicted or what are used as decoration could have an effect. If the decorations are clearly religious in nature I would think the same prohibitions as exist with manger scenes would apply. However, those holidays, as with Santa when it comes to Christmas, are often seen as secular in nature. Certainly Santa, especially as depicted in this country, has little to do with the birth of Christ. Halloween may have had its roots in pagan religion, but I think there are very few today who celebrate it as such. St. Patrick's Day also has religious beginnings, but its celebration in the US also seems largely divorced from religion.

That is my summarized take on it, anyway.

 

[Bonzi]

As soon as witches, werewolves, or Santa Clause start infringing on the rights of atheists

Please tell me how Christians have infringed upon the rights of Atheists.....

 

[daws101]

As soon as witches, werewolves, or Santa Clause start infringing on the rights of atheists, they will be opposed too. So far they have all been no problem.

A pastor refusing to conduct a same-sex marriage does not infringe on their rights - they can go somewhere else and find someone who WILL perform the ceremony. If the pastor who refused was the ONLY pastor who could do such a thing then maybe. The same-sex couple still has a choice, something liberals are trying to take away from the pastor in this case, a choice protected by the Constitution.

In the same way regarding abortions, I personally don't want to take away anyone's right to have an abortion (except in the case where the baby is capable of surviving outside the womb - specifically the barbaric later-term abortions or 'partial birth' abortions). Have as many as you want - I am not trying to take that right away from you. On the flip side, though, Liberals are stripping people who oppose abortions of their right NOT to engage in it or support it by SEIZING their tax dollars without their consent in order to pay for the abortions. Have all the abortions you want, but YOU pay for it, as it is an elective surgery.

But back to the main argument above - witches, werewolves, and Santa Clause -

How does having a manger scene up at Christmas time count as 'stripping you your rights or infringing on your rights'? There are pumpkins up at Halloween, Shamrocks up on Saint Patricks day, and no one who believes in Halloween or an Irish Holiday in America goes ape-Shi'ite to prevent those decorations on those holidays. And if you don't believe in God, a manger scene is nothing more than another holiday decoration....but it drives atheists nuts like no other decoration during any other holiday. It doesn't infringe on any right, but you guys act like its garlic to a vampire of kryptonite to superman.

Just really weird that something you don't believe in that does not effect you at all freaks you guys out so much and bring s out such rabid hatred.

Maybe the fact that the whole reason this country was founded was based on religious freedom is what freaks you out and makes you so angry / hostile?!

False 1. Your belief does effect everything .

 

[NYcarbineer]

As soon as witches, werewolves, or Santa Clause start infringing on the rights of atheists

Please tell me how Christians have infringed upon the rights of Atheists.....

Atheists have the right to same sex marriage.

 

[bendog]

As soon as witches, werewolves, or Santa Clause start infringing on the rights of atheists

Please tell me how Christians have infringed upon the rights of Atheists.....

We cannot punish witches anymore! )-:

 

[NYcarbineer]

As soon as witches, werewolves, or Santa Clause start infringing on the rights of atheists

Please tell me how Christians have infringed upon the rights of Atheists.....

Should atheists have the right to discriminate against Christians in business and government,

just by claiming their conscience tells them to?