Would you support a presidential candidate who held that biblical law superceded the Constitution?

[Soggy in NOLA]

Re another thread here regarding a presidential candidate that held a particular religion superceded the Constitution. My own view is there is no religion that supercedes the Constitution.

Well, actually, for the devout, God's laws supersede man's laws. This s why the U.S, Constitution is designed around Judaeo Christian law. And yes, it is really that simple.

 

[bravoactual]

Re another thread here regarding a presidential candidate that held a particular religion superceded the Constitution. My own view is there is no religion that supercedes the Constitution.

Well, actually, for the devout, God's laws supersede man's laws. This s why the U.S, Constitution is designed around Judaeo Christian law. And yes, it is really that simple.

Actually it does not matter a plug nickel how "Devout" you are. There is no Religious Law in the United States. Article VI of the United States is very clear on this. There is NOT RELIGIOUS TEST.

You do not have the Right to use your version of your god against any person, any where, at anytime.

What part of NOT RELIGIOUS TEST don't you understand?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Re another thread here regarding a presidential candidate that held a particular religion superceded the Constitution. My own view is there is no religion that supercedes the Constitution.

Well, actually, for the devout, God's laws supersede man's laws. This s why the U.S, Constitution is designed around Judaeo Christian law. And yes, it is really that simple.

Actually it does not matter a plug nickel how "Devout" you are. There is no Religious Law in the United States. Article VI of the United States is very clear on this. There is NOT RELIGIOUS TEST.

What part of NOT RELIGIOUS TEST don't you understand?

What are you babbling about? I never said there is "religious law"... what are you, drunk or something?

 

[Skylar]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

Don't bother, you'll just get it wrong anyway.

 

[Skylar]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Overturning a law that Conservatives don't like is being activist.

Oh, of course. The idea that overturning an unconstitutional law makes you an 'activist' is a steaming pile of horseshit that even conservatives don't believe. But its useful to state the facts on occasion as a palette cleanser between reading posts of pure, ignorant bullshit.

 

[Skylar]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

Don't bother, you'll just get it wrong anyway.

Or....you can show us how I'm wrong rather than vaguely insinuating an argument you can neither articulate nor support factually.

Though I suspect you giving us excuses why you can't is far more likely.

 

[RodISHI]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

You can quote what you like but people have a right to defend their own values, God given rights as stated in our laws and their own precepts.

 

[Skylar]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

You can quote what you like but people have a right to defend their own values, God given rights as stated in our laws and their own precepts.

And how is criminalizing sodomy 'people defending god given rights'? You don't seem to understand what rights are in the context of our constitution. I'll give you a hint....they're not the power to throw people you don't like into jail.

 

[Seawytch]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

You can quote what you like but people have a right to defend their own values, God given rights as stated in our laws and their own precepts.

Got some examples?

 

[RodISHI]

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

You can quote what you like but people have a right to defend their own values, God given rights as stated in our laws and their own precepts.

Got some examples?

Why for you twats can waste my time for the day? I think not.

 

[bravoactual]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

You do not have the Right to deny another person their Rights. You do not have the Right to decide unto yourself, based on your version of your god what Rights another can and/or cannot have.

Amendment Nine.

United States Constitution.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

Emphasis added.

"Deny or Disparage Others". Guess what, you cannot deny Rights to Gays/Lesbians solely because they are Gay/Lesbian.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Re another thread here regarding a presidential candidate that held a particular religion superceded the Constitution. My own view is there is no religion that supercedes the Constitution.

No.

Which religion? All of them? Any religion? Few logistical problems. Just Christianity and/or the Bible? Which version of either?

Should ask every candidate this though. If they believe in God, then either they believe God's laws superceed civil, or they don't. Can't worship a god but ignore its' laws AND be President. That's mutually exclusive.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

You do not have the Right to deny another person their Rights. You do not have the Right to decide unto yourself, based on your version of your god what Rights another can and/or cannot have.

Amendment Nine.

United States Constitution.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

Emphasis added.

"Deny or Disparage Others". Guess what, you cannot deny Rights to Gays/Lesbians solely because they are Gay/Lesbian.

No one is proposing any such thing. What is it with you leftwing nutbags?

 

[Skylar]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

You do not have the Right to deny another person their Rights. You do not have the Right to decide unto yourself, based on your version of your god what Rights another can and/or cannot have.

Amendment Nine.

United States Constitution.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

Emphasis added.

"Deny or Disparage Others". Guess what, you cannot deny Rights to Gays/Lesbians solely because they are Gay/Lesbian.

Its funny. The very reason that many of the founders opposed the bill of rights was because they were afraid that there would be some hapless souls in the future who would interpret the bill of rights as defining ALL rights as an exhaustive list. Advocates of a bill of rights rejected this idea, insisting that no one could ever be this foolish. And as a compromise created the 9th amendment to explicitly articulate that there were other reserve rights

Many conservative posters on our board prove why the opponents of the Bill of Rights were right to push for the 9th amendment. As yes, some hapless souls will assume the Bill of Rights is exhaustive.

 

[Skylar]

Re another thread here regarding a presidential candidate that held a particular religion superceded the Constitution. My own view is there is no religion that supercedes the Constitution.

No.

Which religion? All of them? Any religion? Few logistical problems. Just Christianity and/or the Bible? Which version of either?

Should ask every candidate this though. If they believe in God, then either they believe God's laws superceed civil, or they don't. Can't worship a god but ignore its' laws AND be President. That's mutually exclusive.

Is the constitution 'civil law'?

 

[koshergrl]

If you want to believe in some mythical, magical skyman, feel free. But do not force your version of your god down my throat.

I do not believe in your version of your god

I do not want to believe in your version of your god.

I do not want, need, desire, request, or require to about your version of your god.

I do not want to hear about your version of your god.

Your right to your Freedom of Religion does not mean you have the right to force your version of your god on me or anybody else.

You do not have a right to use your version of your god as a weapon against others. It does not matter one way or the other if you do not like a person or persons and their sexual identity, you do not have a right to deny them rights that you have.

Keep your fucking version of your fucking god to your fucking self.

No.

And you can't make me. Anymore than I can make you shut the fuck up, despite the fact that the majority of people on this planet who have ever had to deal with you must fervently wish exactly that.

 

[koshergrl]

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

You do not have the Right to deny another person their Rights. You do not have the Right to decide unto yourself, based on your version of your god what Rights another can and/or cannot have.

Amendment Nine.

United States Constitution.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

Emphasis added.

"Deny or Disparage Others". Guess what, you cannot deny Rights to Gays/Lesbians solely because they are Gay/Lesbian.

No one is proposing any such thing. What is it with you leftwing nutbags?

Besides their overweening hatred, intolerance, and stupidity, you mean?

Why they're perfectly normal!

 

[peach174]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

Supreme Court is not suppose to make any laws either. But they have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Re another thread here regarding a presidential candidate that held a particular religion superceded the Constitution. My own view is there is no religion that supercedes the Constitution.

Well, actually, for the devout, God's laws supersede man's laws. This s why the U.S, Constitution is designed around Judaeo Christian law. And yes, it is really that simple.

nope, it is Judeo Christian values, which has always had hundreds of opinions

times change

yeah, it is that simple