https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Reading this article caused me to look around a little more about this case.

 

From what I get out of it, is the the Supreme Court ruled that they have the authority to decide whether a law in constitutional or not. They decided they could strike down a law even though no where in the Constitution does it clearly grant them that authority or liberty. Kinda like saying we can do this because we said so...

 

The Role of the Supreme Court | Scholastic.com

 

I am not a real smart fella and I am a little slow at times but I am sure I am missing something. Especially when I read articles that have several words with more than three syllables....where is my Goody's Headache Powder?

Well the madness had already started this morning when I drove by the courthouse on the way to work @ 5:45 this morning.

Just saying that if you dig deep and read a little more at how this is really set up instead of listening to what he said she said this case and a bunch more could be in murky waters. Mike Huckabee probably has read or knows some about this or he would not be speaking nationally about this. Not saying he is 100% correct but him and alot of others after I really got to digging last night think that the supreme court has been over stepping their powers and the people have let them. This is going to get even more interesting.

Just saying that if you dig deep and read a little more at how this is really set up instead of listening to what he said she said this case and a bunch more could be in murky waters. Mike Huckabee probably has read or knows some about this or he would not be speaking nationally about this. Not saying he is 100% correct but him and alot of others after I really got to digging last night think that the supreme court has been over stepping their powers and the people have let them. This is going to get even more interesting.

 

You mention political appointees in other posts when describing the SCOTUS. But that's always been true. And I might add that for many years the court was made up of GOP nominees. In fact the 2000 presidential election was decided by those same party lines. But that was ok then, for some.

 

You mention the politics of the court but all I see are the politics of this discussion from every source on every aisle. BTW, Huckabee is running for President. Anything he does is calculated to that end.

 

The court ruled in Brown vs Board of Education but I don't thin the states went back and rewrote their Jim Crow laws. They just set them aside. I could be wrong but that won't be the first time.

So' date=' now some are questioning whether the SCOTUS can rule whether a law is constitutional or not? And if it is found to be unconstitutional the law is invalidated, meaning it is no longer a law? I find it hard to believe that on this message board some did not know this or understand it.[/quote']

 

That is baffling to me as well.

Still don't see it.

 

Imagine that.

 

Firstly, I never addressed you once on Conway, so you can have that conversation with someone else. You're adding to what I originally called you out about to avoid addressing those comments logically in order to somehow backhandedly justify what you said.

 

Secondly, you said, and I am addressing this now more times than I care to count all for the sake of spoon feeding it to you, therefore subjecting myself to your crazy little rabbit hole. You win on that one I suppose, because here I am AGAIN explaining it to you.

 

You said...

 

"Further, just like those that say people like Ref would be up in arms if a Muslim elected officer refused to do part of their job based on belief are hypocrites, I'm also seeing a bit of hypocrisy from those that are calling for this woman's head because her position differs from theirs"

 

You defined later after I called you on it that "calling for her head" was in reference to people wanting her to resign, or go to jail.

 

She's actually breaking the law, so what is unreasonable about what they think ought to happen?

 

Where's the hypocrisy related to them wanting that, and saying that people supporting her would be up in arms if a Muslim elected officer refused to do part of their job based on belief?

 

Both camps supporting her, or not supporting her would likely instantly think that the Muslim shouldn't have the position if they weren't going to do their job, but because she is Christian and you agree with her, you'll overlook it whereas you likely wouldn't if she was a Muslim.

 

If anyone is the hypocrite, it's you. But of course you're incapable of seeing that. You've been incapable of grasping what I've been saying already for the umteenth time, so I have no faith that you're capable or willing now, as we are ringing this rag out about as much as it can be.

 

Just because people don't agree with her, while she is actually breaking the law, does not make them hypocrites, making your commentary on this invalid, weak, and illogical.

 

This specific thing that I am calling you out about is not a matter of opinion. It's just me calling you out for flat out making a false illogical statement.

 

But there again your illogical mind will likely not grasp that while you keep defending your nonsense and piling on more crap to try to take the light off of what I originally called you out about in the first place.

 

People in your camp have suggested that America is really going to hell if some Christians can't exercise their beliefs. They are most definitely free to, but that doesn't legally give them the right to discriminate against others.

 

What would really make America go to hell is if we start letting people of various faiths pick and choose, and decide right from wrong, and ultimately discriminate on matters of state and federal law all because of their beliefs.

 

Separation of church and state has its basis on keeping order, in order to keep that sort of scattered chaos out of the law.

 

We allow her to do what she's trying to do, and all hell will really break loose, making our free country no longer a free one. Is America perfect? Not at all, but if you really want to see it become even more so imperfect, then let what she's up to stand as a precedent.

 

You have the freedom to have your religious beliefs, but with it also have the sense in realizing that your beliefs are not the only ones in existence, and to avoid the undoubtable chaos within the law, the law needs to remain neutral, and free of religious influence.

 

If you can't see that then you make no more sense than a radical extremist Muslim. Different religions, but the rhetoric is all the same.

Lets see there are 130 other places to go get a marriage license, if it means so much to them then go get it elsewhere, I would.

 

But NO, they want to publicly make her do it so it will go against her religious convictions.

 

Their agenda is to make her agree with it so they can say go out and parade they won and show how she has to now condone it and in turn try to make others silent of their religious beliefs so they have to accept homosexuality as being ok.

But then what if the neighboring clerk doesn't want to? Then why not drive an additional county over? But then what if that clerk didn't want to? What's the over/under for the mileage that one should drive before people are legally bound to do their job?

 

See what you've created here?

Short answer, no. I just hate hypocrisy. She's inviting drama for no reason. Don't give me the religious belief stuff. THIS IS NOT THE WOMAN THAT I WANT FIGHTING THAT BATTLE FOR US. I don't want her representing Christianity.

 

I am not trying to give any religious stuff. I make mistakes and sin, just like everyone else, but try to live my life the best I can. Also, I don't think she is fighting any battle for "us". I think she is fighting the battle for herself. If it is not something she believes in, she shouldn't be forced to do it and is standing firm. Now her job calls for her to do something she doesn't believe in, which is where the problem is. So get rid of her, impeach her, imprison her.

 

End of the story and what I have been saying from the get go is that she is definitely not the right person for the job with the new SCOTUS ruling. I am 100% in agreement with that, however, she also is not a bad person because she doesn't believe in same sex marriage and is standing firm. She isn't fighting for anyone else but herself, IMO, and that is fine with me.

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

1) Just because people don't agree with her, while she is actually breaking the law, does not make them hypocrites,

 

2) What would really make America go to hell is if we start letting people of various faiths pick and choose, and decide right from wrong, and ultimately discriminate on matters of state and federal law all because of their beliefs.

 

3) Separation of church and state has its basis on keeping order, in order to keep that sort of scattered chaos out of the law.

 

4) You have the freedom to have your religious beliefs, but with it also have the sense in realizing that , and to avoid the undoubtable chaos within the law, the law needs to remain neutral, and free of religious influence.

 

 

1) Agree. Doesn't make them hypocrites

 

2) Don't we already do this as a measure of society ?

 

3) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Establishment Clause was about keeping the government out of religion, Article VI specifically indicates that no person be of a required particular religion to hold public office. Kim Davis is exercising her right to this clause in her mind, I believe.

 

4) Intolerance on both sides creates / causes people to "take sides". In much the same way that many persons are commenting about Ms. Davis' intolerance, many are just as intolerant of her personal perspective....they just had a majority of 9 render an opinion favorable of their position.

 

I'm not saying any of it is right or wrong, it is situation worth discussing, but when both sides demonstrate extreme prejudice for the others' point of view....that is when the undoubtable chaos within society consumes itself.

Lets see there are 130 other places to go get a marriage license' date=' if it means so much to them then go get it elsewhere, I would. But NO, they want to publicly make her do it so it will go against her religious convictions. Their agenda is to make her agree with it so they can say go out and parade they won and show how she has to now condone it and in turn try to make others silent of their religious beliefs so they have to accept homosexuality as being ok.[/quote']

 

So the gay folks have an agenda but she is standing up for her beliefs?

Lets see there are 130 other places to go get a marriage license, if it means so much to them then go get it elsewhere, I would.

 

But NO, they want to publicly make her do it so it will go against her religious convictions.

 

Their agenda is to make her agree with it so they can say go out and parade they won and show how she has to now condone it and in turn try to make others silent of their religious beliefs so they have to accept homosexuality as being ok.

 

As previously stated, and all Rosa Parks had to do was move a few rows back in the bus and she would have gotten home a lot earlier and with less hassle. That's not the way it works.

 

If a Muslim county clerk refused to issue marriage licenses unless the applicants showed up in a burka or hijab, would you tell those applicants to go to the next county over? No.

But then what if the neighboring clerk doesn't want to? Then why not drive an additional county over? But then what if that clerk didn't want to? What's the over/under for the mileage that one should drive before people are legally bound to do their job?

 

See what you've created here?

 

Not everyone is denying the marriage license. If its so important to them then I would do whatever.

As previously stated, and all Rosa Parks had to do was move a few rows back in the bus and she would have gotten home a lot earlier and with less hassle. That's not the way it works.

 

If a Muslim county clerk refused to issue marriage licenses unless the applicants showed up in a burka or hijab, would you tell those applicants to go to the next county over? No.

 

SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN