Zakuska Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) So, you're saying it's OK for her because other people are doing it? Really? Selective enforcement of the law is unacceptable, no matter who does it. No. That's not what I'm saying. It's interesting why some repeatedly get away with it while others don't. Agreed. So why was Miss Davis selected for enforcement of the law. While others are given a free pass? We are just seeing more and more selective enforcement of laws instead. Edited September 9, 2015 by Zakuska 1
danielwoods Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 Find better friends. Not sure how that will solve the problem.
thesometimesaint Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Truly ironic. I answered your question while explaining the fact that when we refer to any government we are referring to PEOPLE who are officials and representatives of that government body.So when any government wants to ask God what is right the officials and representatives of that government are the ones who will be doing that asking. Like Kim Davis would be, and any other government official would be.So regardless of whether my intellect is making you dizzy you should at least realize that I did answer your question while explaining what a government is. In the US it is "We the People" whom ultimately decide, not just one person, but the collective we. We are a republic, we elect our representatives to represent us. We can change our representatives, and our very form of government if we choose to do so. Under our Constitution Ms. Davis can have any religious beliefs she wants. What she can't legally do is enforce those beliefs on others. We are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Ms Davis asserted and continues to assert that she alone gets to decide who gets equal protection. Ms Davis is an official in the government. She swore an oath of office to protect, and defend the Constitution of the US. Not her individual religious beliefs. If she can't/won't defend the US Constitution then she needs quit, or face serious jail time. In the US Treaties have the same power as the US Constitution. Here is what The Treaty of Tripoli has to say. Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;... . Under our Constitution the government is more than just a collection of people. Edited September 9, 2015 by thesometimesaint
thesometimesaint Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 No. That's not what I'm saying. It's interesting why some repeatedly get away with it while others don't. Agreed. So why was Miss Davis selected for enforcement of the law. While others are given a free pass? We are just seeing more and more selective enforcement of laws instead. So the next time a cop pulls you over for speeding. Go ahead and claim he should let you go without a ticket because others were also speeding. Most likely his response will be "Yes, but I caught you".
Calm Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 That is not what Zak is saying. He is pushing for more enforcement, not less.
jkwilliams Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 No. That's not what I'm saying. It's interesting why some repeatedly get away with it while others don't. Agreed. So why was Miss Davis selected for enforcement of the law. While others are given a free pass? If someone is not enforcing the law, an interested party can take him or her to court, as was done with Ms. Davis. I totally agree with you that government officials, elected or not, have no right to apply the law selectively. As I mentioned, I think it was wrong for my state's (Virginia) attorney general to refuse to defend the state law banning same-sex marriage. He was right that it was a waste of money, but it was his job, and he failed to do it. So, the difference between Ms. Davis and other officials is that no one has successfully gotten a court order compelling these officials to do their jobs.
KevinG Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 She needs to uphold the law in her elected position. I'm not sure I would have jailed her (aka making a martyr) but I might have pushed for impeachment.
thesometimesaint Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 If someone is not enforcing the law, an interested party can take him or her to court, as was done with Ms. Davis. I totally agree with you that government officials, elected or not, have no right to apply the law selectively. As I mentioned, I think it was wrong for my state's (Virginia) attorney general to refuse to defend the state law banning same-sex marriage. He was right that it was a waste of money, but it was his job, and he failed to do it. So, the difference between Ms. Davis and other officials is that no one has successfully gotten a court order compelling these officials to do their jobs. The Attorney's General have what is known as prosecutorial discretion.SEE http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/
jkwilliams Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 The Attorney's General have what is known as prosecutorial discretion.SEE http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/ I stand corrected.
Thinking Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 Truly ironic. I answered your question while explaining the fact that when we refer to any government we are referring to PEOPLE who are officials and representatives of that government body.So when any government wants to ask God what is right the officials and representatives of that government are the ones who will be doing that asking. Like Kim Davis would be, and any other government official would be.So regardless of whether my intellect is making you dizzy you should at least realize that I did answer your question while explaining what a government is. There are government officials who have the authority from the PEOPLE to make laws. Kim Davis is not one of those officials.
Ahab Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 In the US it is "We the People" whom ultimately decide, not just one person, but the collective we.There is no one person who can speak for the collective we, though, not you when you say that and not me when I disagree that what you are saying is true. We collectively do not agree on anything in or about America, or God, or religion, or even the Constitutional rights and freedoms that we can each say we have.We are a republic, we elect our representatives to represent us.Only some of us do the actual electing and those who are elected do not represent all of us.We can change our representatives, and our very form of government if we choose to do so.Not that it ever makes any difference. Whoever does the electing and whoever gets elected the one elected will never represent everyone in the we of that geographic area. Under our Constitution Ms. Davis can have any religious beliefs she wants. What she can't legally do is enforce those beliefs on others. Of course not. She can't force anyone but herself to believe or do anything no matter what she believes or tries to do. Nobody has that kind of power or right.We are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Ms Davis asserted and continues to assert that she alone gets to decide who gets equal protection.That's news to me. I haven't seen or heard her say that, and all she can do is decide for herself who SHE gives any degree of protection. Ms Davis is an official in the government. She swore an oath of office to protect, and defend the Constitution of the US. Not her individual religious beliefs.She can try to protect and defend her own religious rights too and in truth all she can do is ASSERT her own rights and values and principles. Nothing can take them away, even though others may not honor or approve of them.If she can't/won't defend the US Constitution then she needs quit, or face serious jail time.By standing up for her own values and principles and rights, which the Constitution mrrely acknowledges rather than "give" her, she is defending the Constitution as well as anyone can. Her rights didn't disappear when she became a government official and they didn't come from the Constitution anyway.In the US Treaties have the same power as the US Constitution. Here is what The Treaty of Tripoli has to say. Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;... .Under our Constitution the government is more than just a collection of people.The Constitution is a piece of paper that merely asserts the rights everyone has to have their own values and principles. And those rights are inherent in the kind of being we are. They didn't come from the Constitution.
Zakuska Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) She needs to uphold the law in her elected position. I'm not sure I would have jailed her (aka making a martyr) but I might have pushed for impeachment. There is another argument to be made... there is no law being broken here at all because SCOTUS' job isn't to make laws (Thats Congress' Job) SCOTUS' simply rules on constitutionality of laws congress makes. So until Congress does their Job (HA HA Ha Ha) and makes a law allowing same sex couples to marry then Miss Davis isn't breaking a law. She would actually be breaking the law as it is written currently by Issuing said licenses. Edited September 9, 2015 by Zakuska
The Nehor Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 There is another argument to be made... there is no law being broken here because SCOTUS' job isn't to make laws (Thats Congress' Job) SCOTUS' simply rules on constitutionality of laws congress makes. So until Congress does their Job (HA HA Ha Ha) and makes a law allowing same sex couples to marry then Miss Davis isn't breaking a law. She would actually be breaking the law as it is written currently by Issuing said licenses.That is not how Supreme Court rulings work. When the Supreme Court makes a ruling it is for almost all practical purposes law. When the Supreme Court abolished separate but equal you do not then wait for the states and local governments to overturn the law and put new laws in place before following the ruling.Marriage laws are also not written at the federal level except for a few very limited instances so it is not Congress's job in any case.This is a right-wing talking point that is complete rubbish. They want to selectively disenfranchise the Supreme Court. Well, actually they want to confuse and enrage the faithful with a false argument but if they believed it they would be fighting the Supreme Court's powers as given in the Constitution and the infamous Madison vs. Marbury case which codified judicial review (though the founding fathers largely supported the concept before and it did operate on a local level)."The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. 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." -Hamilton 1
Zakuska Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) That is not how Supreme Court rulings work. When the Supreme Court makes a ruling it is for almost all practical purposes law. When the Supreme Court abolished separate but equal you do not then wait for the states and local governments to overturn the law and put new laws in place before following the ruling.Marriage laws are also not written at the federal level except for a few very limited instances so it is not Congress's job in any case.This is a right-wing talking point that is complete rubbish. They want to selectively disenfranchise the Supreme Court. Well, actually they want to confuse and enrage the faithful with a false argument but if they believed it they would be fighting the Supreme Court's powers as given in the Constitution and the infamous Madison vs. Marbury case which codified judicial review (though the founding fathers largely supported the concept before and it did operate on a local level)."The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. 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." -Hamilton Ah yes... Judicial Review. Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the judiciary. A court with judicial review power may invalidate laws and decisions that are incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a written constitution. Invalidating Laws is not the same thing as Making laws. (aka Legislating from the bench) Making laws is Congress' and State Legislatures Jobs. Edited September 9, 2015 by Zakuska
jkwilliams Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 Ah yes... Judicial Review. Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the judiciary. A court with judicial review power may invalidate laws and decisions that are incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a written constitution. Invalidating Laws is not the same thing as Making laws. (aka Legislating from the bench) Making laws is Congress' and State Legislatures Jobs. In this case, the laws invalidated restricted marriage to a man and a woman. When those laws were invalidated, there was no need to write a new law. It's probably advisable for states to update their laws to specifically recognize same-sex marriages, but it's not necessary. Either way, SCOTUS has not made any new laws. 1
The Nehor Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 Ah yes... Judicial Review. Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the judiciary. A court with judicial review power may invalidate laws and decisions that are incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a written constitution. Invalidating Laws is not the same thing as Making laws. (aka Legislating from the bench)"Legislating from the bench" is a nebulous and ridiculous made up term to try to smear judges. It plays well on radio sound bytes and campaign speeches.Judicial review does create law. It always has from Madison vs. Marbury on. Sometimes it strikes down a law. Sometimes the constitution is interpreted in a way it has not been before which creates new law. Both the right and the left in this country have taken turns doing it to each other since the beginning. It is not some new plague that is destroying the constitution. It is business as usual. Unfortunately some people are lying about it for political gain and claiming it is new. They are going to hell where all liars go. 1
KevinG Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 There is another argument to be made... there is no law being broken here at all because SCOTUS' job isn't to make laws (Thats Congress' Job) SCOTUS' simply rules on constitutionality of laws congress makes. So until Congress does their Job (HA HA Ha Ha) and makes a law allowing same sex couples to marry then Miss Davis isn't breaking a law. She would actually be breaking the law as it is written currently by Issuing said licenses. I agree that SCOTUS blew the call on establishing new rights from the bench. (I cited Scalia earlier in the thread). But at the present time their decision is the law of the land until struck down or changed through another case, or congress clarifies the law. It is not up to a clerk to decide if a law is valid or not in the eyes of the government. The legitimacy of that law is in the eyes of God does not matter. “Our government teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” - Louis D. Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice
Zakuska Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 In this case, the laws invalidated restricted marriage to a man and a woman. When those laws were invalidated, there was no need to write a new law. It's probably advisable for states to update their laws to specifically recognize same-sex marriages, but it's not necessary. Either way, SCOTUS has not made any new laws.All laws that restricted it where struck down. Untill new laws are put in place there is no law under which she can be prosecuted.
The Nehor Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 All laws that restricted it where struck down. Untill new laws are put in place there is no law under which she can be prosecuted.That is not how it works. In fact defying a Supreme Court ruling is in many ways worse then violating a legislature written law. 1
Ahab Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 That is not how it works. In fact defying a Supreme Court ruling is in many ways worse then violating a legislature written law.Jail cells, right? Yeah judges can put people in jail cells. Not fun places to be in.
Brian 2.0 Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Jail cells, right? Yeah judges can put people in jail cells. Not fun places to be in.Don't judges put people in jail in almost every single case of people going to jail? Edited September 9, 2015 by Brian 2.0
Thinking Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 It is business as usual. Unfortunately some people are lying about it for political gain and claiming it is new. They are going to hell where all liars go. Most Honest City in America It's interesting that only in Washington D.C. did somebody take money out of the box. 1
The Nehor Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 Jail cells, right? Yeah judges can put people in jail cells. Not fun places to be in.Violating the instructions of a judge from the Supreme Court down is called "contempt of court" and you can get locked up.
The Nehor Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 Don't judges put people in jail in almost every single case of people going to jail?Actually most people go to jail because law enforcement puts them there. Those convicted for a longer sentence usually go to prison instead of jail. Short sentences are usually served in jail.
cinepro Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 Don't know if anyone caught it today, but Huckabee called in to Michael Medved's show and gave his opinion on the Kim Davis situation. It was all of the nonsense about "the laws of Kentucky", "Congress needing to pass a law to ratify the Supreme Court Decision" etc., and Medved just slapped him down by clearly explaining how the Constitutional system works. It was shockingly hilarious.
Recommended Posts