Almost Smart  

Go Back   Almost Smart > AlmostSmartism > Front Page

Front Page The threads which appears on the front page. Add your comments or create your own front page threads.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-19-2016   #1
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,735
Rep Power: 55
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Case Closed - Kim Davis Has Won the Fight for Religious Freedom Aug 19, 2016

"ASHLAND, KY -- Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has won the fight for religious freedom after a federal judge issued an order dismissing all three 2015 marriage license lawsuits against her yesterday.

http://lc.org/081916KimDavisOrderDismissingCases.pdf

U.S. Judge David Bunning dismissed in their entirety, Miller v. Davis, Ermold v. Davis and Yates v. Davis, which brings to an end the trial proceedings against her arising from the 2015 Obergefell decision.

Despite the ACLU’s attempt to continue the case against Kim Davis and assess damages against her, the federal district court dismissed the case, closed the files and ordered all the pending cases to be removed from the docket.

Davis, represented by Liberty Counsel, spent six days in jail last year for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex "couples" in violation of her right to freedom of conscience. Davis would not issue the licenses, because they had her name and authority on them.

As a result, Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin signed an executive order creating one marriage license form, which does not require the county clerk’s name and title. The Kentucky General Assembly made Governor Bevin’s changes permanent with a bill that passed the State House with a 97-0 vote followed by a 36-0 vote in the State Senate. Bevin said his signature on the unanimous bipartisan legislation brought “statutory finality to the marriage license dilemma.”

“Kim Davis has won! We celebrate this victory for her and for every American,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. "County clerks are now able to perform their public service without being forced to compromise their religious liberty.

The case is now closed and the door has been shut on the ACLU’s attempt to assess damages against Kim Davis.

This victory is not just for Kim Davis. It is a victory for everyone who wants to remain true to their deeply-held religious beliefs regarding marriage, while faithfully serving the public,” said Staver.

Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics."

http://www.lc.org/newsroom/details/0...igious-freedom

http://www.charismanews.com/us/59396...igious-freedom
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 08-20-2016 at 11:23 AM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2016   #2
Blackass
groingrabbingly good!
 
Blackass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Age: 28
Posts: 2,458
Rep Power: 52
Blackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Blackass
Re: Case Closed - Kim Davis Has Won the Fight for Religious Freedom Aug 19, 2016

Woo boy, election season always reminds me to check AS. I see little has changed.

Kim Davis did not win the fight for religious freedom. Her whole (very stupid) argument was that her religious freedom was violated by having to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples that bore her name. She was sued for failing to issue those marriage licenses. Subsequently, Kentucky abolished the rule requiring the county clerk's name to be on marriage licenses (first by executive order, then by statute). As a result, lawsuits centering on her argument that she should not be forced to issue marriage licenses with her name on them to same sex couples are entirely pointless, as the marriage licenses no longer bear her name on them. It's a moot issue now, so the cases won't continue.

This is very different then Kim Davis winning on the merits. In fact, at the only proceeding in which her claim was adjudicated, she lost. Her argument was rejected. She was later jailed for refusing to comply with the court ruling prohibiting her from refusing to issue marriage licenses under her (again, very dumb) religious freedom argument. That argument was in no way vindicated in this case.
Blackass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2016   #3
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,735
Rep Power: 55
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Case Closed - Kim Davis Has Won the Fight for Religious Freedom Aug 19, 2016

The 6th Amendment’s religious test prohibition applies to “any office or trust under the United States.” Kim Davis’s office is not “under the United States.” She holds an office under county government.

The power to make laws respecting a religious establishment, including a religious test for office, is reserved by the 10th Amendment “to the States, respectively, or to the people. Therefore, Article 6 does not apply to them, or to the offices they establish, absurd jurisprudence misconstruing the 14th Amendment notwithstanding.

The 14th amendment cannot be construed to extend the 1st amendment’s establishment clause to the States, since doing so gives rise to a logical absurdity. The 14th Amendment’s language requires that States refrain from executing laws that abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. But on account of the 10th Amendment’s reservation of powers clause the power to make laws respecting an establishment of religion is reserved to the States, respectively, or the people. It is therefore included among the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens that the States are required by the 14th amendment to refrain from infringing. Construing the 14th Amendment in a way that applies the 1st Amendment’s establishment clause to the States leads to a result that requires the States, at one and the same time, to do and refrain from doing the same thing, since a State’s refusal to enforce legislation on the subject of religious establishment would abridge the power the 10th Amendment makes it the privilege of the States, respectively or the people to exercise.

This is absurd. To avoid the absurdity the 14th Amendment would have to contain language that explicitly removes the power to make laws respecting religious establishment from the 10th Amendment’s reservation of powers, or else the 10th Amendment would have to be altered or repealed. Neither condition is true. Therefore, the purported construction of the 14th Amendment fails.

The real question therefore, is not a 6th Amendment issue. The real question is, how does Kim Davis come under the jurisdiction of a Federal judge, an officer of the United States government, when the Constitution prohibits Congress from making any law respecting (i.e., on the subject of) an establishment of religion? If Congress can make no law on the subject, and that is all the Constitution says about it, what lawful basis is there for the U.S. Judiciary’s involvement?

The Judges and Justices of the U.S. Judiciary assert jurisdiction over the issue of marriage on the excuse that a violation of Constitutionally protected right has taken place. But where there can Constitutionally be no U.S. law, the right involved must be a) explicitly stated in the Constitution; or b) antecedently possessed by the people as per the 9th amendment. But the Constitution explicitly recognizes no homosexual right to same sex so-called "marriage." No such right existed under common or any other antecedent human law applicable to people living in the U.S. at the time the Constitution was adopted. The only other rights clearly antecedent to the Constitution recognized at the time of its adoption are the unalienable rights, endowed by the Creator, recognized in the Declaration of Independence.

But no rationally valid argument can be made for the proposition that same sex "marriage" is a God-endowed unalienable right. Such rights are the consequence of the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Homosexual behavior has no basis in natural law. Advocates of normalization have tried to develop scientific evidence that homosexual practice has a genetic basis. They have consistently failed.

Even if they had succeeded, however, the mere fact that human beings have the natural impulse to engage in an act, sexual or otherwise, doesn’t make it right. Unlike skin color, human passions, however natural, are susceptible to self-conscious control in light of human conscience. On account of that capacity, people driven by passion to rape or even murder others cannot simply claim that sexual lust or anger, both of which have a genetic basis, absolve them of culpability. They have to demonstrate that their capacity for self-conscious self-control was materially impaired. But the notion that homosexual practice is the result of material impairment is precisely what its advocates have rejected, in recent years, as "bigotry."

So they are reduced to arguing that it is a matter of love. But love does not, in and of itself, give any particular act of love the status of unalienable right. That status requires a basis in “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” as made clear by the Creator’s endowment of human nature.

But which of the Creator’s commands, encoded in human nature, requires same sex relations for the natural good of humanity? Man-woman procreation satisfies this requirement, which is why human law is obliged to respect the institutions based upon it. In what way do same sex relations satisfy it?

Unless they can provide an answer to this question, no human officials can pretend that same sex relations are an exercise of unalienable right. Any assertion of right in their regard is a specious fabrication. The individuals responsible for it are abusing their power as government officials. They are denying and disparaging the unalienable right that is the basis for the natural family. This, they do by equating that right with an exercise of freedom that can claim no sanction in the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” insofar as those laws define and govern human nature. But this denial and disparagement of antecedent right IS prohibited by the Constitution’s 9th Amendment. It is an injustice that rejects the moral basis for government deriving its just powers form the consent of the governed. In effect it abandons the premise of constitutional government in the United States.

We must reject the forceful imposition of same sex so-called "marriage" as an abuse of government power that violates the Constitution’s 9th amendment. We must reject it, because it abandons the true understanding of unalienable right that is the basis for the Constitutional self-government of the people of the United States. For the life of me, I cannot understand why these simple and plainly reasonable conclusions, firmly rooted in the history and practice of the people of the United States, and critical to every fight for equal justice in our history, are being unaccountably resisted by the very people who claim to oppose the abuse of government power to enforce the normalization of homosexual practice. In terms of unalienable right, this abuse of government power is an injustice more palpable and egregious than the imposition of taxation without representation that led America’s founding generation to rebel against British rule.

Are the principles of the Declaration of Independence now so universally despised and rejected? Are the people who profess to hold to those principles now so thoroughly brainwashed by the lie that drives God from His position of authority over human justice (the falsely argued doctrine of the separation of Church and State)? Are they so thoroughly devoid of the courage of America’s founding generation, rooted in Christian faith, that they fear to stand on the ground of God-endowed unalienable right? Is their fear of the travail of defending it at the risk or cost of their lives and fortunes, greater than their trust in the Supreme Judge of the World? Are they so devoid of faith and trust in the righteous power of their Creator, and the Word through which He exerts that power, which is Jesus Christ? What other reason is there to avoid taking a clear stand on the high ground of moral principles authorized by God, reason, and the Constitution. Those principles justify Kim Davis’s actions. Those principles demand, that every true American share her determination to refuse the tyrannical commands of government officials who have now egregiously abandoned their duty to preserve the Constitutional Republic founded upon them.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 08-20-2016 at 04:58 AM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2016   #4
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,735
Rep Power: 55
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Case Closed - Kim Davis Has Won the Fight for Religious Freedom Aug 19, 2016

Every adult already is treated equally under the marriage law regardless of their interests. That is, every adult can marry another adult of the opposite sex. If they don't want to participate in that, for whatever reason, that doesn't give anybody the right to redefine the meaning of the marriage.

Also, any adult can legally have a commitment ceremony and draw up a contract that sorts out and agrees to wills, property and hospital visitation rights, etc, again, without redefining the marriage law. People can make wills and designate their belongings to whoever they want. It's very easy to list beneficiaries on bank accounts, brokerage accounts, etc. Same thing with power of attorney and hospital visitation, etc. Just fill out the paperwork.

We all have different kinds of relationships. Some people are particularly close to a parent, or perhaps a sibling(s). Even just a best friend. Nobody is going to stop you from leaving your things to these people or allowing them to visit you in the hospital if you put your wishes in writing.

Now can you get tax breaks from your relationship with a sibling? No, I guess not, but everything else is there for all the different types of relationships that EVERYBODY has.
Not everybody has a spouse, but they are able to state their wishes in writing for all the above mentioned except for the tax breaks. Why should the relationships of people who are attracted to others of the same sex be elevated above the relationships that everybody else have? Anyway, here are the implications of redefining marriage...

http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/...mily-autonomy/

http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/20/...n-free-speech/

http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexual...marriage-docx/

http://constitution.com/shouldnt-con...-calebs-video/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...fend-love.html

Kim Davis was just one of many who are just starting to exercise civil disobedience, but are actually following the law and the Constitution...

http://m.wave3.com/wave/db_320229/co...tguid=8JpJ1fRr

Judges were also...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...ages/71669492/

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...s-gay-marriage

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ten...id=mailsignout

"MOREHEAD, Ky. (AP) — A jailed Kentucky clerk asserted that marriage licenses issued without her authority Friday to gay couples in Rowan County are void and "not worth the paper they are written on" because she didn't authorize them, her attorney said.

Kim Davis now wears an orange jumpsuit and "has already been doing Bible studies with herself" in jail, her attorney Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel told reporters after meeting with her behind bars. He said Davis is in very good spirits, and is prepared to stay as long as it takes to uphold her religious freedoms.

"She's not going to resign, she's not going to sacrifice her conscience, so she's doing what Martin Luther King Jr. wrote about in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, which is to pay the consequences for her decision," Staver said.

She wanted them to accomodate a way where she didn't have to put her name on the licenses. They couldn't even just wait until she received that accomodation and threw her in jail."

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-couples-tr...ry&soc_trk=fb#
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 11949538_714144672046242_5847805123318442678_n.jpg (202.2 KB, 3 views)
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 08-20-2016 at 05:00 AM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2016   #5
Blackass
groingrabbingly good!
 
Blackass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Age: 28
Posts: 2,458
Rep Power: 52
Blackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond reputeBlackass has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Blackass
Re: Case Closed - Kim Davis Has Won the Fight for Religious Freedom Aug 19, 2016

I have no interest with debating you over whether the first amendment can be properly incorporated to the states. Nor do I wish to indulge your seeming obsession with asides about homosexuality and natural law. You do you. I hope you find folks who do.

Suffice it to say, however, that literally NOTHING of what you just said has anything to do with the Kim Davis decision issued by the Sixth Circuit and confirmed by the district court. The point remains that religious liberty did not prevail in any way in this case.
Blackass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2016   #6
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,735
Rep Power: 55
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Case Closed - Kim Davis Has Won the Fight for Religious Freedom Aug 19, 2016

Quote:
Originally Said by Blackass View Post
...literally NOTHING of what you just said has anything to do with the Kim Davis decision issued by the Sixth Circuit and confirmed by the district court. The point remains that religious liberty did not prevail in any way in this case.
^ Ad hoc responses aside ^, I think it is important to get to the crux of the issue. That is, how much power does the Supreme Court actually have? Their decisions influence our culture, sure, but they don't have to. For instance, any state could of rejected Roe v Wade and can still do so and make abortion illegal if they wanted to. Another example is Kim Davis, was actually following her state constitution. She was the one actually upholding the law, while the SC justices were trying to usurp them through their opinion regarding obergefell v. hodges.

Here's a good article that explains how we started giving the Supreme Court too much credence over the other branches of govt...

http://www.firstthings.com/article/1...became-supreme

Unfortunately, we have a Constitutional illiterate populace including our public officials who are more influenced by lobby groups and their money than what is right. It doesn't have to be tbat way though. It's all up to us and how we hold our elected officials accountable. Also see the above article, it explains how we got here, and this one too...

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...upremacy_.html

We can also blame the Marbury VS Madison decision for the view that SCourt decisions rightfully usurp state constitution and law. Except by the very nature of Marbury vs. Madison, the ruling in that case was unconstitutional. Therefore, invalid.

And since marriage is not in the constitution, you're spinning your wheels to say it is. So the 10th Amendment still applies.

http://barbwire.com/2015/09/06/kim-d...t-lawlessness/

However, they are also ignoring the 13th Amendment.

Forcing business owners to provide a service against their will is a violation of the 13th amendment, as it violates their free will to not work for a boss.

Forcing churches to bless homosexual practice establishes homosexual practice as a sacrament rather than a sin, thus establishing a state religiousdogma that has no basis in nature, science, or anything outside of an anti-God-authority worldview of secular state worship and sexual impulse-based self-worship.

So the 1st and 13th overrule this twisted assault on the meaning of the 14th, as well as all it implies. The Constitution states very clearly the Supreme Court is NOT the final arbiter. In the articles, it makes it clear that if the judges are not acting on "good behavior," they may be deposed and their rulings nullified.

Marbury v Madison arbitrarily ruling to the contrary was an example of the very sort of "bad behavior" that should have resulted in judicial impeachment according to the articles.

Therefore, to say what he is saying is to argue that two wrongs make a right. And that this justifies Title H extortion of out-of-state county clerks, in clear violation of anti-extortion laws

The judicial supremacist fallacy is a coup d’etat against our constitutional, republic form of government. It is the transforming of our free, constitutional republic, premised on the natural moral law, into a judicial oligarchy, premised only on the arbitrary, immoral whims of men.

The whole modern judicial supremacist lie is built on one sentence in John Marshall's 1803 Supreme Court opinion in Marbury vs. Madision. A sentence that has been turned inside out and backwards, making it mean the exact opposite of its true meaning, in its proper context.

In fact, nowhere in the Marbury opinion does the court lay claim to superiority to any other branch. Marshall's whole point, summed up, is that no matter what anyone else does or does not do, the court, and every other department or branch, MUST follow the Constitution they have sworn to support and defend. That’s it. Read and comprehend it for yourself, and quit buying the lies.

The summation of Marbury:

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that COURTS, AS WELL AS OTHER DEPARTMENTS, are BOUND by that instrument."

Not sure why folks think courts can grant themselves powers that are nowhere authorized in the Constitution. They ignore the text of the Constitution and the words of the Founders who wrote it. More quotes and links here -- a few even directly address M v. M and explain the history.

http://johnbiver.com/judicial-suprem...nding-fathers/

Not sure what oath liberals think it is that the officers of government in this country, at all levels, in every branch, are swearing.

No matter how many times one looks, nobody has been able to find a required oath in Article VI, or anywhere else within the supreme law of our land, to obey judges, no matter what foolish and immoral, unconstitutional thing they say. No. The oath is to support the Constitution.

"If 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,' … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so (an act of deliberate self destruction). … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. …"

— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819

"… there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court."

— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Johnson, Mar. 1823

"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm … "

— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820

"You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …."

— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

"… One single object … will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation."

— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Livingston, Mar. 1825

"The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever.
It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78, June 14, 1788

"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

-- President Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address

States must also reject federal encroachment and defy unconstitutional laws (a.k.a. unlaws). If you are a limited government Constitutional Conservative, then you will be an advocate for federalism. Something Trump has never advocated for while running for the highest office in the land, and that should always be a red flag.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 08-27-2016 at 09:48 AM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2016   #7
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,735
Rep Power: 55
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Case Closed - Kim Davis Has Won the Fight for Religious Freedom Aug 19, 2016

The reason the homosexual activists had to co-opt the term "marriage" is because there is no comparable term referring to same-sex unions -- because they aren't unions, aren't complements in the same way, and have never been acknowledged as such (nor as inherently vital to the well-being of society) by any society except by way of an Orwellian, top-down requirement that everyone affirm an oxymoron. The real civil rights movement never required that everyone refer to black people as "white.

The interracial marriage ban enforced the separation of men from women, based on race. It used marriage policy to keep the sexes away from each other, in certain instances.

Same sex "marriage" is doing something similar. It does not enforce a separation, but it does endorse and foster a separation of men from women, based on on fraudulent claims of so-called "sexual orientation." Sexual orientation?! So, we all supposedly have a "sexual orientation?" Where is it located? On the liver? The ear lobe? The pancreas? If we have a "sexual orientation" why can't doctors identify our "sexual orientation" when we are born? "Sexual orientation" is the biggest hoax of our time! It is the "royal robes" of H. C. Anderson's "The Emperor's New Clothes." People pretend it exists, so they will appear to be "intelligent." The problem is that there is NO evidence for its existence. Do I get it at Walmart in a bucket? The ONLY scientifically observable elements of sexuality are the sexual organs. All other "elements" are purely speculative. I can go see "Avatar" at a theater and for 90 minutes to two hours believe in a fantasy world; but, when I leave the theater I am back in the real world. Same-sex advocates have created a fantasy world of "sexual orientation" that doesn't exist in reality; but, unfortunately many are buying into the fantasy. The burden of proof is on science to show that "sexual orientation" is real. That is, empirical evidence that homosexual practice and same sex attraction disorder is a uniform attribute across individuals, that sexual attraction never fluctuates, and homosexual desires and inclinations can easily be measured.

""Sexual orientation” is a term without clinical or legal definition. No resolution or draft law should be considered by the United Nations or any government unless it contains a clear definition of this term. If the proponents of “sexual orientation” refuse to define the term, know then that their intent is less than forthright, that they are not being honest about its implications and unintended consequences, and that their purpose is not simply to prevent discrimination." http://takebackcanada.com/22orientations.html

I understand that "sexual orientation" refers to romantic or sexual preference. So what scientific method is used to show that "sexual orientation" is real? That is, what is the empirical evidence that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, has it's own DNA, that sexual attraction never fluctuates, and homosexuality can easily be measured? Where is it located? On the liver? The ear lobe? The pancreas? If we have a "sexual orientation" why can't doctors identify our "sexual orientation" when we are born? Do I get it at Walmart in a bucket? What are the scientifically observable elements of sexuality besides the sexual organs and the chemical and hormonal processes that flow from it? And does proof of "sexual orientation" mean that the behavior that flows from it, should be affirmed, encouraged? If "sexual orientation" is no different than say race (skin color) and homosexual sex is a result of homosexual attraction when acted out, can you please tell us what behavior black skin color results in when acted out? If "sexual orientation" exists, can you please show me a picture of one? If it is invisible, what kind of instrument do you use to measure it? Electricity is measured by voltage meters. Thoughts can be measured with lie detector devices and with medical equipment. Meteorologists have instruments to measure wind. Where's the MRI and/or CAT scan data for "sexual orientation? Can you really not see you have place blind faith into something very abstract and highly ambiguous? Can you really not see that "sexual orientation" is a concept in which it takes more faith than logic and reason to believe in? Can you not see that "sexual orientation" is essentially their magic skydaddy?

A meta-study of nearly 200 peer-reviewed studies on so-called "sexual orientation" and gender identity, carried out by three Johns Hopkins scholars, was released today that "shows that some of the most frequently heard claims about sexuality and gender are not supported by scientific evidence." Among other things, it "questions the scientific basis of trends in the treatment of children who do not identify with their biological sex," only a minority of whom continue to express "gender-atypical" thoughts or behavior into adolescence and adulthood. Thus, there is "no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery." The report also finds scientific evidence wanting for the theory that "gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body.’"

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/public...r-50-fall-2016

Anyway, so-called "sexual orientation" is using marriage policy to encourage the sexes to separate from each other, in certain instances.

Same sex "marriage" supporters claim to be “on the right side of history.” But as Loving v. Virginia shows us, history did NOT side with those who were using marriage policy in order to separate the sexes from each other."

Same sex "marriage" is an endorsement of homosexual behavior, which is a promotion of a relationship that discourages men and women to marry. The reasons may be different, but the effect is the same. So does it or does it not (same sex "marriage") endorse or promote the idea of same sex couples, same sex love, same sex sex, as the same or equal to man-woman marriage? SSM, by its very definition, separates males from females.

http://www.ruthblog.org/2014/07/30/d...history-claim/

Also, if you are *for* redefining marriage, in a way you are enabling the negative outcomes of abuse. Not only the founder of the "marriage equality" movement homosexual activists Larry Brinkin was a detestable racist child abuser himself (Google Larry Brinkin), you may want to consider this...

http://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Lar...se-5162743.php

Founder of HRC (euphemistically called "Human Rights Campaign"), homosexual activist organization that is the leading advocacy group for redefining marriage, was arrested for sex with minor...

http://www.advocate.com/crime/2014/1...crimes-charges ;

Listen to what this homosexual activist Masha Gessen says about marriage as an institution and especially pay attention to what comments receives the loudest applause... https://youtu.be/n9M0xcs2Vw4

Homosexual activist Masha Gessen advocates that all of the adults should be legal parents, not just the natural mother and father. So instead of the older half-sister living between (only!) two homes from the time she was three years old, she would live between three or more homes. Would adults ever choose to spend years living like that? Of course not. That is one example of the new kind of family breakdown."
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 08-22-2016 at 11:40 AM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2016   #8
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,735
Rep Power: 55
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Case Closed - Kim Davis Has Won the Fight for Religious Freedom Aug 19, 2016

SCOTUS issues opinions as a co-equal branch. The only way to properly read Article III is with the words of the Founders as the backdrop. Misreading it makes SCOTUS an oligarchy. With the words of the Founders you understand it as the weakest branch, not the strongest -- which is how most law schools improperly teach it to be. Today's law schools, after all, are a product of the regressives (better known as progressives).
While lawyers are taught to consider legislative intent regarding statutes, the Founders' intent is completely ignored.

Many people who are or have conceded that what the Supreme Court decides is "law of the land" are simply wrong in many cases.

Kim Davis hasn't or didn't break any law. As a matter of fact, she was/is the one following her oath and the law. See Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 402.990:

Any clerk who knowingly issues a marriage license in violation of KRS Chapter 402 shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Any clerk who knowingly issues a marriage license to any persons prohibited by KRS Chapter 402 from marrying shall be fined $500 to $1,000 and removed from office by the judgment of the court in which convicted (KRS 402.990).

And so what would be a violation of KRS Chapter 402? Oh, well if the clerk issued a license to known relatives, someone who already has a living spouse, someone underage, AND to couples of the same sex.

Read the law:

In Kentucky only persons of the opposite sex may enter into marriage. See Elkhorn Coal Corporation v. Tackett, Ky., 49 S.W.2d 571, 573 (1932). Thus in Jones v. Hallahan, Ky., 501 S.W.2d 588 (1973), the court held that the attempted marriage between two women was not a valid marriage since by being of the same sex they were incapable of entering into a "marriage” as the term is defined by common usage. The court concluded that it could find “no constitutional sanction or protection of the right of marriage between persons of the same sex.”

As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

Effective: July 15, 1998
History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998.

For those unfamiliar with Kentucky law, and for all of those suggesting that Mrs. Davis should obey the "law" and just have quit...

Here is the law in Kentucky:
Kentucky Constitution Section 233A
Valid or recognized marriage -- Legal status of unmarried individuals.
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
Text as Ratified on: November 2, 2004.
History: Creation proposed by 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 128, sec. 1.

There is no right to marriage -- same sex "marriage," man-woman marriage -- guaranteed in the Constitution. In fact, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at all, which means the federal government has no role in marriage as a construct.

Per the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Because the Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority with regards to marriage, the Tenth Amendment explicitly leaves that power with the individual states. Therefore, there is no law in the U.S. Constitution regarding marriage and there is no law in Kentucky that says clerks must issue licenses to persons caught up in and engaging in homosexual practice.

Same sex "marriage" is forbidden by the Kentucky state's Constitution:

Kentucky constitution Section 233A. Valid or recognized marriage - Legal status of unmarried individuals. Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36466

Kim Davis was illegally imprisoned by the federal government for not agreeing to violate her oath by issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples in Kentucky, since the Kentucky marriage statutes strictly limit the issuance of marriage licenses to male-female couples. Article Six of the United States Constitution establishes the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land, forbids a religious test as a requirement for holding a governmental position and holds the United States under the Constitution responsible for debts incurred.

Also, Kim Davis simply didn't want to have to put her name on those marriage licensed.
All they would of have had to do was accomodate that.

The Supreme Court cannot and did not make the law. Article I, Section I of the Constitution vests "all" legislative power in "Congress," and none in "the Supreme Court." The Supreme Court has no lawmaking authority. The separation-of-powers destroying notion of judge-made law, called "common-law," was itself obliterated by the Constitution. Laws have to be passed through Congress first. And Congress has to have a Constitutional basis for passing laws. Again, there is no Constitutional basis for marriage. This is why originally each state was placing it in the hands of the people to vote on.

"The Supreme Court issues administrative opinions that the other two superior branches (legislative and executive) should strongly consider. But any change in the laws must be made via the Constitutionally proscribed process (by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive.) Judicial opinions are only legally binding on the parties in the case being heard in so far as they comply with the Constitution. Any law or court opinion contrary to the Constitution is legally null and void on ots face and must be ignored and rejected by every civil magistrate at every level and branch of government." - Gregg Jackson (Feel free to look it up, rather than assume he is wrong, just because he doesn't share the same feelings about this subject as you do).

But what about the 14th Amendment? Invoking the 14th Amendment is fraudulent, it has nothing to do with marriage. The 14th Amendment simply originated to ensure black persons who were born in America are not denied first class citizenship for reasons of their skin color. Skin color, or melanin, is an immutable and benign characteristic that has nothing to do with behavior or determining behavior or a set of behaviors. Homosexual sex and relationships are behaviors and conduct that people engage in. Big difference.

And there was no ban. Regarding the 14th Amendment The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. Every adult can already marry another adult of the opposite sex. If an adult was not interested in that, the law still treats everybody the same. Also, any combination of two adults who are same sex was never banned from having any kind of committment ceremony and working out a legal agreement a contract to share wills, estates, retirement funds, hospital visitation rights, etc. The 14th Amendment being used to redefine marriage is nonsensical and fraudulent.

Racists wanted a form of marriage that encourages the separation the races. Marxist/leftists groups like The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and homosexual activists groups like HRC (founded by pedophile Terry Bean), GLAAD (Gays & Lesbians Association Against DISAGREEMENT), GLSEN, etc and their fellow "gay-kool-aid" drinkers and carriers are pushing for form a of marriage that encourages and promotes the separation of the sexes. So before segregation of the races, and now segregation of the sexes. Who's on the right side of history, again?

Kim Davis has obeyed Constitutional Law and the Rule of Law, Kentucky marriage statutes, Kentucky and U.S. Constitution.

In summary,
Kim Davis was doing her job...

- 5-9 unelected judges do not make laws for 320 million people. That is an oligarchy. Rights are not given on the basis of behaviors or practices people engage in or want to engage in. If "liberty & privacy rights” are the basis to grant rights to engage in a behavior a group of people cry the loudest for, what are the limitations?

- 2 supreme court justices (Ginsburg and Kagan) should of recused themselves. The legal issue is the redefinition of marriage. Officiating at an natural marriage does not indicate whether or not you support the redefinition of marriage, and thus the presumption of impartiality is preserved. There are plenty of people who have officiated at a natural/authentic marriage who also support same sex "marriage." However, to officiate at a same sex "marriage" is to cast your vote for redefinition -- and thus prove you are not impartial.

- Only members of Congress are authorized to make federal law, of which has to have a Constitutional basis. (See Article 1 of the Constitution)

- There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage or homosexual practice, nothing in the 14th Amendment, which was to prevent freed slaves from being murdered, lynched, or deprived of owning their own property. Liberty doesn't mean freedom from moral restraints of certain behaviors people want to engage in.ssuing a marriage license to a same sex couple is ultimately an affirmation and endorsement of homosexual practice, a sexual practice that clearly goes against GOD's word as well as overall public health.

Judicial supremacy is also not in the Constitution (see first link). Also, think about the fact we are dealing with a false presupposition of immutability here in the supreme court's opinion and the fact that every adult could already marry any adult of the opposite sex, regardless of their inclinations or sexual practices, and every 2 or more adults can already work out a legal agreement as far as property rights, wills, retirement plans, hospital vistation rights, etc.

- There is no Constitutional basis for homosexual practice, therefore 10th Amendment is only applicable here, which is state's rights, by the people for the people. Overturning Prop 8 and issuing marriage licenses in rebellion to that as Gavin Newsome did, is what is unConstitutional and illegal.

- People of Kentucky voted 75% in favor of keeping marriage between one man and one woman. Kentucky law and state Constitution defines marriage as one man one woman. See Kentucky statutes 402.005, 402.020 & 402.080.

- Therefore, Kim Davis is not only obeying GOD's law, but she is following both the Constitution, Kentucky statutes, and her oath as county clerk. Judge Bunning and any county clerk who issues same sex "marriage" licenses are the ones breaking the law.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/1...became-supreme

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...eme_court.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...upremacy_.html

http://barbwire.com/2015/09/06/kim-d...t-lawlessness/

(You can disagree with the political and religious views of the article publishers and authors all you want, you still have to directly address the content and data they provide).

By the way, I find it interesting that the leftist ACLU has been using the federal RFRA in court to defend the rights of Islamic radical prisoners l, while opposing it on the state level where it might help protect the rights of Christians...

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/l...mate/88945800/

“We are not creatures of sexual necessity. We are not compelled to act on our inclinations and urges, but are always free to act otherwise, even directly against the grain of those inclinations. To be truly free as a human means to have the strength to act against ourselves, so that we do not live in bondage to our own inner impulses and drives, a key consideration that distinguishes us from the animals. Human freedom involves the mastery of those drives by redirecting them and ordering them to higher goals.” ~ Pacholczyk
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 08-31-2016 at 12:26 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2000 - 2006, Almost Smart