Roy Moore suspended... again.

[TerranceL]

LOL, the ignorance of the spiritually dead leads to the foolish belief that humanism has won.

Keep worshipping your human gods.

Are you trying to say that the christians in this thread aren't christians?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Once again, no laws have been made. The judge didn't break any laws.

Once again, you don't get it.

 

[MennoSota]

I get it. You choose to imagine that judges make law, which is wrong.

 

[MennoSota]

Are you trying to say that the christians in this thread aren't christians?

Nope, I am saying the non-Christians are spiritually dead. Ephesians 2:1

 

[Arcangl86]

I get it. You choose to imagine that judges make law, which is wrong.

Actually they do make laws. In our country there are four sources of law; the Constitution, legislation, administrative regulations and the common law. But in this case what matters is that judges also apply the law to certain situations and in this case the Supreme Court has found that the 14th prevents denying a marriage license over matters of gender. Now Justice Moore can think that is a incorrect finding and disagree with it, but as an officer of the court he is bound to abide by it.

 

[MoonofIsaiah]

Does Alabama have a law that acknowledges same-sex unions? If not, there is no requirement that the judge allow them. The federal government is subservient to the States in regard to marriage license. The judge would be within his legal rights.

Unfortunately despite petitions to Alabama Supreme Court, SSM is still in tact in Alabama.

 

[pat34lee]

The federal government overrides the state in constitutional rulings. Hence why interracial marriage bans at the state level were struck down.

No, those were stupid laws and the states backed down.
If you read the bill of rights, the states overrule the feds,
not the other way around.

Amendment X
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.

 

[pat34lee]

They interpret the laws that already exist.

Actually, he's not...And who keeps Roy Moore in check?

1. What existing LAW mandated homosexual marriage, when
for most of history, homosexuality itself never held legal status?

2. The state of Alabama and the citizens therein.

 

[pat34lee]

Actually they do make laws. In our country there are four sources of law; the Constitution, legislation, administrative regulations and the common law.

Contrary to Obama's actions, Administrators or the Executive
branch do not make law. They may determine how to carry out
laws made by the legislature only. They do not have the power
to decide which laws to follow, either. Obama is not the only
President to have failed his oath regarding that.

Common law is losing its presence in the courts these days. It
is based on human rights and common sense, which are rare
anywhere, much less in government or the legal system.

 

[MoonofIsaiah]

No, those were stupid laws and the states backed down.
If you read the bill of rights, the states overrule the feds,
not the other way around.

Amendment X
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.

The 14th amendment was invoked by the supreme court when they said SSM was to be legal. They also cast down DOMA if I remember right but that was before the SSM decision.

 

[MoonofIsaiah]

Actually they do make laws. In our country there are four sources of law; the Constitution, legislation, administrative regulations and the common law. But in this case what matters is that judges also apply the law to certain situations and in this case the Supreme Court has found that the 14th prevents denying a marriage license over matters of gender. Now Justice Moore can think that is a incorrect finding and disagree with it, but as an officer of the court he is bound to abide by it.

Actually, judges cannot make laws. In this country there are three branches of invested powers. The Executive, The Legislative, and the Judicial.
The Legislative pass the bills that only become law under the presidents signature. Or if he deems not to sign, the bill passes into law without that signature.
The Judicial branch interprets the laws. Period.

 

[The Cadet]

Roy Moore didn't break any laws.

What he broke were ethical guidelines of a judge. I'm not 100% sure if these qualify as laws, but if it isn't illegal for a state judge to command his subordinates to directly violate rights that the supreme court has ordained people have, it really should be.

I get it. You choose to imagine that judges make law, which is wrong.

Judges interpret the law. In this case, the supreme court interpreted that existing anti-discrimination statutes that prevent discrimination on the basis of sex extend to same-sex couples (at least as far as my understanding).

Nope, I am saying the non-Christians are spiritually dead.

Well, at least we understand the law of the land somewhat.

Seriously, bury your head in the sand all you want. It doesn't make your position true. We didn't need a new law for Obergfell any more than we needed a new law for Heller. A rational interpretation of existing laws is entirely sufficient. It's one thing if you want to disagree with their position, but if you want to throw out a hundred years of jurisprudence because the supreme court is interpreting the law in a way you don't like? That's nonsense. Also nonsense: pretending that because you disagree with their interpretation, that this somehow makes their decision not qualify as law.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Once again, no laws have been made. The judge didn't break any laws.

Moore tried that argument the last time he defied a federal court's order to remove his 2-ton granite idol in the public square... he got booted off the bench that time, as well.

 

[TLK Valentine]

LOL, the ignorance of the spiritually dead leads to the foolish belief that humanism has won.

And yet Moore's off the bench again -- sounds like a victory to me.

 

[MennoSota]

Actually they do make laws. In our country there are four sources of law; the Constitution, legislation, administrative regulations and the common law. But in this case what matters is that judges also apply the law to certain situations and in this case the Supreme Court has found that the 14th prevents denying a marriage license over matters of gender. Now Justice Moore can think that is a incorrect finding and disagree with it, but as an officer of the court he is bound to abide by it.

Judges can use case law to help in their present decisions, but they never make laws.

 

[MennoSota]

And yet Moore's off the bench again -- sounds like a victory to me.

Of course it sounds like a victory to someone who is intolerant of Godly morality and Christian virtues. It's the progressive way.

 

[Belk]

No, those were stupid laws and the states backed down.

No, they didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#Implications_of_the_decision

If you read the bill of rights, the states overrule the feds,
not the other way around.

Amendment X
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.

No. Federal law overrides state law. That is why the feds could still prosecute Marijuana in Washington and Colorado. The section you are quoting only talks about the delegation of powers.

 

[Arcangl86]

Judges can use case law to help in their present decisions, but they never make laws.

Actually, judges cannot make laws. In this country there are three branches of invested powers. The Executive, The Legislative, and the Judicial.
The Legislative pass the bills that only become law under the presidents signature. Or if he deems not to sign, the bill passes into law without that signature.
The Judicial branch interprets the laws. Period.

Then how would you explain such civil offenses such as conversion?

 

[MennoSota]

No, they didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#Implications_of_the_decision




No. Federal law overrides state law. That is why the feds could still prosecute Marijuana in Washington and Colorado. The section you are quoting only talks about the delegation of powers.

States control marriage laws and education according to the Constitution. The feds have zero say over those laws, except that the SCOTUS can declare State laws unconstitutional. The feds cannot make laws on issues that are designated to the States. This is why the fed threatens loss of funding to the States as a way of bullying the States into doing federal wishes. States that don't need or want federal funding can tell the feds suck it and the feds can't do a thing about it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Judges can use case law to help in their present decisions, but they never make laws.

Nor can they violate the Constitution.