Roy Moore suspended... again.

[TLK Valentine]

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

And the alternative is to disregard the US Constitution and submit to the will of Moore?

I'll take the progressive way, while it's still legal to do so.

 

[USincognito]

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.

Actually it is states that are subordinate because of the Equal Protection clause. If that were not the case, then Maine could pass a law stating that marriages between more than 5" different in height would not be recognized in that state, even if the marriage occurred in another state.

 

[USincognito]

The SCOTUS is not the law making body of our government. Why do you want a theocracy where the SCOTUS acts as the high priests of morality?

Given that this is Roy Moore we're talking about... oh the irony.

 

[USincognito]

You are advocating that people follow a court ruling as though it is law, which it isn't.

Supreme Court decisions are not legislation, but they are the law of the land. The same way that treaties are not legislation, but they are the law of the land.

The SCOTUS legislated morality from the bench and you are applauding it. Determining morality is an act of religion. If the SCOTUS can tell us what is moral or not, then they have become religious priests and thus have thrown down the 1st Amendment.
Since you applaud their religious ruling, you are advocating for a theocracy.
All hail the church of humanism.

Nice emotional screed. Stamping your feet about a SCOTUS decision you don't like however is not a reasoned or legally grounded argument against it nor does it change the fact that Roy Moore is the one going rogue in this case.

 

[USincognito]

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

Keep worshipping your human gods.

Roy Moore didn't break any laws. He just followed the laws that are already established in Alabama.

Oh look, someone thinks CF rules against flaming don't apply to them just like Moore thinks the Constitution doesn't apply to him.

 

[USincognito]

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.

Try reading the entire Constitution.

 

[USincognito]

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.

Your screed against the President is counter to the facts. Executive orders and regulations have the same force of law as legislation and are similarly subject to Constitutional review and challenge in the courts.

http://libguides.law.gsu.edu/c.php?g=253374&p=1689765

Federal administrative law derives from the President, agencies of the Executive Branch, and independent regulatory agencies. Agencies are given the authority to create administrative law through laws enacted by Congress.

The law comes in the form of rules, regulations, procedures, orders, and decisions. In creating these "laws," the agency acts as quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative entity. The administrative agencies act in a legislative-like capacity when promulgating rules and regulations. The agencies act in a judicial-like capacity when conducting hearings and issuing rulings and decisions on particular matters.

The process of administrative agency rule-making from the initial notice of agency interest to the promulgation of a final rule is documented in the Federal Register publication system. The two main components of this system are the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations.​

 

[TLK Valentine]

Oh look, someone thinks CF rules against flaming don't apply to them just like Moore thinks the Constitution doesn't apply to him.

Moore's disciples always seem to think the rules don't apply to them...

 

[MennoSota]

Supreme Court decisions are not legislation, but they are the law of the land. The same way that treaties are not legislation, but they are the law of the land.



Nice emotional screed. Stamping your feet about a SCOTUS decision you don't like however is not a reasoned or legally grounded argument against it nor does it change the fact that Roy Moore is the one going rogue in this case.

Did he break a law? Yes or no?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Did he break a law? Yes or no?

He violated the Constitution.

 

[MennoSota]

He violated the Constitution.

No he didn't. Certainly he never violated the 14th Amendment, so tell us which Amendment he broke.

 

[USincognito]

Did he break a law? Yes or no?

The question is not whether he broke the law or not so your question is a red herring. Your question also has no relationship to my post so quoting me was a non sequitur.

More has been accused of ethics violations by a legal oversight committee empaneled by the state of Alabama. A committee that has already bounced him from office once so it clearly has the authority to remove him.

 

[USincognito]

No he didn't. Certainly he never violated the 14th Amendment, so tell us which Amendment he broke.

Telling subordinates to ignore the Equal Protection clause is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[MennoSota]

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[MennoSota]

There is no law in Alabama giving sanction to same-sex unions. This judge has not violated the 14th Amendment nor has he broken any law.

Just because 5 lawyers tell us that they interpret the Constitution through the lens of their ideology, does not, therefore, mean they have correctly grasped the meaning of the Constitution. In fact, Justice Scalia rightly castigated them for the horrendous interpretive dance they did with our Constitution. What they did is shameful and borderline crimminal.

 

[MennoSota]

Telling subordinates to ignore the Equal Protection clause is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

It doesn't apply. There is no law being violated.

 

[lasthero]

It doesn't apply. There is no law being violated.

Take a Social Studies class, dude.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No he didn't. Certainly he never violated the 14th Amendment, so tell us which Amendment he broke.

The 14th -- your inaccurate declaration notwithstanding.

In Obergfell v Hodges, The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage is protected under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution -- see for yourself:

The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in Loving, where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause;and in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, where the Court invalidated a law barring fathers delinquent on child-support payments frommarrying. Indeed, recognizing that new insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged, this Court hasinvoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sex-based inequality on marriage, see, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U. S. 455, 460–461, and confirmed the relation between liberty and equality, see, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102, 120–121.
The Court has acknowledged the interlocking nature of these constitutional safeguards in the context of the legal treatment of gays and lesbians. See Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 575. This dynamic also applies to same-sex marriage. The challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and they abridge central precepts of equality. The marriage laws at issue are in essence unequal: Same-sex couple sare denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial works a grave and continuing harm, serving to disrespect and subordinate gays and lesbians. Pp. 18–22.

Now comes the point where you put your fingers in your ears, shout "nuh-uh!" as loud as you can, and repeat the same mistaken belief that the fourteenth amendment isn't the one.

Go ahead, we'll wait...

 

[MennoSota]

The 14th -- your inaccurate declaration notwithstanding.

In Obergfell v Hodges, The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage is protected under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution -- see for yourself:



Now comes the point where you put your fingers in your ears, shout "nuh-uh!" as loud as you can, and repeat the same mistaken belief that the fourteenth amendment isn't the one.

Go ahead, we'll wait...

5 judges misinterpreted the 14th Amendment due to their ideology. They should be reprimanded, just as Scalia rightfully chose to do.

There comes a time when people must show civil disobedience to an unjust ruling of the court. This is certainly a time to tell the 5 judges that they are woefully wrong in their ideology and in their bizarre interpretation of the Constitution.

And, once again, the judge we are speaking of has not broke any law or the 14th Ammendment. All he has done is point out the ideology of progressive judges who fail to comprehend the Constitution.

 

[USincognito]

5 judges misinterpreted the 14th Amendment due to their ideology.

Unlike this opinion, the one issued by the court is meaningful.

And, once again, the judge we are speaking of has not broke any law or the 14th Ammendment. All he has done is point out the ideology of progressive judges who fail to comprehend the Constitution.

Says the guy who thinks his religiously motivated beliefs trump the Constitution.