It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

page: 28
76
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons



Yes, you missed something. She is an elected official and it would be a long and drawn out process to remove her.
a reply to: DelMarvel

That doesn't seem right. So any elected official like her can hold the government hostage just because they refuse to apply a law? Seems like the law on elected officials needs to be changed. It's kind of like the law is protecting dictators.



Ever heard of sanctuary cities? Remember when Obama sued Arizona for trying to uphold federal and state law?

You guys are incredibly inconsistent.
edit on 4-9-2015 by TheBulk because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
It is my understanding that when SCOTUS finds any law, act, decision, etc. UNCONSTITUTIONAL said law, act, decision, et. al. is immediately null-and-void ... all force of law is removed from the statute, etc.

The laws in KY are "still on the books" but they do not, as of Obergefell, carry the force of law, i.e. they are null and void.

ETA: Another way to say it ... the laws in KY still exist, but they are unenforceable.


edit on 11Fri, 04 Sep 2015 11:02:46 -050015p112015966 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
No. It makes the law unconstitutional and demands it be changed, but the Supreme court can only interpret law, not make or change it. That is what legislatures do.


You are mistaken here. The law is invalid. No states have to change their laws for them to be obeyed. That part of the law is "struck" whether it's still written in the books or not. Marriage equality became the law of the land in EVERY state when the SC ruled.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBulk



Your response is also eye rolling because it's left wingers that came out against freedom of speech when Muslims try to kill people over burned Korans and pictures of Mohamud. Then suddenly you see them as the persecuted and individual liberty as something that doesn't matter.


Go ask Left wingers that say those things then. I have no clue what you're talking about and don't want to be part of your vast generalization.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
When the supreme court rules on an issue, does that automatically change the applicable laws in every state that does not currently have laws on the books that comply?


It renders them invalid.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Seems like any elected official can hold the government hostage based upon their personal beliefs. Something is wrong here.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk

Unless of course they are Muslims trying to kill people over cartoons. Then it's time to push back against free speech!


Stopping someone from marriage based on ones personal religious beliefs, as opposed to killing people over ones religious beliefs, are two entirely different things.

You cannot even remotely compare the two, no matter how much you try.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: aimlessly

You are correct.


originally posted by: WeRpeons

So any elected official like her can hold the government hostage just because they refuse to apply a law? Seems like the law on elected officials needs to be changed. It's kind of like the law is protecting dictators.



That's exactly right. That's why we entrust our elected officials to obey the law. When they don't, impeachment should happen, but that takes time (and the willingness of the legislature to do ITS job).



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Shouldn't they put her on a 24 hour watch?


Somebody may get in their and crucify her!...
imagine they go in there and she's nailed a cross!


She probably keeps 3 nails in her back pocket at all times! Hope they found them before she was put in her cell!



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I understand and agree. My point was to highlight the fact that she did not violate any law. She was held for civil contempt for not following an order. The law of the state still has to be changed to reflect the ruling.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
She probably keeps 3 nails in her back pocket at all times! Hope they found them before she was put in her cell!


I call first dibs on her teeth when she is burnt at the stake.

I always wanted Saintly Relics.



edit on 4-9-2015 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: windword
She probably keeps 3 nails in her back pocket at all times! Hope they found them before she was put in her cell!


I call first dibs on her teeth when she is burnt at the steak.

I always wanted Saintly Relics.


Honestly, I haven't paid much attention to most of this. Has she actually become the social-conservative darling on this issue?



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBulk

ya know it seems to me that both political parties in the federal gov't seem to do alot of things that us normal people, regardless of which political party we tend to lean toward find wrong...
if you don't believe that there are some in the republican party that want open borders allowing lots of immigrants through to be exploited by businesses you are in error...
if you believe that every democrat likes the idea of a ton of immigrants flowing through, you are just as wrong.

any inconsistancies you may see is just the result of your inability to avoid labeling and segregating people into two groups- liberal and conservative and then proceeding to take if for granted that if defines all that they are and all that they belief. it doesn't work that way.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
I understand and agree. My point was to highlight the fact that she did not violate any law. She was held for civil contempt for not following an order. The law of the state still has to be changed to reflect the ruling.


No, it does not. The Supreme Court invalidated their law.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

I call first dibs on her teeth when she is burnt at the steak.


Now she gets steak? Sheesh.....

Next she'll be getting Worcestershire Sauce to go with that.



I always wanted Saintly Relics.


Look up a documentary called "The Quest for the Holy Foreskin".

Methinks there are some relics that should remain attached to those they supposedly came from.....




posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: windword
She probably keeps 3 nails in her back pocket at all times! Hope they found them before she was put in her cell!


I call first dibs on her teeth when she is burnt at the steak.

I always wanted Saintly Relics.


Honestly, I haven't paid much attention to most of this. Has she actually become the social-conservative darling on this issue?


Of course, she is the symbol of PROOF that 257,600,000 Christians are being overwhelmingly attacked and persecuted in the US by ... by ... someone-somewhere.

Just ask Mike Huckabee.

(HINT: Christians aren't the persecuted, they are the persecutors, in general.)
edit on 11Fri, 04 Sep 2015 11:18:40 -050015p112015966 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: introvert
I understand and agree. My point was to highlight the fact that she did not violate any law. She was held for civil contempt for not following an order. The law of the state still has to be changed to reflect the ruling.


No, it does not. The Supreme Court invalidated their law.


And the SCOTUS ruling replaced the existing law with what?



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: introvert
I understand and agree. My point was to highlight the fact that she did not violate any law. She was held for civil contempt for not following an order. The law of the state still has to be changed to reflect the ruling.


No, it does not. The Supreme Court invalidated their law.


And the SCOTUS ruling replaced the existing law with what?


Constitutional law?



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: beezzer
We now live in a society where government and government entities make decisions of what we eat, drink, smoke, and marry.


The government doesn't make choices on what I eat or drink, OR whom I marry. I make those choices. They have some work to do on the smoking thing, but that will come in time, I'm sure.


And that's the way it should be.

Government should never be in the position to make decisions for the individual.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert
the governor replaced existing law with an executive order?? heck I don't know, the minute he noticed that the laws in place were invalid he probably should have called the legislature into session to work it out, but well, maybe he is right that an executive order should be sufficient to tide things over till january when the state legislature comes back into session. it certainly was cheaper on the taxpayer for him to do it this way!



new topics

top topics



 
76
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join