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.

 

Pointing out the double standard

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kellyjay

I think a huge double standard comes from Cruz and Huckabee and others who have sided with the woman in Kentucky.

All of them are ignoring the rights of the individual to marry 9self-determine) and are working with the assumption that it is the role of government to determine if a couple should wed.


But to the OP, all politicians are hypocrites.



agreed, they are wrong for standing behind her violating the law..




posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay
....and you are a moderator?


The death knell of a destroyed argument. That's all you have.....again? My points stand. Do you have anything else?


you keep trying to goad me into an argument with you which is derailing my post, id rather stay on topic than entertain you, as a moderator of this forum id imagine you are held to the same rules as the rest of us, if you cannot contain yourself and stop attempting to derail my post into these pi**ing contests i suggest you leave my post, or i can contact another moderator.

thanks



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I did not ask about the examples given in the OP. In some regards, I can see the points you have made throughout the thread. My question was about double standards in general. I thought that was the subject of the thread. I know the example given involved the marriage license issue but the OP also said:




But this isnt the only example of double standards


and proceeds to give other examples of his/her perception of other double standards. More than one example of his/her perception of double standards seems to be eclipsed by the first example given. Do you have an opinion on the possible double standard of the example I gave?



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi




Do you have an opinion on the possible double standard of the example I gave?

Your example could demonstrate a double standard because the situations are more similar than those presented in the OP. Do they? Yes, if the same person is making the distinction, that would be a double standard on their part. If it is a matter of different people having different opinions, no.

edit on 9/6/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It wasn't actually unlawful until the Court said he was exceeding his authority.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Phage

It wasn't actually unlawful until the Court said he was exceeding his authority.


actually it was unlawfull because he was issuing same sex marraige liscences, in a state where the rule of law was against same sex marraige, the judge made it clear he was violating the law (which he knew) and told him to cease, and the unlawfull liscenses were nullified.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74
That's what I was trying to express.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay




actually it was unlawfull because he was issuing same sex marraige liscences, in a state where the rule of law was against same sex marraige,

Actually, as I pointed out, it was unlawful because forms which were not approved by the state were being used.

It was later determined that the law against same sex marriage was unlawful but the Court did not address that in this case.

edit on 9/6/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay

I guess you don't understand executive authority. That's okay most people don't understand government.
edit on 9/6/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kellyjay




actually it was unlawfull because he was issuing same sex marraige liscences, in a state where the rule of law was against same sex marraige,

Actually, as I pointed out, it was unlawful because forms which were not approved by the state were being used.

It was later determined that the law against same sex marriage was unlawful but the Court did not address that in this case.


yes same sex forms werent approved because same sex marraige= illegal



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: kellyjay

I guess you don't understand executive authority. That's okay most people don't understand government.


clearly he couldnt use his "executive authority" to do what he did because he was told to stop and the liscences he issued illegally were nullified.....

he broke the law since federal law trumps state law
edit on 02/08/2015 by kellyjay because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay

es same sex forms werent approved because same sex marraige= illegal
The Court decision did not say that.


But Is that like there being a legal marijuana tax even though marijuana was illegal? Sort of the same, but different?
www.hightimes.com...



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
double post
edit on 02/08/2015 by kellyjay because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kellyjay

es same sex forms werent approved because same sex marraige= illegal
The Court decision did not say that.


But Is that like there being a legal marijuana tax even though marijuana was illegal? Sort of the same, but different?
www.hightimes.com...


From your link




The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 (which criminalized pot) first imposed the tax stamps on marijuana possession. However, the Supreme Court ruled the Act unconstitutional on self-incrimination grounds in 1969.


Despite this, the drug stamp tax resurfaced in the generally pot-unfriendly state of Arizona in 1983 as the Reagan-fueled “War on Drugs” was underway, the motivation of the tax being to further the penalties on drug dealers/users, while adding drug tax and unpaid tax penalty revenue to state coffers. Some states annually collect over seven figures in illegal drug taxes.


looks like it was intended to go side by side on the war on drugs to fleece people out of money.....so not the same no



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay

He legally has a broad scope of how he can use his executive authority, he was challenged on it and found to be out of bounds. An unlawful executive order isn't unlawful until a supreme court says so.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: kellyjay

He legally has a broad scope of how he can use his executive authority, he was challenged on it and found to be out of bounds. An unlawful executive order isn't unlawful until a supreme court says so.


which they did...hence he broke the law....

gay marraige was federally illegal, he was issuing same sex liscenses....he knew he was breaking the law, if he wasnt then no courts would have got involved or told him to cease....im done playing semantics with you



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay

No he didn't. Look law is full nuances on top of nuances. It's not illegal until the court says so. He can't retroactively break the law. He issued an executive order which he is legally able to do. That order is law unless and until a court says it's not.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay




gay marraige was federally illegal,

Marriage laws are state laws.
DOMA did not make same sex marriage illegal. It "defined" marriage as it fit into federal laws.
www.law.cornell.edu...
It also said that no one could cause a state to respect a legal same sex marriage entered into in any other state.

It too, was found unconstitutional.
edit on 9/6/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: kellyjay

No he didn't. Look law is full nuances on top of nuances. It's not illegal until the court says so. He can't retroactively break the law. He issued an executive order which he is legally able to do. That order is law unless and until a court says it's not.


the end result is the same regardless of which way you want to put it...HE BROKE THE LAW! if he had refused to stop issuing the liscences than he would have been held in contempt too right?

so its semantics



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay




if he had refused to stop issuing the liscences than he would have been held in contempt too right?

Yes. But he did stop. So it is quite a different situation.

But I thought you weren't making that comparison.

edit on 9/6/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join