I would like Cruz if he didn't his involve his religion in his politics so much. Like when he stood up for that David traitor in KY..

Quote from: TNHarley on October 06, 2015, 08:05:11 AM
I would like Cruz if he didn't his involve his religion in his politics so much. Like when he stood up for that David traitor in KY..

What is a "David traitor?"   

Quote from: kroz on October 06, 2015, 08:13:31 AM
What is a "David traitor?"   

Davis sorry lol. Kim Davis

Quote from: TNHarley on October 06, 2015, 08:18:18 AM
Davis sorry lol. Kim Davis

Could you explain how she is a traitor?  Traitor to what?

Quote from: kroz on October 06, 2015, 08:20:06 AM
Could you explain how she is a traitor?  Traitor to what?

Her oath. The US Constitution.

Quote from: TNHarley on October 06, 2015, 08:05:11 AM
I would like Cruz if he didn't his involve his religion in his politics so much. Like when he stood up for that David traitor in KY..

At least you know where he stands.

Quote from: walkstall on October 06, 2015, 08:26:33 AM
At least you know where he stands.

Quote from: TNHarley on October 06, 2015, 08:23:03 AM
Her oath. The US Constitution.

Well, she did not violate the Constitution.  She actually invoked the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. 

When she was elected to her office and took her oath, the law was different.  She had the rug pulled out from under her.  The law changed and violated her religious liberty.

Some of us believe she had a right to resist an unconstitutional law.  The Supremes got it wrong and legislated from the Bench violating their own Constitutional limitations.  Anything not listed in the Constitution is left to the States to determine.  The SCOTUS has clearly overstepped their Constitutional boundary.

Cruz did NOT bring his religion into the race.  He stood up for Constitutional restraints upon the Courts.  He stood up for Constitutional governance and individual liberty.

I think you got this one wrong.

Quote from: kroz on October 06, 2015, 08:33:03 AM
Well, she did not violate the Constitution.  She actually invoked the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. 

When she was elected to her office and took her oath, the law was different.  She had the rug pulled out from under her.  The law changed and violated her religious liberty.

Some of us believe she had a right to resist an unconstitutional law.  The Supremes got it wrong and legislated from the Bench violating their own Constitutional limitations.  Anything not listed in the Constitution is left to the States to determine.  The SCOTUS has clearly overstepped their Constitutional boundary.

Cruz did NOT bring his religion into the race.  He stood up for Constitutional restraints upon the Courts.  He stood up for Constitutional governance and individual liberty.

I think you got this one wrong.

She works for the Judicial branch. She doesn't have first amendment rights. Shall I quote article 6 and court cases to prove my assertions?
Dude, are you saying we should make every public sector employee redo their oath every time new legislation is written or the SC rules on constitutionality? lol come on
How did they legislate from the bench? You do realize when the government got involved in marriage,(which they shouldn't have) that made it a public service? Discrimination shouldn't come from the institution. Although, I know they are still discriminating against some minorities(mostly which would do public harm so IDK if that would even count) but still.. That's one less.
State of KY Oath
Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.

Quote from: TNHarley on October 06, 2015, 08:41:05 AM
She works for the Judicial branch. She doesn't have first amendment rights. Shall I quote article 6 and court cases to prove my assertions?
Dude, are you saying we should make every public sector employee redo their oath every time new legislation is written or the SC rules on constitutionality? lol come on
How did they legislate from the bench? You do realize when the government got involved in marriage,(which they shouldn't have) that made it a public service? Discrimination shouldn't come from the institution. Although, I know they are still discriminating against some minorities(mostly which would do public harm so IDK if that would even count) but still.. That's one less.
State of KY Oath
Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.

The Kentucky Constitution bans gay marriage.  So, she was upholding her State Constitution. 

The U.S. Constitution says that anything not addressed in the U.S. Constitution is left up to the discretion of the States.  That would be marriage laws.

She was faced with violating the SCOTUS or her State Constitution.

You think she should have violated her State Constitution.  I think she should have upheld her State Constitution because the U.S. Constitution supports that.

SCOTUS has declared themselves to be the final say in all things.  That is unconstitutional.  There is a checks and balances which actually gives ultimate power to Congress not SCOTUS.

But clearly our SCOTUS has empowered itself to legislate from the bench.

It is time for citizens to stand up against this unconstitutional activity.

Quote from: kroz on October 06, 2015, 08:53:17 AM
The Kentucky Constitution bans gay marriage.  So, she was upholding her State Constitution. 

The U.S. Constitution says that anything not addressed in the U.S. Constitution is left up to the discretion of the States.  That would be marriage laws.

She was faced with violating the SCOTUS or her State Constitution.

You think she should have violated her State Constitution.  I think she should have upheld her State Constitution because the U.S. Constitution supports that.

SCOTUS has declared themselves to be the final say in all things.  That is unconstitutional.  There is a checks and balances which actually gives ultimate power to Congress not SCOTUS.

But clearly our SCOTUS has empowered itself to legislate from the bench.

It is time for citizens to stand up against this unconstitutional activity.

So if KY also banned Christianity, you would be ok with it if what she did was reversed?
Article 6 clearly states
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

QuoteSCOTUS has declared themselves to be the final say in all things.  That is unconstitutional.  There is a checks and balances which actually gives ultimate power to Congress not SCOTUS.

I wont argue that.
Again, how did they legislate from the bench?

Fiorina has to mentioned in the same breath with Cruz, as being the most opposed-to liberalism... because she really is an outsider.  Cruz is more in the Beltway as an anti-lib. 

Their Presidencies would begin similarly, but they'd differ on the priorities of what needs to be slashed and what needs to be phased-out.

Quote from: kroz on October 06, 2015, 08:53:17 AM
The Kentucky Constitution bans gay marriage.  So, she was upholding her State Constitution. 

The U.S. Constitution says that anything not addressed in the U.S. Constitution is left up to the discretion of the States.  That would be marriage laws.

She was faced with violating the SCOTUS or her State Constitution.

You think she should have violated her State Constitution.  I think she should have upheld her State Constitution because the U.S. Constitution supports that.

SCOTUS has declared themselves to be the final say in all things.  That is unconstitutional.  There is a checks and balances which actually gives ultimate power to Congress not SCOTUS.

But clearly our SCOTUS has empowered itself to legislate from the bench.

It is time for citizens to stand up against this unconstitutional activity.

My understanding she was complying with her State Constitution.  That the people elected her to follow. 

Quote from: kit saginaw on October 06, 2015, 08:58:39 AM
Fiorina has to mentioned in the same breath with Cruz, as being the most opposed-to liberalism... because she really is an outsider.  Cruz is more in the Beltway as an anti-lib. 

Their Presidencies would begin similarly, but they'd differ on the priorities of what needs to be slashed and what needs to be phased-out.

I like Fiorina. Her not being an establishment butt wipe helps lol
People shouldn't say liberalism. Todays lefties are not liberal. They shame that brand!

Quote from: walkstall on October 06, 2015, 09:01:26 AM

My understanding she was complying with her State Constitution.  That the people elected her to follow.

She is a member of the judicial branch of the federal government. I posted the article and the states oath. I don't understand how their is even a question.. Unless, of course, you don't like the COTUS like lefties 
And yes, but that was before the ruling :)
AGAIN, when government got involved with marriage, that made it a federal service