Quote from: TNHarley on October 06, 2015, 08:56:16 AM
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. I wont argue that.
Again, how did they legislate from the bench?

SCOTUS redefined marriage.  Where did they get that right?  They have no such authority.  By redefining marriage they changed the law of the land.  They have no Constitutional power to do that.

We are at a critical juncture in our national governance.  Ultimate power was given to the people by our Founders.  We can choose to cede that power to unelected men (SCOTUS) or we can stand our ground. 

We have already ceded far too much power to the Executive Branch.  We are quickly transitioning into a dictatorial State.  We are feeling the pinch of tyranny.

Are you really willing to hand over ultimate power to SCOTUS?   

Davis is a State employee, not the Federal government.

Quote from: kroz on October 06, 2015, 09:08:26 AM
SCOTUS redefined marriage.  Where did they get that right?  They have no such authority.  By redefining marriage they changed the law of the land.  They have no Constitutional power to do that.

We are at a critical juncture in our national governance.  Ultimate power was given to the people by our Founders.  We can choose to cede that power to unelected men (SCOTUS) or we can stand our ground. 

We have already ceded far too much power to the Executive Branch.  We are quickly transitioning into a dictatorial State.  We are feeling the pinch of tyranny.

Are you really willing to hand over ultimate power to SCOTUS?   

Davis is a State employee, not the Federal government.

She still carries out federal law.
They didn't redefine marriage. I will say it one more time. When the federal government got involved with marriage, that made it a FEDERAL service. The COTUS protects against discrimination from the federal institution.
I agree with the rest.
Ever since Lincoln(or Jackson rather) the COTUS has been pooped on by most. Look at all of our unconstitutional EOs and programs!

Quote from: TNHarley on October 06, 2015, 09:18:07 AM
She still carries out federal law.
They didn't redefine marriage. I will say it one more time. When the federal government got involved with marriage, that made it a FEDERAL service. The COTUS protects against discrimination from the federal institution.
I agree with the rest.
Ever since Lincoln(or Jackson rather) the COTUS has been pooped on by most. Look at all of our unconstitutional EOs and programs!

Of course they redefined marriage.  It has always been a union between one man and one woman.  SCOTUS changed that to be two men or two women.  How would you feel if they made it between a human and an animal?  Are there no limitations you would resist?

We will have to agree to disagree.

As for me, I stand with Ted Cruz and Kim Davis.  It is a matter of the U.S. Constitution and liberty.  It has nothing to do with personal religion.  It is the law that is in question.

Quote from: TNHarley on October 06, 2015, 09:03:01 AM
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!

Seriously? She's pure RINO through and through.

Quote from: Solar on October 06, 2015, 09:30:38 AM
Seriously? She's pure RINO through and through.

Why do you think that?

Quote from: TNHarley on October 06, 2015, 09:18:07 AM
She still carries out federal law.
They didn't redefine marriage. I will say it one more time. When the federal government got involved with marriage, that made it a FEDERAL service. The COTUS protects against discrimination from the federal institution.
I agree with the rest.
Ever since Lincoln(or Jackson rather) the COTUS has been pooped on by most. Look at all of our unconstitutional EOs and programs!

Since when did marriage become Federal law? Think about that...

Quote from: kroz on October 06, 2015, 09:25:39 AM
Of course they redefined marriage.  It has always been a union between one man and one woman.  SCOTUS changed that to be two men or two women.  How would you feel if they made it between a human and an animal?  Are there no limitations you would resist?

We will have to agree to disagree.

As for me, I stand with Ted Cruz and Kim Davis.  It is a matter of the U.S. Constitution and liberty.  It has nothing to do with personal religion.  It is the law that is in question.

So everyone is butthurt because they updated a definition? lol
I wouldn't be ok with that. 2 reasons
1. animals cant consent
2. that would be hazardous to the civilian populace
If you stand with the COTUS, then why are you against it? You can ignore the actual articles if you want, but you are being intellectually dishonest.

Quote from: TNHarley on October 06, 2015, 09:35:25 AM
So everyone is butthurt because they updated a definition? lol
I wouldn't be ok with that. 2 reasons
1. animals cant consent
2. that would be hazardous to the civilian populace
If you stand with the COTUS, then why are you against it? You can ignore the actual articles if you want, but you are being intellectually dishonest.

If you really thought the definition of marriage should be updated then it would fall upon the responsibility of Congress to do that by legislation.  The Court has NO authority in this matter.  At least Congress are elected representatives of the citizens.

Yes, please show me where in the Constitution that you believe SCOTUS is empowered to do this.  I would like to know where I am suppose to be intellectually dishonest!

Quote from: kroz on October 06, 2015, 09:44:26 AM
If you really thought the definition of marriage should be updated then it would fall upon the responsibility of Congress to do that by legislation.  The Court has NO authority in this matter.  At least Congress are elected representatives of the citizens.

Yes, please show me where in the Constitution that you believe SCOTUS is empowered to do this.  I would like to know where I am suppose to be intellectually dishonest!

Congress legislates definitions? lol
I quoted article 6. IDK how much more clear it would have to get..

Quote from: TNHarley on October 06, 2015, 09:47:08 AM
Congress legislates definitions? lol
I quoted article 6. IDK how much more clear it would have to get..

I agree.  Congress should not legislate definitions any more than SCOTUS.  It is what it is!

What the heck is IDK?  Please speak English.

Quote from: kroz on October 06, 2015, 09:58:11 AM
I agree.  Congress should not legislate definitions any more than SCOTUS.  It is what it is!

What the heck is IDK?  Please speak English.

Exactly! and now it involves queers and lesbos lol
IDK = I don't know
That is one of the few anagrams I know lol

Quote from: TNHarley on October 06, 2015, 09:47:08 AM
Congress legislates definitions? lol
I quoted article 6. IDK how much more clear it would have to get..

Excuse me, but Congress had nothing to do with it, it was SCOTUS writing law, which is unconstitutional.

Quote from: Solar on October 06, 2015, 10:05:23 AM
Excuse me, but Congress had nothing to do with it, it was SCOTUS writing law, which is unconstitutional.

Another poster said congress should legislate definitions.. but thanks!
What law did they write?

Quote from: TNHarley on October 06, 2015, 09:47:08 AM
Congress legislates definitions? lol
I quoted article 6. IDK how much more clear it would have to get..

Article 6 gives no such authority to SCOTUS. 

If you see it anywhere, please point it out to me.

Quote from: TNHarley on October 06, 2015, 10:08:47 AM
Another poster said congress should legislate definitions.. but thanks!
What law did they write?

I never said Congress should legislate definitions.  Don't put words in my mouth.

You were arguing the authority of SCOTUS to redefine marriage.  I simply said that if you believed that, it would fall under the authority of Congress, not SCOTUS.

ANY redefinition of marriage is foolish.... regardless of who claims to do it.