Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with your view that checks and balances were created for a reason. I do not agree with your view that Obama has done something outside the realm of his authority.
In general I support the Obama presidency, but I do think he has gone a bit too far on some questions of what was within his authority. HOWEVER, presidents of both parties have often done so. But that's why we have a series of checks and balances.
All 3 branches of the federal government are guilty of attempting to expand their power, including the Supreme Court with fascists such as Antonin Scabies. And, for each branch that does so, there are remedies.
Is there ever an outcry for elected officials to step down when they refuse to enforce other laws? Look at all the "sanctuary cities" that refuse to enforce immigration laws.
Yes, "civil disobedience" but all are not equally punished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
Right. Contempt of Court in this matter is a civil offense. Now, she very well may become a convict if the KY AG brings official misconduct charges against her. But, being that he's running for the Democrat nomination for Gov. of KY, I doubt that he'll get involved.
I don't think he will get involved either. Ours just made a bunch of excuses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
The number of people who have attacked this woman on a personal level in this thread, whether for her appearance or intellect, instead of focusing on her actions or motives, is amazing. The number of people on this thread who have stereotyped and written disparaging remarks about every resident of the state of Kentucky is disheartening. The number of people on this thread who have implied that being forced into a same sex relationship was some sort of punishment is repugnant. The number of people wishing this woman's life, and now even her family, be destroyed is just depressing. The number of people who have implied people's religious beliefs make them somehow less worthy people is troublesome. The fact that those same people are doing all this while commenting about how prejudiced and bigoted this woman in Kentucky is shows that the people writing those words don't really care about respecting others, open mindedness, or tolerance.
Yeah, there is quite a group of haters on this thread. Noting this flaw in the general tone of too many posters is a legitimate point to make. Responding essentially that "if you don't agree with me go away" is not.
"Names and faces" usually denote "immaturity". And, yes, talking trash about her and her lifestyle while denouncing her behavior toward the lifestyle of some others........
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1
I disagree about making comments about her appearance as well or potential cellmate relationships, but - what about the shame she made people feel that came into get a license the first time?
Have you heard them talk about the shame they felt being turned away and belittled by her?
Her actions have consequences as well.
NONE of them wanted jail time for her. That was completely and totally in the judge's discretion.
It's unfortunate that she had a way out by allowing her clerks to do the job and they were more than willing to do it. That was her out.
All of this drama could have been avoided had she (a) followed the law or (b) allowed her clerks do to a job she was unwilling to do.
My sympathy for her is limited.
Again, she was denying EVERYONE a marriage license and some knew this when they showed up and were demanding licenses anyway. If I felt shame, I wouldn't take the camera crew with me to try to get a license when I knew she was not going to issue them and then yell at her.
I supported her up until the point that I learned that she was not allowing other workers who did not have a religious conviction that would prevent them from issuing the licenses from issuing them also. At that point, she was forcing her religion on her employees and that is what crosses the line in my mind.
I guess currently that she doesn't want her name on the marriage licenses being issued. My husband, who I just had a "discussion" with, thinks that they should remove her name. I believe that the county clerk's name has to be on the certificate, that God would not see her as being a participant in the issuing with just her name on there and if she wants it off, it is time for her to resign. She is now taking it too far.
Her personal life has no bearing on what is happening.
Last edited by AnywhereElse; 09-04-2015 at 11:50 AM..
Do the US Marshals or any other Feds swoop in to arrest them? Or do they remain complicit?
The US Marshals acted on the instructions of a federal judge faced with an obdurate clerk who refused to follow a court order.
You and others seem to be outraged about many things. If you want officials in sanctuary cities, or President Obama to be taken into custody by US Marshalls, you must follow the process to do so. I heartily encourage you to do so. Take it to the courts.
You're from here originally, aren't you, UK? If I have that right, let me ask you - as a native, what do you think needs to happen to change this pattern in Kentucky? Because to me (only here for 4 years now), it looks to me as though the roots of this systemic dysfunction run so deep, there's no way to ever yank them out.
And to me, that's a terrible, unforgivable tragedy. Right now we live right on the edge of Eastern Kentucky, the poorest, most uneducated region of the country, with a higher percentage of heroin addicts than the Lower East Side of Manhattan. We see good, decent young people every day in this town who are desperate to find some way to raise their children up to be something better and maybe get out of this cycle, and there is just no light at the end of the tunnel for these people. When 18, 19, 20-year old kids have already given up hope that their babies will ever have better lives, there's a problem. This isn't Rwanda, for god's sake - it's the United States.
What has to change to bring Kentucky and parts of some of the neighboring states into the 21st Century? In a state where Kim Davis is a folk hero, and her actions are not only acceptable but normal, where do you start? I just don't see it. Where do you begin? How many more generations of Kentucky kids are the political powerbrokers in this state willing to throw to the wolves to keep the gravy train running?
I think that most states have some kind of reputation. Some negative, some positive. I think what you have to do is start shining the light on those reputations.
When I lived in Virginia, all the jokes were about West Virginia -- intermarriage, bestiality, uneducated, barefoot. I always thought it was quite unfair. Until I spent a week in West Virginia. It's not that I saw the kinds of things that were always joked about, but damn, pull yourselves out of poverty, get educated, etc. I spent a week in Tennessee, and while walking down the street -- alone -- in one of the smaller cities, and a huge black pickup truck with 2 huge Confederate flags flying drove past me on the main street and the 2 heavily bearded hicks looked at me and screamed "******". My first thought was -- what about me gave them that impression? That I was wearing Dockers pants instead of bib overalls? That I was carrying a camera? My second thought was, well this is Tennessee.
So we just need to keep shining the light. A very good example of shining such a light is that old Spencer Tracy film "Inherit The Wind".
I can respect your analogy (its the same one Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are making), but disagree with how you are applying it. Unlike this clerk's situation, the Obama administration is not disobeying an order blocking its implementation of the program (there was some talk earlier that the order wasn't being properly carried out, and administration officials were threatened with contempt if they didn't comply, but that's sorted out now). Its one thing to make a legal argument as to why the law does not or should not apply in a certain manner. But when the law is clear on an issue (via court order, etc.) and the law is in effect, one may not simply disregard the law. The Obama administration is complying with the court order in this matter. Davis is not complying with the court order in her situation. That's the difference.
Just like this woman disregarded the law and should pay the price for doing so, the law of the Consitution is clear in regards to what Obama did in making 5 million illegals "legal" and he payed no price for doing so. See Prosecutorial discretion and “plenary power” in regards to immigration. It applies only to decisions to not prosecute/clear individuals or small groups of people, not 5 million people. If you think 5 million people are small, I guess lawyers could have a field day if they want......Also, Article II, Section 3 also reads very clearly. He cannot ignore or nullify laws he does not like, just like this woman did......the Constitution gives him no power not to execute laws such as pardoning 5 million people that are illegal aliens. He's not a dictator and has no power to do so. I think politics got in the way of prosecuting this "mass pardon". I think the Republicans had too much to lose with the Hispanic voting block if they brought him to the courts on this issue.
We agree to disagree.
The laws is clear in both cases. The analogy is both broke the law and there's no way around that if one reads the Constitution. Besides how the law reads/Constitution, I don't think it's any surprise to anyone that the law is dished out in different ways in our country. I think it's obvious "justice" is often served in not such a fair ways when power, money, and politics is involved. I trust you agree with this that we don't live in a textbook in this world? And to further add the element that I think we live in a world with many courts that have activist judges? This lady is low fruit on the tree/doesn't have $ nor power and is why she's going to jail while others will walk. Again, personally, I'm not defending her. Anyone should do their job/follow the law and pay the price if they fail to do so. Now if only the law could be applied more fairly/evenly......
The Supreme Court is not allowed to violate the constitution. If states are willing to risk a conflict then they are within their right to stand up and say no. At this point no State has mustered the guts to do it, but if it ever happens the whole progressive/liberal plan for taking over the nation will go down the drain. Kim Davis has used her minor amount of authority to throw a monkey wrench into this whole gay marriage thing in one county, and for this I see her as a hero.
You really think that the federal government could overcome a united South defying the order??? I would like to know how?? No one is obligated to respect government authorities who have violated our national contract AKA the constitution. We have the right and duty to stand up for our rights. The federal government is losing "The consent of the governed" in large parts of America.
You really don't understand federal law and the Constitution at all.
Just like this woman disregarded the law and should pay the price for doing so, the law of the Consitution is clear in regards to what Obama did in making 5 million illegals "legal" and he payed no price for doing so. See Prosecutorial discretion and “plenary power” in regards to immigration. It applies only to decisions to not prosecute/clear individuals or small groups of people, not 5 million people. If you think 5 million people are small, I guess lawyers could have a field day if they want......Also, Article II, Section 3 also reads very clearly. He cannot ignore or nullify laws he does not like, just like this woman did......the Constitution gives him no power not to execute laws such as pardoning 5 million people that are illegal aliens. He's not a dictator and has no power to do so. I think politics got in the way of prosecuting this "mass pardon". I think the Republicans had too much to lose with the Hispanic voting block if they brought him to the courts on this issue.
We agree to disagree.
The laws is clear in both cases. The analogy is both broke the law and there's no way around that if one reads the Constitution. Besides how the law reads/Constitution, I don't think it's any surprise to anyone that the law is dished out in different ways in our country. I think it's obvious "justice" is often served in not such a fair ways when power, money, and politics is involved. I trust you agree with this that we don't live in a textbook in this world? And to further add the element that I think we live in a world with many courts that have activist judges? This lady is low fruit on the tree/doesn't have $ nor power and is why she's going to jail while others will walk. Again, personally, I'm not defending her. Anyone should do their job/follow the law and pay the price if they fail to do so. Now if only the law could be applied more fairly/evenly......
I know I said that I wouldn't respond anymore, but you keep repeating "plenary powers" as if you think that ends the argument. It doesn't. The legislative branch has the authority to make the laws. The executive branch has the power to enforce the laws. It's a matter of opinion on whether Obama's actions exceed his executive authority, not a matter of fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
