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.
POTUS can pardon anyone for anything. The Constitution says so. That is why it is permissible.
Davis is in jail for contempt of court. A federal judge ordered her to resume issuing marriage licenses several weeks ago. She has not, and says she will not. Judges do not take kindly to that.
Spewing more nonsense, I see? The Constitution does say that the POTUS can pardon anyone for offenses under federal law (the power is not as sweeping as you mentioned and does not cover state/local offenses). But Obama isn't pardoning anyone here. Rather, he's exercising prosecutorial discretion to decide not to prosecute. How do we know Obama isn't pardoning anyone? Because pardons are irrevocable, and the administration has stated clearly in court that a future administration would be free to revoke his programs. Absent a pardon, the president cannot afford legal benefits to people he decides not to prosecute contrary to the law.
If Obama pardoned these illegal immigrants, then they'd no longer be "illegal" and the federal courts would not have blocked the affirmative awarding of benefits to them.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 09-04-2015 at 06:04 AM..
There's where my analogy comes into play, ie Obama's making 5 million illegal aliens all of a sudden legal vs this woman clerk.
I think both did something they felt was right for their own needs, not based on what the objective rules/law states. One did it for her religious beliefs. The other did it for the reason, in my opinion, for vote getting. Both justify it in their own minds as "right".
I see both cases, not based on my opinions/feeling which isn't important, as 2 people who went beyond the law. Except only one paid the price of jail time. Based on your comments, you seem to agree with Obama and not this woman based on your own beliefs, not on the rule of law. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I agree a thousand percent. We shouldn't have liberal/conservative/anything in between judges appointed by liberal/conservative/anything in between politicians....we should have judges that are objective. I don't think we have that anymore for the most part. Seems we have a bunch of activist judges with agendas these days.
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.
Oh, excuse me....I thought this thread was about a County Clerk in KY who refused to do the job she was elected and paid to do, instead of one about Obama and the GOP.
Anyway...while it's good that she's out of there, jailing her won't be the answer. She can't be jailed indefinitely for contempt and, once it becomes clear that she won't change her mind, she'll have to be released. What they should do, is fine her. Those will quickly accrue and affect not only her but also her family.
Oh, excuse me....I thought this thread was about a County Clerk in KY who refused to do the job she was elected and paid to do, instead of one about Obama and the GOP.
Anyway...while it's good that she's out of there, jailing her won't be the answer. She can't be jailed indefinitely for contempt and, once it becomes clear that she won't change her mind, she'll have to be released. What they should do, is fine her. Those will quickly accrue and affect not only her but also her family.
Heck, maybe we can figure out a way to confiscate her kids' lunch money, as well.
For the second time now, can we please keep this thread on topic? Obama and immigration have nothing to do with this case. Not even on a comparative basis.
Please ... START ANOTHER THREAD!
Or just visit the Illegal Immigration subforum of the Politics and Other Controversies board. There is surely at least one thread that covers whatever you want to say. Alternatively, visit its close cousin, Stormfront.com.
Can you guys please take your political bickering to Politics where it belongs and keep it the hell out of Current Events, where it doesn't belong? Thank you.
Heck, maybe we can figure out a way to confiscate her kids' lunch money, as well.
Nice group of haters in this thread.
C'mon now.
I'm about religious freedom all day long, but this has nothing to do with that. She could be refusing to do, or allow her staff to do, any number of other things which fall within the purview of her office, and that would be just as wrong.
County Clerk offices also issue hunting and fishing licenses. What if the County Clerk didn't believe in hunting? Hell, forget the County Clerk...what if one of the clerks (theyre the "special deputies"), herself, decided she wasn't going to issue a hunting license because she was a PETA member?
The problem is there isn't really any foreseeable compromise from the other side. This isn't like a union wanting higher pay from an employer that wants to pay peanuts. We are talking Christians who are in elected offices denying gays the right to be married by law because it is against their beliefs. The Christians don't want to see the other side and the gays just want to be equal under the law.
Marriage isn't a right. Insisting that it is, is a falsehood. Let's stop the spin.
I see as much bad behavior coming from the gays as from those who oppose them. Neither side is all right or all wrong. I won't fully support either side because doing so makes me feel like a need a cleansing shower. Surely I'm not the only one who ponders these issues fully, examining the concerns of both parties,while tossing out the purposeful spin?
Yes, the clerk needed to be removed for refusing to do her job. She has been jailed. Is that not enough to appease this angry mob? Their hands are not clean.
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.
The Constitution does say that the POTUS can pardon anyone for offenses under federal law (the power is not as sweeping as you mentioned and does not cover state/local offenses). But Obama isn't pardoning anyone here. Rather, he's exercising prosecutorial discretion to decide not to prosecute. How do we know Obama isn't pardoning anyone? Because pardons are irrevocable, and the administration has stated clearly in court that a future administration would be free to revoke his programs. Absent a pardon, the president cannot afford legal benefits to people he decides not to prosecute contrary to the law.
I thought this thread was about a County Clerk in KY who refused to do the job she was elected and paid to do, instead of one about Obama and the GOP.
