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.
Oh, I get the "she deserves to be in jail" sentiment, and I can certainly see where fair minded people may think that is just.
I'd be afraid to live in a nation where contempt of court did not mean jail. It's that simple. I treasure the fact we are a nation of laws, and truthfully, she belonged in jail 24 hours after failing to comply. She should remain in jail IMO , until the next election cycle in her county has passed. She has proven herself not trustworthy at following the laws of our nation regarding her former duties. That cannot be undone. .
A measure needs to be sent every time someone defies a court of law in a nation of laws. Religious beliefs should never become a shield for not obeying the law.
Uhm.... You know someone made up that account, right? Like the one that lots of people followed that was supposedly tweeted by the snake that escaped from the zoo or the guy in England's dog?
Quote:
One enterprising Twitter user has made an account that purports to give us a first-hand account of events from the woman who sits next to Kim Davis.
This is enough of a circus without taking attempts at parody or sarcasm as gossip truth.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
1. Vigorous apprehension and prosecution of illegal employers.
2. Enough troops on our border to secure it. Bring our men home from Afghanistan, where they are basically acting as security guards for opium growers, and put them to work defending our country from an active, ongoing invasion.
Uhm.... You know someone made up that account, right? Like the one that lots of people followed that was supposedly tweeted by the snake that escaped from the zoo or the guy in England's dog?
This is enough of a circus without taking attempts at parody or sarcasm as gossip truth.
Noted, and I didn't realize. Given the circumstances, I wouldn't be surprised if it were in fact, truth.
Again, you duck/dodge the issue once again. Executive actions can't change law/the Constitution. That's the job of congress. We do not live in a dictatorship.
"President Obama announced Thursday night that he is granting temporary legal status and work permits to nearly 5 million illegal immigrants, igniting a constitutional furor that amounted to a declaration of war against the incoming Republican majorities in Congress."
How is it that a president, via an executive order, can change something that is against the law in the Constitution and magically make it legal via an executive order? And not be held accountable?
Why isn't such a person in jail for going against the Constitution they swore to uphold, just like this clerk found herself in jail after going against a law?
Simple question. And your simple answer is.......
I'll even answer it for you and I think most rational/logical/honest people would say....because we have a double standard in this country. The law can be skirted in many cases and everyone is "outraged" for a while but in the end, they get away with it. Zero consequences(ie no jail time). And the herd largely elects the same people in office and they do the same thing over and over without consequences.
Never said it changed the Constitution, which doesn't address the legal status of immigrants, only who is a citizen. As you said, Obama granted temporary legal status, thus they are currently no long illegal. He did not grant them automatic citizenship.
Not all liberals support SSM marriage, actually I know a lot that don't especially Baptists from the South in the AA community that always vote for DEM. I am a mostly GOP voter but I support SSM. Issue has nothing to do with politics.
Baptists from the South are generally not liberal people.
I'd be afraid to live in a nation where contempt of court did not mean jail. It's that simple. I treasure the fact we are a nation of laws, and truthfully, she belonged in jail 24 hours after failing to comply. She should remain in jail IMO , until the next election cycle in her county has passed. She has proven herself not trustworthy at following the laws of our nation regarding her former duties. That cannot be undone. .
A measure needs to be sent every time someone defies a court of law in a nation of laws. Religious beliefs should never become a shield for not obeying the law.
That isn't a valid excuse for the snarky comments made about how her taking up a same sex relationship with a cellmate would serve her right, which I notice you are still failing to address.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Oh, I get the "she deserves to be in jail" sentiment, and I can certainly see where fair minded people may think that is just. That isn't the issue. It is the snarky comments basically saying she is going to be stuck in a same sex relationship, and the implication that that kind of relationship is a punishment, was what I was referring to as offensive. How can someone say out of one side of their mouth that she is an awful bigot for disapproving of SSM but say out of the other side of their mouth "but hey, maybe she'll get hers, and be forced into a same sex relationship. That'll teach her!" and think that is okay?
Never said it changed the Constitution, which doesn't address the legal status of immigrants, only who is a citizen. As you said, Obama granted temporary legal status, thus they are currently no long illegal. He did not grant them automatic citizenship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
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.
That's bogus/not true in the case it was used for, ie shielding 5 million or so people who broke the law.
There are big limitations as there should be. He used the argument of prosecutorial discretion. The Surpreme Court in the past has said such doctrine can't be used for non-enforcement of a law. It applies only to decisions not to prosecute small groups of people or individuals for reasons of war, political unrest, etc.
In addition, back in the 19th century, the Supreme Court declared Congress had “plenary power” which means "full and complete" power to regulate immigration.
Checks and balances were created for a reason.
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.
