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.
Every president has pulled the option to not enforce something. Rand Paul has promised he will not enforce certain laws. Presidents have that authority.
However, there has never been one who refused to take action after the Supreme Court reviewed a case and specifically ordered the president to do.
You mean other than Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln?
That's part of it, but after GWB and especially Obama I get the sense people are beyond fed up with everything from DC. Like the quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson - "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
America is one pi$$ed off country right now.
the ruling has nothing to do with "DC" as you say. It was the Oklahoma Supreme Court that handed down the ruling. The Governor is using a legal parlor trick to pander to the Oklahoma conservative base. The ruling is on appeal by the Oklahoma Attorney General. Until the Appeal is ruled on, the state has the option to either leave it up while the appeal is heard or take it down until the appeal is ruled on.
She chose to leave it up and make a lot of noise about it to her constituents to garner votes.
She could have chosen to just leave it up and say nothing but she preferred to grandstand and get right wing foamers all worked up about it.
That's part of it, but after GWB and especially Obama I get the sense people are beyond fed up with everything from DC. Like the quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson - "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
America is one pi$$ed off country right now.
Not pissed off enough or the likes of Bush Clinton 2.0 wouldn't be in the works.
I would like to know how the Christian conservatives square up with the fact that the very first Commandment coming out of the gate is
"I am the Lord, Thy God. Thou Shalt have no other Gods before me."
Being on Public land it effectively makes Christianity the State Religion and simultaneously declares all other religions wrong.
This effectively states that anyone who enters these public grounds and is not a Christian is wrong, is excluded and does not belong there. They are immediately reminded they they are breaking Gods law and the law of the land by their very existence. The Tablets Being on public land immediately conveys the message that those who aren't Christian are breaking the laws of the state along with God's law.
It is not a suggestion or a vague idea. It is a commandment.
Is this really the message the state of Oklahoma want to send to it's citizens?
How does one square this with the first Amendment ?
The Governor of Oklahoma "pulls a Democrat"
Is this the "sandbox defense"? "Johhny is throwing sand in our faces and we yelled real loud about it. So now were going to throw sand in your face because Johnny did it".
She will not be taking down a statue of the 10 Commandments despite the Supreme Court of OK requiring it. See what happens, liberals, when laws aren't enforced the same way Obama refuses to enforce immigration laws. It's pretty obnoxious when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it? We're just going to swirl around the drain one upping each other until there's no freedom left.
Post in this thread before a liberal says, "but this is different."
They are appealing it. It's to be expected that they won't pull it down in the process of appeal.
Not pissed off enough or the likes of Bush Clinton 2.0 wouldn't be in the works.
I can't believe that nonsense either. But IMO that's why Trump, of all people, is doing so well in the polls. While some of it is just name-recognition, he's shrewdly tapping into a well-spring of anger against big government. Once the debates start I suspect people and the polls will become more focused.
Maybe there are some examples in the history where SC ordered a president to do something, and they refused. What did the SC order Lincoln to do?
1830 Wooster v Georgia. SCOTUS under Chief Justice John Marshall prohibited the removal of Cherokee
Indians from Georgia. Andy said "he [meaning Marshall] made the judgment --now let him enforce it".
1861 Abraham Lincoln seized certain state leaders in Maryland without charge [they were well known to be antagonistic to Lincoln and his policies and were thought to favor secession for Maryland]. When the Chief Justice Taney ordered their release under writ of Habeas Corpus, Lincoln ignored the writ.
In fact these individuals stayed incarcerated until after Lincoln was killed. Please note that while the Constitution allows for suspension of Habeas Corpus in time of national emergency or insurrection, this was (a) not such a general suspension; this was directed to the President's political enemies, and(b) at the time this occurred, Maryland was a loyal state surrounded by loyal states; Virginia and North Carolina only seceded after Lincoln called for all loyal states to supply troops to quell the rebellion farther South.
Not pissed off enough or the likes of Bush Clinton 2.0 wouldn't be in the works.
The truth is that very few people are actually angry about anything, and its nothing new. Most people just live their lives happily and adjust to new situations.
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.
