Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 171

Thread: State attorney general won’t defend gay marriage ban

  1. #161
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,457

    Re: State attorney general won’t defend gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    You are not really trying to say that the Constitution gives the President that power, are you? You referenced Article 2 section 1, but there is nothing there. And just because this president takes action that he does not actually have the power to do, doesn't make it okay. That's one of the biggest problems today, government doing things that it shouldn't be doing.

    Yes I am. Article II section I references the Presidental Oath of Office which includes his duty to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". His oath, in conjunction with the Supremacy Clause, require the President to not enforce laws he feels are unconstitutional. There is a large history and legal body of evidence, including several Supreme Court decisions, supporting this position.

    The idea goes back to the founding of the country. While Washington never disregarded any laws Congress passed - remember there was no legislative history when he became President - his writings and the fact that he refused a number of Congressional requests strongly imply that he would have if he needed to.

    Jefferson did refuse to enforce the terms of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which Adams passed, when he became President. He flatly stated that he deemed them unconstitutional and that he had a duty to not enforce them.


    Ask yourself this question. If Congress, over a Presidental veto, enacted a law that shuttered every newspaper in the country - an obvious violation of the 1st amendment - would the President be required to enforce it until it was ruled unconstitutional?
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  2. #162
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: State attorney general won’t defend gay marriage ban

    85% Think Christian Photographer Has Right to Turn Down Same-Sex Wedding Job - Rasmussen Reports™

    Americans draw a fine line when it comes to respecting each other’s rights. If a Christian wedding photographer who has deeply held religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage is asked to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, 85% of American Adults believe he has the right to say no. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only eight percent (8%) disagree even as the courts are hearing such challenges.

  3. #163
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: State attorney general won’t defend gay marriage ban

    I don't see on what grounds a court would have the right to force a photographer to accept a contract to document the wedding of two men or two women. On the other hand, if the photographer accepted the contract and then found out it was two men or two women, that's a different story.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  4. #164
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,002

    Re: State attorney general won’t defend gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    He's said it too often now for me to misunderstand every single time.

    Besides, compartmentalized intelligence is nothing new. I frequently see posters on this forum whom I consider to be highly intelligent go full retard in a heartbeat once the topic touches on something personal to them. In one breath they'll be telling you things about psychology, history and economics you never knew and with an insight that would take you years of personal experience to reach 1/5th of, and in the next breath they'll say, "And by the way, the earth is really 4000 years old."

    For probably the most breathtaking example of compartmentalized intelligence, see "Eliot Spitzer."
    I'd just like to say that I came back to this post and feel that the "full retard" comment was uncalled for and was more fitting for the basement. I take it back, and would like to replace it with the sentiment that when a topic become personal or touches on faith, even a very intelligent person can cease to approach it with the same level of objective thinking that they will in other topics.

    That's all.

  5. #165
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,787

    Re: State attorney general won’t defend gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    I don't see on what grounds a court would have the right to force a photographer to accept a contract to document the wedding of two men or two women. On the other hand, if the photographer accepted the contract and then found out it was two men or two women, that's a different story.
    it doesnt its just more nonsensical ranting that has been defeated as illogical and meaningless countless times. He thinks people fall for it.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #166
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: State attorney general won’t defend gay marriage ban

    Why would a gay couple want to hire a photographer. Like that in the first place?

  7. #167
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: State attorney general won’t defend gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Why would a gay couple want to hire a photographer. Like that in the first place?
    If you didn't know they were like that, and you signed a contract and put down a non-refundable deposit, you'd want your money's worth.

    Also, it may be that they couldn't get anyone else due to scheduling problems, who knows?
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  8. #168
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: State attorney general won’t defend gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    Yes I am. Article II section I references the Presidental Oath of Office which includes his duty to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". His oath, in conjunction with the Supremacy Clause, require the President to not enforce laws he feels are unconstitutional. There is a large history and legal body of evidence, including several Supreme Court decisions, supporting this position.


    Ask yourself this question. If Congress, over a Presidental veto, enacted a law that shuttered every newspaper in the country - an obvious violation of the 1st amendment - would the President be required to enforce it until it was ruled unconstitutional?
    No, it really does not say that the president can decide which laws are constitutional and which are not. In fact, it does not give that power to anyone, the Supreme Court just took it upon themselves to do it.
    Yes, the president would have to enforce a law over his veto, that is a simple one. Congress has the power, explicitly, in the Constitution to override a presidential veto, without question.

    There is a problem in this country with those that find ways of ignoring the Constitution while claiming to support it. I heard someone on the radio this week who claimed that the "general welfare" clause gave the government the power to do anything it deemed to be for the general welfare of the country. This kind of dictatorial thinking is dangerous. That is how governments turn in to the very tyranny that we broke away from.

  9. #169
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,457

    Re: State attorney general won’t defend gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    No, it really does not say that the president can decide which laws are constitutional and which are not. In fact, it does not give that power to anyone, the Supreme Court just took it upon themselves to do it.
    Yes, the president would have to enforce a law over his veto, that is a simple one. Congress has the power, explicitly, in the Constitution to override a presidential veto, without question.

    There is a problem in this country with those that find ways of ignoring the Constitution while claiming to support it. I heard someone on the radio this week who claimed that the "general welfare" clause gave the government the power to do anything it deemed to be for the general welfare of the country. This kind of dictatorial thinking is dangerous. That is how governments turn in to the very tyranny that we broke away from.
    What mechanism then does the Constitution provide for the removal of an unconstitutional law? There has to be one. A Constitution that doesn't provide for means to insure that it can be enforced is useless.

    I'd also suggest that your contention that an unconstitutional law must be enforced unchallenged by a President is far more dangerous than giving the President the ability to ignore laws he finds unconstitutional. If the electorate disagrees with the President's decision they can remove him in at most four years.

    In either case as a practical matter, as I said, there are some 213 years worth of history of Presidents refusing to enforce laws they deem unconstitutional and legal decisions agreeing. It's a part of the way our government works, like it or not. I believe the President Constitutionally has that power and I believe any reasonable reading of the Presidential Oath of Office and the Supremacy Clause inevitably lead to that conclusion. How can one seriously argue that enforcing a law suppressing freedom of the press or demanding the internment of a class of American citizens is "defending the Constitution"? More making a mockery of it.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  10. #170
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: State attorney general won’t defend gay marriage ban

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    What mechanism then does the Constitution provide for the removal of an unconstitutional law? There has to be one. A Constitution that doesn't provide for means to insure that it can be enforced is useless.
    They put the President in to act as a check against a runaway Congress, they put the veto over-ride in place to act as a check against an overbearing President, they established the sequence of supremacy of the nation's laws, and then they put the Court in to interpret the laws according to that hierarchy. They probably figured all that was enough, given the overt simplicity of the Constitution itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius46 View Post
    I'd also suggest that your contention that an unconstitutional law must be enforced unchallenged by a President is far more dangerous than giving the President the ability to ignore laws he finds unconstitutional. If the electorate disagrees with the President's decision they can remove him in at most four years.

    In either case as a practical matter, as I said, there are some 213 years worth of history of Presidents refusing to enforce laws they deem unconstitutional and legal decisions agreeing. It's a part of the way our government works, like it or not. I believe the President Constitutionally has that power and I believe any reasonable reading of the Presidential Oath of Office and the Supremacy Clause inevitably lead to that conclusion. How can one seriously argue that enforcing a law suppressing freedom of the press or demanding the internment of a class of American citizens is "defending the Constitution"? More making a mockery of it.
    Yep.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 715161718 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •