Posted on 09/04/2015 3:54:41 AM PDT by cotton1706
“Kentucky law:
402.005 Definition of marriage”
It doesn’t matter, everyone here is hopefully aware of how the US government works, federal law trumps any and all state and local laws. I’m glad she got tossed in jail. She swore an oath to uphold the law. She should have resigned.
But now that we are actually enforcing laws, why stop here. The entire Obama administration and the executive branch of the government of San Fransisco should be cooling their expensive heels in the slammer for starters.
What if a law violates the constitution? You might want to think about that.
where in the Constitution does it mention gay sodomite “marriage”...
THIS AUTHORITY WAS NOT GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION...
IT’S a STATE MATTER,
but again
THE CONSTITUTION IS BEING TRAMPLED BY THOSE SEEKING TO DESTROY AMERICA...
“federal law trumps any and all state and local laws. I’m glad she got tossed in jail.”
Incorrect on multiple levels.
For one, can you point to the Federal Law she is supposed to uphold? You mean the one made by JUDGE Kennedy?
She is legally within her rights. Her job is to execute state law, which is voided apparently, but, until a “valid” one is passed by the legislature, why should she be forced to go against the past KY definition of marriage?
so your position is that any elected Christian public servant should resign (==surrender), betraying her constituents, disenfranchising those who elected her as a professing Christian, and violate said consitutents’ unalienalble rights to representation by “consent of the governed” as guareenteed under the DI?
not to mention the unlawful violation of her right to obey Christ under the 1st Amendment?
wrong.
the right to obey Christ is enshined under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.
Religious tests are unconstitutional of course.
bump
“”It doesn’t matter, everyone here is hopefully aware of how the US government works, federal law trumps any and all state and local laws.””
We are suppose to have separation of powers between the states and the federal government. The federal government has no business getting into the states business.
And in Kentucky, there is no law requiring her to marry gay couples. Which is why thugjudge tried to browbeat her into submission.
Any Founding Father would have slapped the lying teeth out of lying Uniparty "judge" Bunning's face.
“separation of powers between the states and the federal government.”
1. That is not the definition of “separation of powers”. That refers to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. (Of course, the executive branch has failed spectacularly in their mission to equally enforce the laws recently.).
2. If you don’t like the laws, get them changed. Vote for people who will put constitution-following judges in judicial positions. There are a lot of laws I don’t like and believe to be unconstitutional. If I break them, I might be arrested.
“so your position is that any elected Christian public servant should resign (==surrender), betraying her constituents, disenfranchising those who elected her as a professing Christian, and violate said consitutents’ unalienalble rights to representation by “consent of the governed” as guareenteed under the DI?
This particular position of this person is not of interpretation of the laws, their job is to follow them. Your argument, like most on this thread, is faulty.
What “unalienable right” are we talking about here? Please explain in detail. It certainly isn’t about representation, because she is not in a governmental position to create law or interpret it. It is to follow and enforce it.
the specific unalienable right the founders discerned under the guidance of God was that all men are born equal. no man (humankind) has any innate superiority to any other. this is a basic doctrine of Christianity.
thus political power over each man’s life and person resides only in that man in the state of Nature as God created it.
thus God mandates that no man or group of men may lawfully exercise any political power over a godly man unless that man or his agent give his “consent” and the conditions underwhich he agrees to relinquish specific powers to another man or a corporate entity such as a gov’t.
suffice it to say, any individual has both the moral duty under pain of hell (the Oaths we take are binding on us and our children) to uphold his side of the bargain. and we also possess the right and duty to withdraw that consent if the other party abrogates the agreement as well.
this “consent of the governed” is the founding law and the most basic right deriving from our Creator’s Law that all of us possess in the united States of America, as agreed upon by the Framers, the representatives of various states, in the Declaration of Independence.
So, what Kentucky law did this woman break?
Or, even more alternately, which Kentucky law was she supposed to uphold, that she didn't?
The punk Uniparty federal judge was trying to browbeat her into violating her oath of office.
I haven't checked today, but if her office is issuing marriage licenses to gays with her name on them, they're committing fraud, and various unlawful conspiracies.
Frankly, if if was Kentucky law that you could marry ONLY your first cousins, I would expect the county clerks to enforce it UNTIL the state or FEDERAL government declared it unconstitutional. In the meantime, I would look for another place to get married.
At this point, any further discussion with me on this is pointless, and I won’t discuss it further, for this reason:
http://www.polyvore.com/quote_pictures_never_argue_with/thing?id=59979612
You won’t discuss it because you have no argument. :)
No, I won’t discuss it because you have no VALID arguement.
Oh, I see - you’re a FR Last Worder. LOL! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
