Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
Posted on 12/04/2015 6:56:03 AM PST by Isara
FINALLY, SOMEBODY brings the Constitution into the mix.
FYI, when it comes to federal acts, there is only ONE QUESTION you need to ask yourself: IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL?
Then, if you’re feeling especially frisky or actually talking directly to the feds, you could say, “WELL IS IT, PUNK???”
“I agree with President Lincoln and courts do not make law. That is not what a court does. The court interprets the law, applies the law, but courts don’t make law.”
Cruz is 100% correct. Courts issue opinions. Courts cannot dictate law. The only way a judicial opinion can become law is if a legislature passes legislation that agrees with the judicial opinion.
Cruz is right again.
Cruz has hit the nail on the head in outing one of the problems in America today. The ignorance of out Founding fathers dream and how they went about seeing that it succeeded by the creation of the Constitution.
The schools, surely in a deliberate fashion are not teaching the Constitution nor it’s importance and yes it’s pure prescient genius.
They say Knowledge is power and that is true. By denying knowledge to many/most one can increase his power over them and this is what we see today in so many cases.
The European model of “democracy” frequently seems to be based on the idea of a handful of elites basically making decisions for all the little people. The elites will have rights that the little people don’t, such as either owning weapons themselves or having their own security.
The American model is radically different, enshrining rights to the people in a Constitution, and making it hard for a handful of elites to get enough people stirred up to vote away those rights based on fear or disinformation. People like the Clintons, Zuckerberg and Bloomberg are very similar to the European elites in their outlook on governing.
Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
Thanks for the tagline
If Cruz manages to get elected as president, Congress is likely to be more Republican as a result. One of the first measures of the incoming Congress needs to be wholesale judicial impeachments. Some dozen or more, very senior justices and appeals judges need to be removed for their activism. It is the only way to halt the rest of the court system and its infatuation with the membership’s perceived power to imagine new twists to existing law. The existing judiciary is as dangerous as the current pResident.
Barry Sotero ignored current marriage laws willy nilly. Why couldn't Cruz ignore non-laws similarly?
Good one. We should all adopt that as our tagline... :)
Some of us have been preaching against the evils of the judicial supremacist lie for a very long time. So, it is gratifying to see a couple of the candidates begin to get on board.
However, in the case of Senator Cruz, I would also ask him a couple probing questions in this regard:
1. Why does your proposed constitutional amendment on marriage not require the states to only recognize one man one woman marriage?
2. If the Supreme Court does not make law, will you ignore Roe vs. Wade as well, and use the power of the EXECUTIVE branch to provide equal protection to EVERY person, as the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly and imperatively REQUIRE?
"How many judges do you think resigned in the Third Reich?Three. Great respect, it seems to me, has to be given to people who resign rather than do something they think is morally wrong in order to make a point. However, the rule of law is that, as a public official, in the course of performing your legal duties, you are bound to enforce the laws. This requires considerable introspection,and it's a fair question that officials can and should ask themselves. But certainly, in an offhand comment, it would be difficult for me to say that people are free to ignore a decision by the Supreme Court."
Wow, a Supreme Court justice referring to the Nazis as precedent for people being forced to obey the decrees of the Supreme Court. Pretty stunning.
EXCELLENT!
Cruz is right, but don’t 60 percent of the American people endorse organized gaydom?
Such impeachments would be opposed by R. Priebus and his “Republican Party.”
I skimmed it. Where does he say what’s in the headline?
“Why does your proposed constitutional amendment on marriage not require the states to only recognize one man one woman marriage.”
In my opinion, when he says this:
‘If you care about an issue, how about convincing your brothers and sisters, convincing your neighbors, convincing 320 million Americans, win at the ballot box. That’s called democracy.’
It is because he believes that state recognized ‘gay marriage’ would be legitimate as long as state legislatures or state referendums are the mechanism the state uses to accept ‘gay marriage’ for itself. Which would mean 50 state ‘gay marriage’ recognition inevitably in 20-25 years or so, at least if the trend of the popular votes continue.
Freegards
“Cruz is right, but don’t 60 percent of the American people endorse organized gaydom?”
I don’t know. How many states passed laws or referendums banning gay marriage?
So what does that mean exactly? Cruz is right in that the federal government does not have a say in marriages. So he can't declare same sex marriage illegal and stop issuing marriage licenses. It is, or should be, a state matter. So if the states go and begin banning same-sex marriage again then it's just going to wind up before the Supreme Court again.
Well then he would be dead wrong. “Gay marriage” can never be legitimate, because laws or government policies that violate the laws of nature and nature’s God are illegitimate and therefore null and void, according to the principles this free republic, and western civilization, were founded upon.
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.