Paul, Huckabee, Cruz, Jindal and Walker Support Kentucky County Clerk

[cigaretteman]

Not that any of them have any real shot at the nomination anyway. Surprising Santorum has spoken up:

Republican presidential candidates rallied around the Kentucky clerk taken into custody Thursday for not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk, declined to heed a U.S. Supreme Court order legalizing same-sex marriage, so on Thursday a federal judge held her in contempt and remanded her to custody.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said the move would set a bad precedent.

"I think it's absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberty," he said on CNN shortly after the decision. "I think it's a real mistake and even those on the other side of the issue, I think it sets their movement back."

Paul said forcing conservative Christians to issue marriage licensees to same-sex couples is going to backfire.

"What's going to happen is it's going to harden people's resolve on this issue," he said. "I think what's going to happen is that state and localities are just going to opt out of the marriage business."

Paul suggested compromises that would allow Davis to refrain from putting her signature on the license. The process could involve a notary public who does not object to the law.

"This is a really the problem when we decide to get involved in a situation that has always through the history of our country been a local issue," he said.

Other presidential candidates weighed in on the news. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said it is now a crime to be a Christian in America.

"Having Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubt of the criminalization of Christianity in our country. We must defend religious liberty and never surrender to judicial tyranny," he said. "I am proud of Kim for standing strong for her beliefs. Who will be next? Pastors? Photographers? Caterers? Florists? This is a reckless, appalling, out-of-control decision that undermines the Constitution of the United States and our fundamental right to religious liberty."

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said Kim Davis is the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith.

"Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in pubic office, they must disregard their religious faith -- or be sent to jail," he said in statement. "Kim Davis should not be in jail. We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so."

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal also defended what he called Davis' religious freedom.

"I don't think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions. I think it's wrong to force Christian individuals or business owners," he told the Huffington Post. "We are seeing government today discriminate against whether it's clerks, florists, musicians or others. I think that's wrong. I think you should be able to keep your job and follow your conscience."

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker discussed Davis's decision Thursday on the Laura Ingraham Show.

"In the end, this is the balance that you gotta have to have in America, between the laws that are out there, but ultimately ensuring that the Constitution is upheld," he said. "I read that the Constitution is very clear that people have freedom of religion -- you have the freedom to practice religious beliefs out there, it's a fundamental right."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/2016-kim-davis-presidential-candidates-responses/index.html

 

[SIXERS24]

I dont support that Democratic Clerk

Have someone else do it.

You cant break the law because you dont like it.

She could just resign.

 

[Huey Grey]

It's funny that when one Dem tries to help more people get healthcare, the GOP condemns. But when another Dem used hate to block equal rights, the GOP applauds.

 

[naturalmwa]

Look how bipartisan they can be.

 

[Joes Place]

"I don't think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions. I think it's wrong to force Christian individuals or business owners," he told the Huffington Post. "We are seeing government today discriminate against whether it's clerks, florists, musicians or others. I think that's wrong. I think you should be able to keep your job and follow your conscience."

Wonder how this quote and position will work out when we have a division within our military decide it doesn't want to go fight a war in Syria or Iraq or Somalia based on 'religious conscience'. Of course, we'd still have to pay those soldiers and not discriminate against them....

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Elsewhere in the news Purdue and McDonald's filed in bankruptcy court yesterday after Christian food inspectors who are devout followers of St Francis of Assisi declared their entire meat and poultry range of products "too dependent on cruelty to animals to pass inspection."

When the FDA was asked why they didn't just fire those food inspectors or reassign them to crop inspections the answer was that they were just exercising freedom of religion and it would be wrong to stop them.

 

[hawkifann]

Surprised to see Rand Paul on this side of the issue. I know the Libertarian in him would have him against fed intervention, but on a more granular level, the Libertarian philosophy is generally that people should be free, except where one person's freedom steps on another's. If this county had 5 people who could document marriage licenses and this woman didn't want to do it, then fine, she can sit out the gay marriages and do others while someone else processes the licenses for same-sex couples. Unfortunately, in this case, the woman's religious objections step all over the rights of same-sex couples in that county to get married because she's a one-woman roadblock.

I'm all for individual religious freedom. If she were a pastor/minister/rabbi/mullah and didn't want to officiate a same-sex marriage, I think that's perfectly fine and I'd fight for her right to that freedom....but she isn't an individual acting in an individual capacity. She's not even a business owner. She's an agent of the state where the law of the land says that this is legal. If she objects to being the one who does the paperwork, then she needs to set up an alternative path where the law can be followed in her county or GTFO of her position.

 

[thewop]

It's funny that when one Dem tries to help more people get healthcare, the GOP condemns. But when another Dem used hate to block equal rights, the GOP applauds.

Hate? Really?

Stubbornness? sure. Not performing required job? sure. Hate? no. Disagreement with gay marriage, and not being a willing participant in gay marriage is not equal to hate.

Hating the clerk for her conviction? Yes, that's hate. So if I'm wrong, you're stooping to her level, and if I'm right, you are displaying hate and she is not.

Should she be fired? yes, or reassigned. Should she quit? probably, but we all know that's not exactly a realistic option for many. In her case I suspect she'd have no trouble finding a job from someone who agrees with her.

 

[TJ8869]

"Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in pubic office, they must disregard their religious faith -- or be sent to jail," he said in statement.

I'd rather go to jail than serve in Kim Davis's pubic office.

 

[thewop]

Elsewhere in the news Purdue and McDonald's filed in bankruptcy court yesterday after Christian food inspectors who are devout followers of St Francis of Assisi declared their entire meat and poultry range of products "too dependent on cruelty to animals to pass inspection."

When the FDA was asked why they didn't just fire those food inspectors or reassign them to crop inspections the answer was that they were just exercising freedom of religion and it would be wrong to stop them.

So the FDA is using Franciscan Monks as food inspectors? In any case this is an interesting story. So is the lesson that it's ok to discriminate against corporations but not people who wish to marry on the basis of religion? It seems the inspectors were refusing to do their jobs, unless "Too dependent on cruelty to animals" is an actual reason one could fail an FDA inspection, in which case their religion may actually have nothing to do with it, and their findings may be totally legit.

 

[Huey Grey]

Maybe the GOP doesn't hate Democrats, afterall. We just need to bump up o

Hate? Really?

Stubbornness? sure. Not performing required job? sure. Hate? no. Disagreement with gay marriage, and not being a willing participant in gay marriage is not equal to hate.

Hating the clerk for her conviction? Yes, that's hate. So if I'm wrong, you're stooping to her level, and if I'm right, you are displaying hate and she is not.

Should she be fired? yes, or reassigned. Should she quit? probably, but we all know that's not exactly a realistic option for many. In her case I suspect she'd have no trouble finding a job from someone who agrees with her.

You're lying to yourself if you think blocking gay rights isn't based on hate.

 

[TJ8869]

Surprised to see Rand Paul on this side of the issue. I know the Libertarian in him would have him against fed intervention, but on a more granular level, the Libertarian philosophy is generally that people should be free, except where one person's freedom steps on another's.

While some of the other candidates seem to be stuck on stupid here, Paul's position seems to be a bit more nuanced. I don't think he supports Davis so much as he's saying that putting her in prison wasn't the best way to handle the situation. I think his point is that officials should have figured out a way to accommodate those who want marriage licenses while still respecting Davis's religious beliefs.

 

[thewop]

Maybe the GOP doesn't hate Democrats, afterall. We just need to bump up o

You're lying to yourself if you think blocking gay rights isn't based on hate.

no I'm not

 

[theVoicefromtheTomb]

Wonder how this quote and position will work out when we have a division within our military decide it doesn't want to go fight a war in Syria or Iraq or Somalia based on 'religious conscience'. Of course, we'd still have to pay those soldiers and not discriminate against them....

Like this guy

In 1967, three years after winning the heavyweight title, Ali refused to be conscripted into the U.S. military, citing his religious beliefs and opposition to American involvement in the Vietnam War. He was eventually arrested and found guilty on draft evasion charges and stripped of his boxing title. He did not fight again for nearly four years—losing a time of peak performance in an athlete's career. Ali's appeal worked its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where in 1971 his conviction was overturned. Ali's actions as a conscientious objector to the war made him an icon for the larger counterculture generation.[7][8]

 

[Huey Grey]

no I'm not

Yeah, you are. All bigotry is based on hate.

 

[Joes Place]

Unfortunately, in this case, the woman's religious objections step all over the rights of same-sex couples in that county to get married because she's a one-woman roadblock.

I'm all for individual religious freedom. If she were a pastor/minister/rabbi/mullah and didn't want to officiate a same-sex marriage, I think that's perfectly fine and I'd fight for her right to that freedom....but she isn't an individual acting in an individual capacity. She's not even a business owner. She's an agent of the state where the law of the land says that this is legal. If she objects to being the one who does the paperwork, then she needs to set up an alternative path where the law can be followed in her county or GTFO of her position.

Allegedly, she also threatened to fire any of the deputy clerks in her office who could have or would have signed the certificates. Thus, her assertion that she 'didn't want her name' on the certificates was BS.

I pointed out she was going to become the 'darling of the Christian conservatives' in another thread a couple days ago, and that prediction was spot on. Unfortunately, those rushing to her support have not collected all of the details of what's been going on, and are going to end up looking rather foolish.

 

[Joes Place]

Like this guy

In 1967, three years after winning the heavyweight title, Ali refused to be conscripted into the U.S. military, citing his religious beliefs and opposition to American involvement in the Vietnam War. He was eventually arrested and found guilty on draft evasion charges and stripped of his boxing title. He did not fight again for nearly four years—losing a time of peak performance in an athlete's career. Ali's appeal worked its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where in 1971 his conviction was overturned. Ali's actions as a conscientious objector to the war made him an icon for the larger counterculture generation.[7][8]

Being 'drafted' and a conscientious objector is quite different from enrolling in the military voluntarily (e.g. just like being the elected county clerk) and then refusing to do your job. Your example would apply IF she had been 'conscripted' into being the clerk and was being forced to sign marriage licenses. She is a voluntary, willfully elected official. Completely different.

 

[hawkifann]

While some of the other candidates seem to be stuck on stupid here, Paul's position seems to be a bit more nuanced. I don't think he supports Davis so much as he's saying that putting her in prison wasn't the best way to handle the situation. I think his point is that officials should have figured out a way to accommodate those who want marriage licenses while still respecting Davis's religious beliefs.

That would seem to be more in line with Paul's generally Libertarian position, but from what I've seen, it seems Davis has taken a harder-line approach than this. I can respect her religious freedom, but she can't be such a personal roadblock that the only answer for the same-sex couples of her county is to go to some other county for a marriage license. That's absurd.

 

[YellowSnow51]

Not that any of them have any real shot at the nomination anyway. Surprising Santorum has spoken up:

Republican presidential candidates rallied around the Kentucky clerk taken into custody Thursday for not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk, declined to heed a U.S. Supreme Court order legalizing same-sex marriage, so on Thursday a federal judge held her in contempt and remanded her to custody.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said the move would set a bad precedent.

"I think it's absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberty," he said on CNN shortly after the decision. "I think it's a real mistake and even those on the other side of the issue, I think it sets their movement back."

Paul said forcing conservative Christians to issue marriage licensees to same-sex couples is going to backfire.

"What's going to happen is it's going to harden people's resolve on this issue," he said. "I think what's going to happen is that state and localities are just going to opt out of the marriage business."

Paul suggested compromises that would allow Davis to refrain from putting her signature on the license. The process could involve a notary public who does not object to the law.

"This is a really the problem when we decide to get involved in a situation that has always through the history of our country been a local issue," he said.

Other presidential candidates weighed in on the news. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said it is now a crime to be a Christian in America.

"Having Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubt of the criminalization of Christianity in our country. We must defend religious liberty and never surrender to judicial tyranny," he said. "I am proud of Kim for standing strong for her beliefs. Who will be next? Pastors? Photographers? Caterers? Florists? This is a reckless, appalling, out-of-control decision that undermines the Constitution of the United States and our fundamental right to religious liberty."

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said Kim Davis is the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith.

"Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in pubic office, they must disregard their religious faith -- or be sent to jail," he said in statement. "Kim Davis should not be in jail. We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so."

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal also defended what he called Davis' religious freedom.

"I don't think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions. I think it's wrong to force Christian individuals or business owners," he told the Huffington Post. "We are seeing government today discriminate against whether it's clerks, florists, musicians or others. I think that's wrong. I think you should be able to keep your job and follow your conscience."

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker discussed Davis's decision Thursday on the Laura Ingraham Show.

"In the end, this is the balance that you gotta have to have in America, between the laws that are out there, but ultimately ensuring that the Constitution is upheld," he said. "I read that the Constitution is very clear that people have freedom of religion -- you have the freedom to practice religious beliefs out there, it's a fundamental right."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/2016-kim-davis-presidential-candidates-responses/index.html

And the Dems all support BLM. All should be discounted for the presidency.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Being 'drafted' and a conscientious objector is quite different from enrolling in the military voluntarily (e.g. just like being the elected county clerk) and then refusing to do your job. Your example would apply IF she had been 'conscripted' into being the clerk and was being forced to sign marriage licenses. She is a voluntary, willfully elected official. Completely different.

Fair point.

 

[OILCHECKER]

She's an elected official so it is my understanding that she cannot be fired. I believe she would need to be impeached to be removed from her position, unless she resigned.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

What we need to solve this is an APP.

When someone doesn't want to do something for religious reasons, you fire up the app and it tells you which people on the staff can take over. You pick the best option and messages are sent. They swap jobs for a while. When the situation is handled, the replacement taps the app and they swap back. The app makes the appropriate pay adjustments - because if the mail guy is doing the senior clerk's job, the mail guy should get her pay, and vice versa. And obviously any other costs should come out of her pay.

 

[Joes Place]

Man, I remember the 'good old days', back in New Testament times, when "Render Unto Caesar" meant you could worship God and stay true to your beliefs and still follow the Rule of Law of the presiding government....

(sigh)

 

[TJ8869]

She's an elected official so it is my understanding that she cannot be fired. I believe she would need to be impeached to be removed from her position, unless she resigned.

Are you certain she can't be fired? Not even for breaking the law? What if she broke a different law? What if she got caught embezzling money from the county? What if she got caught selling drugs? Would she have to be impeached for those offenses or could they simply fire her? She's a county clerk, for crying out loud. It's not like she's the President of the United States.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Not that any of them have any real shot at the nomination anyway. Surprising Santorum has spoken up:

Republican presidential candidates rallied around the Kentucky clerk taken into custody Thursday for not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk, declined to heed a U.S. Supreme Court order legalizing same-sex marriage, so on Thursday a federal judge held her in contempt and remanded her to custody.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said the move would set a bad precedent.

"I think it's absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberty," he said on CNN shortly after the decision. "I think it's a real mistake and even those on the other side of the issue, I think it sets their movement back."

Paul said forcing conservative Christians to issue marriage licensees to same-sex couples is going to backfire.

"What's going to happen is it's going to harden people's resolve on this issue," he said. "I think what's going to happen is that state and localities are just going to opt out of the marriage business."

Paul suggested compromises that would allow Davis to refrain from putting her signature on the license. The process could involve a notary public who does not object to the law.

"This is a really the problem when we decide to get involved in a situation that has always through the history of our country been a local issue," he said.

Other presidential candidates weighed in on the news. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said it is now a crime to be a Christian in America.

"Having Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubt of the criminalization of Christianity in our country. We must defend religious liberty and never surrender to judicial tyranny," he said. "I am proud of Kim for standing strong for her beliefs. Who will be next? Pastors? Photographers? Caterers? Florists? This is a reckless, appalling, out-of-control decision that undermines the Constitution of the United States and our fundamental right to religious liberty."

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said Kim Davis is the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith.

"Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in pubic office, they must disregard their religious faith -- or be sent to jail," he said in statement. "Kim Davis should not be in jail. We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so."

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal also defended what he called Davis' religious freedom.

"I don't think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions. I think it's wrong to force Christian individuals or business owners," he told the Huffington Post. "We are seeing government today discriminate against whether it's clerks, florists, musicians or others. I think that's wrong. I think you should be able to keep your job and follow your conscience."

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker discussed Davis's decision Thursday on the Laura Ingraham Show.

"In the end, this is the balance that you gotta have to have in America, between the laws that are out there, but ultimately ensuring that the Constitution is upheld," he said. "I read that the Constitution is very clear that people have freedom of religion -- you have the freedom to practice religious beliefs out there, it's a fundamental right."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/2016-kim-davis-presidential-candidates-responses/index.html

See, Paul's statements have merit. I disagree with them, but it is a logical, reasonable position.

Huckabee's are absurd vomiting of nonsense.

Ted Cruz, likewise, has built a strawman to appeal to his, believed, constituents. This is no better than saying that a black person was jailed for X crime because he was black. It is pointless, unless your point is to be an idiot.

Jindal's isn't as bad, except he put "Christian individuals or business owners" in the same line of thought.............which is precisely the point, those two things are not similar. He then went on to talk about "clerks, florists, musicians or others..." He is really talking about those others, not clerks. It is disingenuous, but better than the other two idiots.

Walker's comments are fine, but don't actually address the issue. A good statement for his purpose.

 

[KitingHigh]

That would seem to be more in line with Paul's generally Libertarian position, but from what I've seen, it seems Davis has taken a harder-line approach than this. I can respect her religious freedom, but she can't be such a personal roadblock that the only answer for the same-sex couples of her county is to go to some other county for a marriage license. That's absurd.

Paul isn't a libertarian. His views vary greatly from his fathers.

 

[cigaretteman]

Paul isn't a libertarian. His views vary greatly from his fathers.

It seems to me he's only libertarian in so far as libertarian positions conform to Republican orthodoxies. He's not willing to hold to libertarian positions that go against it.

 

[KitingHigh]

It seems to me he's only libertarian in so far as libertarian positions conform to Republican orthodoxies. He's not willing to hold to libertarian positions that go against it.

Exactly.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Being 'drafted' and a conscientious objector is quite different from enrolling in the military voluntarily (e.g. just like being the elected county clerk) and then refusing to do your job. Your example would apply IF she had been 'conscripted' into being the clerk and was being forced to sign marriage licenses. She is a voluntary, willfully elected official. Completely different.

True, but at the time she was elected a marriage was between a man and a women, so it didn't violate her religious belief. The law wasn't changed by the state legislature, her office, or the US Congress, it was changed via Supreme Court overreach. So, your military example isn't applicable, or certainly not a apples to apples comparison.

If a simple accommodation (eg taking her name off the license and letting her deputies issue the licenses) can't be reached, then she needs to resign or remain in jail. I do find is a big amusing liberals get worked up over this matter and talk about upholding the law, but they don't bat an eye when Lois Lerhner didn't uphold the law at the IRS, or support elected officials who don't uphold the law under the guise of sanctuary cities. The transgressions of this Ky woman pale in comparison, yet she sits in jail, while Lehner is on paid administrative leave, and the sanctuary city officials go about business as usual.

 

[Hawkeye009]

I do find is a big amusing liberals get worked up over this matter and talk about upholding the law, but they don't bat an eye when Lois Lerhner didn't uphold the law at the IRS, or support elected officials who don't uphold the law under the guise of sanctuary cities. The transgressions of this Ky woman pale in comparison, yet she sits in jail, while Lehner is on paid administrative leave, and the sanctuary city officials go about business as usual.

Ignoring the other problems with this post, let's look at this paragraph. The Lerner situation is ongoing and there is no finding of "not upholding the law." That situation would only be analogous if she stated that she kept her job and wouldn't process exemption applications for conservative organizations, and the liberals supported her. Instead, she has stepped down and is no longer doing her job while the investigation of her conduct continues. Terrible analogy.

The sanctuary city thing is just nonsense as well. State and local governments are not federal law enforcement agencies. They have no obligation to be unfunded police officers for the federal government. To hold otherwise would be a significant erosion of federalism and states' rights. You are on the wrong side of that one if you are for federalism. Regardless, those cities have no legal obligation that they are purposefully ignoring in direct violation of a court order.

 

[Joes Place]

True, but at the time she was elected a marriage was between a man and a women, so it didn't violate her religious belief. The law wasn't changed by the state legislature, her office, or the US Congress, it was changed via Supreme Court overreach. So, your military example isn't applicable, or certainly not a apples to apples comparison.

LOL

"True, but at the time he joined the Army, the armed services weren't engaged in any conflicts, so it didn't violate his religious belief. The conflict wasn't started by the state legislature, his unit, or the US Congress, it was started by a Presidential declaration as a 'police action' overreach. So, your example is an apples to apples comparison."

 

[tarheelbybirth]

"I think it's absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberty," he said on CNN shortly after the decision. "I think it's a real mistake and even those on the other side of the issue, I think it sets their movement back."

She's not being put in jail for "exercising [her] religious liberties", Rand. She's in jail because she refused a court order to do her job. If it was about her religious liberties, she would refuse to process divorce papers.

 

[theIowaHawk]

True, but at the time she was elected a marriage was between a man and a women, so it didn't violate her religious belief. The law wasn't changed by the state legislature, her office, or the US Congress, it was changed via Supreme Court overreach. So, your military example isn't applicable, or certainly not a apples to apples comparison.

If a simple accommodation (eg taking her name off the license and letting her deputies issue the licenses) can't be reached, then she needs to resign or remain in jail. I do find is a big amusing liberals get worked up over this matter and talk about upholding the law, but they don't bat an eye when Lois Lerhner didn't uphold the law at the IRS, or support elected officials who don't uphold the law under the guise of sanctuary cities. The transgressions of this Ky woman pale in comparison, yet she sits in jail, while Lehner is on paid administrative leave, and the sanctuary city officials go about business as usual.

I don't know how you can get your first paragraph correct while being so wrong in your second.

The clerk issue isn't about "upholding the law," and you appear to know that.

She is violating Cobstitutional rights, according to the SCOTUS.

How can you bring sanctuary cities in to that? Please, connect the dots.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Ignoring the other problems with this post, let's look at this paragraph. The Lerner situation is ongoing and there is no finding of "not upholding the law." That situation would only be analogous if she stated that she kept her job and wouldn't process exemption applications for conservative organizations, and the liberals supported her. Instead, she has stepped down and is no longer doing her job while the investigation of her conduct continues. Terrible analogy.

The sanctuary city thing is just nonsense as well. State and local governments are not federal law enforcement agencies. They have no obligation to be unfunded police officers for the federal government. To hold otherwise would be a significant erosion of federalism and states' rights. You are on the wrong side of that one if you are for federalism. Regardless, those cities have no legal obligation that they are purposefully ignoring in direct violation of a court order.

Lehner was using the IRS to target tea party and other conservative groups. We have emails showing this. She pleaded the 5th amendment because she knows she broke laws. What Lehner did was WORSE than what Davis did. Lehner did what she did because she's a political hack, Davis did out of religious belief.

The state/local law enforcement officials are expected to cooperate with the feds, with ICE. They didn't Spare me the money nonsense. The feds give states/local officials federal dollars precisely for this purpose.

Nice try on states rights. I'm sure you agreed ssm should have been a states rights issue too. The SC claimed DOMA was unconstitutional because of states rights, then turn around in Obergefell and use the opposite argument. LOL.

Then there's Hillary's private server which contained classified information. Please tell me you aren't naive enough to think classified information went to her computer. The State Dept knew what she was doing, the WH knew what she was doing, and nobody told enforced the law.

"Violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act
Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that:

“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.”

 

[PhantomFlyer]

I don't know how you can get your first paragraph correct while being so wrong in your second.

The clerk issue isn't about "upholding the law," and you appear to know that.

She is violating Cobstitutional rights, according to the SCOTUS.

How can you bring sanctuary cities in to that? Please, connect the dots.

You might want to talk to your Dem pals, because the line they are using is the clerk isn't upholding the law. So, if you have a problem with my comment then take it up with Josh Earnest/Obama because he's the one that started this yesterday.

"“On principle, the success of our democracy depends on the rule of law. And there is no public official that is above the rule of law,” Earnest said."

The officials in those cities aren't enforcing the law. They are not cooperating with the Feds, ICE. This is why Kate Steinle's family is suing the state and local governments, for not doing their job.

 

[Hawkeye009]

Perhaps it would help to explain that the "Rule of Law" is a concept that is very different from "upholding the law."

The rule of law refers to the fact that we live by a common set of rules and standards for conduct. We are bound by a common code (the Law) and living by that code makes civilization possible. When one person refuses to abide by the given rules (in this case, that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution), then they are not abiding by the Rule of Law. They are living by their own code.

Enforcing the law refers to taking action to hold people accountable for violating a particular legal mandate.

 

[theIowaHawk]

You might want to talk to your Dem pals, because the line they are using is the clerk isn't upholding the law. So, if you have a problem with my comment then take it up with Josh Earnest/Obama because he's the one that started this yesterday.

"“On principle, the success of our democracy depends on the rule of law. And there is no public official that is above the rule of law,” Earnest said."

The officials in those cities aren't enforcing the law. They are not cooperating with the Feds, ICE. This is why Kate Steinle's family is suing the state and local governments, for not doing their job.

You know damn well what they are saying and that your analogies are garbage. Now you are just being dishonest.

Sanctuary cities can be discussed on another thread, you know it isn't comparable because they are t refusing to enforce laws that they are required to.

Even you are above this.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

LOL

"True, but at the time he joined the Army, the armed services weren't engaged in any conflicts, so it didn't violate his religious belief. The conflict wasn't started by the state legislature, his unit, or the US Congress, it was started by a Presidential declaration as a 'police action' overreach. So, your example is an apples to apples comparison."

LOL. That's really weak.

The entire mission of the army is to defend the country, if necessary go to war, and kill people. Also, I'm not sure I can think of a time when our country wasn't taking military action against some country or terrorist group. Maybe there was a week around Christmas where they stood down. In the entire history of the statehood of Kentucky there has NEVER been ssm, until the SC ruling mandated it. LOL. Horrible, horrible, example on your part. Joe, you have been really off the mark lately. Oh, I know what the problem is you couldn't rely on a chart to make your argument. Would it help if I came up with some cool, colored charts for you?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Perhaps it would help to explain that the "Rule of Law" is a concept that is very different from "upholding the law."

The rule of law refers to the fact that we live by a common set of rules and standards for conduct. We are bound by a common code (the Law) and living by that code makes civilization possible. When one person refuses to abide by the given rules (in this case, that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution), then they are not abiding by the Rule of Law. They are living by their own code.

Enforcing the law refers to taking action to hold people accountable for violating a particular legal mandate.

Yep. Thank you.

"Rule of law" sometimes seems to have lost it's original meaning. That original meaning can be brought back into focus when we ask "as opposed to what?" Rule of law was proposed as a better alternative to rule of caprice or rule of royal whim or just making shit up and backing it with force.

Rule of law can also be thought of as an alternative to rule of man (as in kings or emperors) or rule of God (as in ministers, priests or Pope).

 

[theIowaHawk]

The military example doesn't work for what has already been stated: conscription. A voluntary enlistee can't simply cite religious refusal to do their job.