Ted Cruz: 'I Stand With Kim Davis'

[Bigun]

Are you serious?

Put this in your pipe and smoke it:

What part of "shall be the supreme law of the land" do you not understand?

So show me the law! The one passed by Congress and signed into law by the president! That's all I'm asking here.
 
As you well know SCOTUS nor any other court does NOT get to write law! Judges are not Kings!

[mountaineer]

I have to agree Victor...she needs to look for another job imho cause she isn't gonna change the law all by herself.

That's the bottom line. To take her stand, she'll probably have to give up the job. Or she can call it civil disobedience (MLK, anyone?) and sit in the pokey.

[Oceander]

So show me the law! The one passed by Congress and signed into law by the president! That's all I'm asking here.
 
As you well know SCOTUS nor any other court does NOT get to write law! Judges are not Kings!

/snicker


Funny how you respect the Constitution only when it tickles your fancy.  The Constitution does not permit states to refuse to recognize same-sex couples.  That's the only law that's needed, and the Constitution is most definitely the supreme law of the land.  Or does that only apply to Obama?

[Machiavelli]

Megyn Kelly interviewed Ted Cruz on this topic:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swy3-PMH5NY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swy3-PMH5NY

Article

[Bigun]

/snicker


Funny how you respect the Constitution only when it tickles your fancy.  The Constitution does not permit states to refuse to recognize same-sex couples.  That's the only law that's needed, and the Constitution is most definitely the supreme law of the land.  Or does that only apply to Obama?

/snicker

Funny why you can't or won't answer a simple question!

[Paladin]

But she works for Caesar and therefore is duty-bound to Caesar, whether Caesar be right or wrong.

Utterly shocking that such an intelligent man would make such a statement without qualification. Nuremberg, anyone?

Btw, one of the major issues connected with this case is whether or not marriage belongs to Caesar or to God. Theist such as myself would argue He established it at the beginning of humankind (Genesis 2:24 & Mark 10:6-8) and the state's role, even if it has one, is to legally recognize the union and support it in public policy.

[truth_seeker]

Utterly shocking that such an intelligent man would make such a statement without qualification. Nuremberg, anyone?

Btw, one of the major issues connected with this case is whether or not marriage belongs to Caesar or to God. Theist such as myself would argue He established it at the beginning of humankind (Genesis 2:24 & Mark 10:6-8) and the state's role, even if it has one, is to legally recognize the union and support it in public policy.

So elements of the Old Testament shall be our guides, like polygamy, very young wives, etc.?

[Paladin]

So elements of the Old Testament shall be our guides, like polygamy, very young wives, etc.?

I'm not sure what you mean about "very young wives", though perhaps you can explain that or document it. As to polygamy, strikes me that the statement, "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." shows multiple wives was not God's plan even if the patriarchs practiced it.

You might try reading Scripture. You will find out quickly the patriarchs, from Abraham through to his greatgrandsons, were not perfect. Just like you and me.

Besides which you completely missed my point (purposefully?). What I was questioning is whether marriage belongs to Caesar or to God. The prevailing opinion today, as illustrated by the Davis case, is Caesar. This is actually a modern invention, and is yet another example of how all things are becoming secularized and controlled by the modern god, the state. I reject such a notion.

[truth_seeker]

I'm not sure what you mean about "very young wives", though perhaps you can explain that or document it. As to polygamy, strikes me that the statement, "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." shows multiple wives was not God's plan even if the patriarchs practiced it.

You might try reading Scripture. You will find out quickly the patriarchs, from Abraham through to his greatgrandsons, were not perfect. Just like you and me.

Besides which you completely missed my point (purposefully?). What I was questioning is whether marriage belongs to Caesar or to God. The prevailing opinion today, as illustrated by the Davis case, is Caesar. This is actually a modern invention, and is yet another example of how all things are becoming secularized and controlled by the modern god, the state. I reject such a notion.

I think the prevailing opinion at the time of our Founding was separation of church and state, to the extent there would NOT be a particular denomination or church which would dominate.

Certain Christian denomination wish to impose their beliefs, on everybody else as well.

It would be one thing, if they sought only to control the lives of their congregations. But it is quite another to wish to control everybody; their own members and non-members alike.

[aligncare]

I think the prevailing opinion at the time of our Founding was separation of church and state, to the extent there would NOT be a particular denomination or church which would dominate.

Certain Christian denomination wish to impose their beliefs, on everybody else as well.

It would be one thing, if they sought only to control the lives of their congregations. But it is quite another to wish to control everybody; their own members and non-members alike.

I can't believe you're saying this, t_s. It's the Left that wants to force societal uniformity through force of law (Kim Davis jailed).

Christians just want to live there lives according to their faith; no force of law involved. Yes, christians  are beckoned by their faith to spread the good word of the Gospel. But that's like knocking on neighbors doors Saturday morning to discuss faith--not the same as sending in the sheriff to arrest people for thinking "wrong."

[mountaineer]

Certain Christian denomination wish to impose their beliefs, on everybody else as well.

Which ones?

[massadvj]

Utterly shocking that such an intelligent man would make such a statement without qualification. Nuremberg, anyone?

Btw, one of the major issues connected with this case is whether or not marriage belongs to Caesar or to God. Theist such as myself would argue He established it at the beginning of humankind (Genesis 2:24 & Mark 10:6-8) and the state's role, even if it has one, is to legally recognize the union and support it in public policy.

Nuremburg is a good analogy.  The people who worked for Hitler should have quit and run away if they had moral objections to what they were doing. 

I do agree that the state should get out of the marriage business and stop making a legal distinction between married people and non-married people.  It is discriminatory.

[Machiavelli]

Cruz is a lawyer, a Constitutional lawyer at that. As such, he's sworn to uphold the law. He just gave the opposition an issue.

And they're starting to go after him on it: Ted Cruz indifferent to rule of law in Kim Davis case

[Bigun]

And they're starting to go after him on it: Ted Cruz indifferent to rule of law in Kim Davis case

No he isn't! Not at all! But he does understand that 5 unelected lawyers don't get to be King of America!

[aligncare]

No he isn't! Not at all! But he does understand that 5 unelected lawyers don't get to be King of America!

Answer: Article 5 convention of the states. Our last chance to rein in an out-of-control scotus and fedgov.

[libertybele]

I think the prevailing opinion at the time of our Founding was separation of church and state, to the extent there would NOT be a particular denomination or church which would dominate.

Certain Christian denomination wish to impose their beliefs, on everybody else as well.

It would be one thing, if they sought only to control the lives of their congregations. But it is quite another to wish to control everybody; their own members and non-members alike.

I don't see that in this case, Kim Davis is trying to control anyone's life but her own.  She is simply following her Christian beliefs and values based on the teachings of the Bible.  She shouldn't be forced to issue a license to a gay couple when the union of same sex is considered an abomination in the Bible.  Perhaps most importantly she should have protection of her religious beliefs under the first amendment; instead she was thrown in jail.

The Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law, but they CANNOT make or create new laws, nor can they amend laws or the Constitution.   

As for Ted Cruz and reading the many (now famous) Supreme Court cases that he has won and his respect to uphold the Constitution, along with the other justices who dissented against this ruling, this "controversy" was bound to continue and many see it as changing law rather than interpreting the law.

----------
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) claims the recent Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage and Obamacare are the "very definition of tyranny."

The 2016 presidential candidate, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, convened a hearing Wednesday to investigate what he called "abuses" by the highest court in the land.

"If any of us believes in democracy, in the constitutional rule of law, then whether we agree or disagree with a policy ... we should be horrified at the notion that five unelected judges can seize authority from the American people," he said.

"We did not establish philosopher kings in this country," Cruz added, before calling for term limits on Supreme Court justices.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-gay-marriage_55b00157e4b07af29d57677c

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/an-angry-ted-cruz-wants-to-rewrite-the-constitution-to-bring-back-same-sex-marriage-bans/

[libertybele]

I tend to agree with this Cardinal; "the U.S. "creed" on gay marriage is like Sharia law"...

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/cardinal-us-creed-gay-marriage-sharia-law

[alicewonders]

Gay marriage is against the law in Kentucky.  She took an oath to uphold the laws in the state of Kentucky.  The Feds are overriding this issue - but I don't see them exercising this same power in regards to states that have legalised marijuana.

[Bigun]

Gay marriage is against the law in Kentucky.  She took an oath to uphold the laws in the state of Kentucky.  The Feds are overriding this issue - but I don't see them exercising this same power in regards to states that have legalised marijuana.

Just a little backup for you Alice.

Kentucky Revised Statutes

KRS Chapter 402

Includes enactments through the 2015 Regular Session

The KRS database was last updated on 09/04/2015


402.005 Definition of marriage.

As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the
civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for
life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent
upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

Effective: July 15, 1998
History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39205

[Bigun]

Here is the oath of office she swore in black and white:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

[mountaineer]

Gay marriage is against the law in Kentucky.  She took an oath to uphold the laws in the state of Kentucky.  The Feds are overriding this issue - but I don't see them exercising this same power in regards to states that have legalised marijuana.

I understand there's a sheriff who refuses to process carry permit applications because guns are bad, m'kay? Let's wait for the feds go after that sheriff for violating the Second Amendment.   

[Bigun]

If I were a member of congress this judge would be facing impeachment!  He has absolutely NO authority to order anyone to violate the law much less throw them in jail for their refusal to do so!

[Oceander]

Here is the oath of office she swore in black and white:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

Hmmm, let's see ...

what was that first bit there, something about, oh ...

I will support the Constitution of the United States

Since the Constitution now protects same-sex marriage, she is duty-bound to issue licenses to same-sex couples.  And what Kentucky state law has to say about the matter is utterly irrelevant because the Constitution is, to quote the language, "the supreme law of the land."

By refusing to issue licenses to same-sex couples she is violating the Constitution of the United States, and is therefore violating the solemn oath she took.

She is a lawless government official and that is precisely the sort of person to whom a court's powers to punish contempt are intended to apply.

[Bigun]

Hmmm, let's see ...

what was that first bit there, something about, oh ...

I will support the Constitution of the United States

Since the Constitution now protects same-sex marriage, she is duty-bound to issue licenses to same-sex couples.  And what Kentucky state law has to say about the matter is utterly irrelevant because the Constitution is, to quote the language, "the supreme law of the land."

Show me that part of the Constitution in writhing please!

[Oceander]

Show me that part of the Constitution in writhing please!

The due process and equal protection clauses.


You sound just like Barack Obama when he asserted that nothing in the Constitution forbad him from declaring Congress in recess unilaterally because they weren't sitting on a particular day and then claiming that his appointments were valid recess appointments.

I find it utterly fascinating that someone who has for so long decried Obama's violation of the Constitution is so ready and willing to ignore that same Constitution just because he hates homosexuals.