Fox News Continues its Attacks on Christian County Clerk Kim Davis

[rangerrebew]

Fox News Continues its Attacks on Christian County Clerk Kim Davis

By Tim Brown   / 11 September 2015   / 28 Comments   
 

image: http://cdn.printfriendly.com/button-print-blu20.png
Print Friendly and PDF

FOX News needs some people who actually have read the Constitution and know what it says. They also need some people who actually know what they are talking about. Andrea Tantaros is the latest FOX personality to demonstrate the news outlet is controlled opposition as she blasted Kim Davis for setting a "dangerous precedent" for doing what the law commands.

Appearing on The O'Reilly Factor on Wednesday evening, Tantaros told host Bill O'Reilly, "The problem is she's essential rewriting the laws of that county by not issuing [licenses]. As a Christian I do feel sorry for her and I'm sympathetic to her beliefs, however she doesn't have a legal leg to stand on."

She claimed that Davis cannot decide to not enforce law simply because she believes it's wrong.

"It sets a dangerous precedent," Tantaros continued. "A woman with Sharia not issuing drivers licenses to women, because she doesn't believe she can drive, or say somebody who says, 'I don't believe in the Second Amendment so I'm not going to give gun permits.'"

Wow! She just pulled a Shepard Smith and brought Sharia into the picture! Amazing! It's not even a good contrast since Davis actually upheld law and the Muslim woman was not doing that.

Well, let's see, Andrea is using the same kind of ridiculous arguments that the Nazis employed at Nuremberg. She wants Kim Davis to follow unlawful orders from a Bush-appointed, sodomite endorsing judge rather than follow the law. How many times do these people fail to cite the law? They claim law and claim Davis is breaking it and that she is attempting to rewrite it, but is she? Absolutely not!

I've cited Kentucky law, which is the only law that matters. It is the mantra that attorney Michael Peroutka chanted at the rally on Saturday, "Show me the law or free Kim Davis." So far, no one has cited a law she has violated. Andrea Tantaros would do well to read it and actually educate herself on what the law is. She, like sodomite Shepard Smith and others, wrongly thinks a Supreme Court's decision is law. It is not.

The Constitution is clear. Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution reads:

    All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. (emphasis mine)

image: http://cdn2.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Kim-Davis-Kentucky--300x169.jpg
Kim Davis KentuckyNow, Ms. Tantaros, if all legislative powers are granted to Congress, how much is left for the Supreme Court? How much for any federal court? How much for the Executive Branch? None, zero, zip, nada! They have no legislative power and it's amazing to me that some of these people lose their minds over Obama's executive orders pointing out quite often that they are not law and he doesn't have a right to write law. They will also talk about "legislating from the bench." Well, Tantaros, what do you think the Supreme Court did? They legislated from the bench, which is unconstitutional and illegal and frankly, every judge who ruled against the states in the marriage case should be impeached and then brought up on charges.

Tantaros professed to be a Christian and as a Christian, she should know that God's law is what man's law should be based upon. William Blackstone wrote:

    No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.

Sadly, too many End-times "prophets" and Christians are running around proclaiming to be on the lookout for an electronic "Mark of the Beast" and have failed to realize that symbolism of the mark being on the forehead or the hand was tied directly to the observance of God's Law found in Deuteronomy 6. The Mark of the Beast (Rev. 13:16-18) is following tyrants and their usurped laws instead of God's laws. These people further fail to understand how it is contrasted with those who are redeemed who are also sealed in their foreheads (Rev. 7:3). They are the ones who do what? Keep the commandments of Jesus (The Law of God) (rev. 12:17; 14:12).

As a side note, I'm not saying get an electronic implant. I think we should be wary of any command of government that would make such a requirement law and we should openly reject it, but that is not the point that is being communicated in Revelation 13. It is an issue of who you are bowing to, God or the State, and which one is the Lawgiver. That determines who you are worshipping.

Tantaros is advocating the true Mark of the Beast, not the Law of God.

Beyond that, Tantaros should know that the Constitution did not give authority to the federal government concerning marriage and since it did not do so, those rights are reserved to the states and the people (Tenth Amendment).

It is this stupidity and ignorance that is destroying America. As a Christian, perhaps Tantaros needs to understand what Romans 13 teaches and then tell us why the Nazis were wrong for following their pretended laws and unlawful orders based on those pretended laws. I'll bet she will side with me on that issue, but is completely inconsistent when it comes to Kim Davis, who actually followed the law, but rejected unlawful orders.

 

Read more at http://eaglerising.com/23595/fox-news-continues-its-attacks-on-christian-county-clerk-kim-davis/#UUSiSje2CizaWWjL.99

[alicewonders]

Good article!  It is surprising to me that so many otherwise intelligent people here don't see this issue for what it really is - too busy looking at the media squirrel.

 

[GourmetDan]

Andrea Tantaros is the latest FOX personality to demonstrate the news outlet is controlled opposition...

Obviously the author is a tin-foil hat nutter.

Ignore everything he says...       /s

[Bigun]

The United States Supreme Court does NOT have authority over same-sex marriage issues. Our Constitution says so, specifically, in Article III, Section 2: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”
 
In case someone missed it, let’s break this down. The judicial power of the Supreme Court covers “all cases in law and equity,” but is LIMITED to cases “arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made or which shall be made, under their Authority.”
Our Founding Fathers embedded three restrictions in the latter clause.

The first restriction is to cases “arising under this Constitution.”  If the case arises outside the bounds of the Constitution, such as all cases involving “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,” as clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment, then the case does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

The second restriction is to Laws of the United States.  This does not include state law.  Our Constitution mentions the word “law” 36 times, but the most salient mention addresses this claim head-on in Article VI:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
By “Laws of the United States,” the framers are clearly referring to laws made “in Pursuance thereof.”  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “pursuance” as “a carrying out or into effect.”  Put simply, they’re talking about laws made by the federal government i.e. proposed by Congress and signed into law by the President.  The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over those laws, as those laws are the “Laws of the United States.”
The third restriction is to treaties, either made or in the process of being made.  For clear examples of how restrictive the Constitution is towards treaties, please read this, as well as this.
 
Put simply, if the issue is neither specified in the Constitution nor expressly granted by the Constitution to the federal government, then under the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
 
That’s it.  The Constitution specifically and expressly limited the Supreme Court’s authority to only those powers given by the Constitution to the United States aka the federal government.  All powers not delegated to the feds nor prohibited by the Constitution to the States are reserved to the States or to the people, and are NOT subject to judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

As marriage issues were never among the few and limited powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution, the U.S.Supreme Court has NO AUTHORITY to decide marriage issues.  The U.S. Supreme Court VIOLATED the scope of their Constitutionally-derived authority, and their decision in these matters is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.
 
The Supreme Court is NOT the final authority in the United States of America.  WE are.  We the People are the final authority.  This noble concept of a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” is clearly embedded throughout the Constitution, and was additionally reflected verbatim 100 years after the founding of our nation by Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address.
Thus, we’ve clearly established the fact the Supreme Court had absolutely zero business even hearing this case, much less rendering an opinion.  As if this weren’t enough, however, let’s dig a little further, where we find additional restrictions on the types of cases our Constitution allows them to hear:
 
1. “all Cases affecting Ambassadors” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
 
2. “other public Ministers and Consuls” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
 
3. “all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
 
4. “Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply. States issue marriage licenses only to the citizens within that state. The federal government is not a party to that dispute.
 
5. “Controversies between two or more States.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply. Ibid.
 
6. “between a State and Citizens of another State.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply. Ibid.
 
7. “between Citizens of different States.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply. Ibid.
 
8. “between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
 
9. “between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
 
Not only did the U.S. Supreme Court make a decision on an issue that falls outside of its legal authority and jurisdiction, it also made a decision that failed to meet ANY of the circumstances in which our Constitution gives them any authority.

[truth_seeker]

Bigun, all that you said could have also been said about slavery, back in the day, and was.

[Bigun]

Bigun, all that you said could have also been said about slavery, back in the day, and was.

Yep! So you think that Lincoln's multitude of constitutional violations were justified and necessary to get rid of slavery?  If so I VEHEMENTLY disagree with you!

Running roughshod over the Constitution is OK if you get what you want in the end is NOT the way our form of government is supposed to work!

[truth_seeker]

Yep! So you think that Lincoln's multitude of constitutional violations were justified and necessary to get rid of slavery?  If so I VEHEMENTLY disagree with you!

I vehemently believe slavery was the highest ranking problem in the United States, and that anything was justified to end it. So did voters, who elected Lincoln twice.

Quite simply, I believe that the position of the South was not moral. Not Christian. So did Joseph Smith, BTW.

And I know the South fired the first shot, too.

[Bigun]

I vehemently believe slavery was the highest ranking problem in the United States, and that anything was justified to end it. So did voters, who elected Lincoln twice.

Quite simply, I believe that the position of the South was not moral. Not Christian. So did Joseph Smith, BTW.

And I know the South fired the first shot, too.

Even if I stipulated that everything you said was true (I don't) that STILL does not justify Lincoln's walking all over the Constitution. In his first inaugural address Lincoln himself stated clearly that he had no legal authority to interfere with slavery where it existed and he was absolutely right on that point!
.

[truth_seeker]

Even if I stipulated that everything you said was true (I don't) that STILL does not justify Lincoln's walking all over the Constitution. In his first inaugural address Lincoln himself stated clearly that he had no legal authority to interfere with slavery where it existed and he was absolutely right on that point!
.

Well why don't you "stipulate," or get off the pot? Countries all around the world were ending slavery. It was time for us, above all, for we claimed the highest moral basis for our country's existence. A basis even higher than mere written laws.

Most Christian faiths in the US opposed slavery, by then. I have struggled all my life trying to wrap my head around regional "pride" for such an immoral past legacy.

[Bigun]

Well why don't you "stipulate," or get off the pot? Countries all around the world were ending slavery. It was time for us, above all, for we claimed the highest moral basis for our country's existence. A basis even higher than mere written laws.

Most Christian faiths in the US opposed slavery, by then. I have struggled all my life trying to wrap my head around regional "pride" for such an immoral past legacy.

Slavery could have been dealt with in this country the same way it was in every other country and most certainly could have been done without shredding the Constitution!

From the very beginning there were MANY southerners opposed slavery but every one of them understood that id needed to be done away with LEGALLY!  And ALL of them vehemently objected to being ruled by a TYRANT!

[truth_seeker]

Slavery could have been dealt with in this country the same way it was in every other country and most certainly could have been done without shredding the Constitution!

From the very beginning there were MANY southerners opposed slavery but every one of them understood that id needed to be done away with LEGALLY!  And ALL of them vehemently objected to being ruled by a TYRANT!

Something as immoral as slavery needed to end immediately, not when Southerners got around to doing it. And don't forget, it was the South that fired the first shot at Fort /Sumter.

[Bigun]

Something as immoral as slavery needed to end immediately, not when Southerners got around to doing it. And don't forget, it was the South that fired the first shot at Fort /Sumter.

So tearing up the Constitution is ok with you so long as you get your immediate wants taken care of.  I don't and never will, see it that way.

YOU are part of the problem and not the solution!  Good day!

[truth_seeker]

So tearing up the Constitution is ok with you so long as you get your immediate wants taken care of.  I don't and never will, see it that way.

YOU are part of the problem and not the solution!  Good day!

It was the South that "tore up the Constitution" by failing to honor "all men are created equal."

[Oceander]

The first restriction is to cases “arising under this Constitution.”  If the case arises outside the bounds of the Constitution, such as all cases involving “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,” as clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment, then the case does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Which is why the case was based on claimed violations of Constitutional rights.  Every last single case in which someone is alleging a violation of their rights under the Constitution is, by definition, a case "arising under this Constitution."

Since the same-sex case was decided based on rights secured to the individual under the Constitution, it was by definition a case "arising under this Constitution."