Meet Roy Moore Accuser, Beverly Young Nelson: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

[txradioguy]

In other words, Judge Moore stood up against tyranny.  That explains why Jazzhead, one of tyranny's biggest supporters, doesn't like him.  Not sure why he feels compelled to lie about Moore, though.

If he used an accurate quote of what Moore said it would ruin his rant.

[Jazzhead]

To wit: if anyone recalls and remembers, Jazzy specifically stated his opposition to "Texas gun culture" being imposed on his state via rulings and efforts approving national carry-conceal.  He was quite out of his mind in rage that the exercise of the Second Amendment without infringement would be upheld nationally.  Amusing to say the least considering he has repeatedly stated that all our enumerated rights are subject to 'reasonable regulation' (as determined by liberals like himself) - while at the same time, insisting the "rights' created by SCOTUS are beyond review and, unless the Congress overturns a ruling via legislation that the court does not rule unConstitutional; 'the law of the land'.

The states are sovereign entities that have chosen to confederate under the umbrella of the Constitution.   To that end,  each state can reasonably regulate firearms as they see fit, and there is no requirement of uniformity since firearms possession is intrinsically a local concern.  So, yes,  Philadelphia ought to have the right to reject the trappings of Texas gun culture if it determines that open carry in the public square is inappropriate.    And a Texan traveling to Philly with a firearm (or vice versa) should be subject to local laws,  just as he is when purchasing/consuming alcohol.   

Now the Second Amendment applies to the states and places an absolute restriction on the ability to regulate.  As explained in Heller,  the state can regulate, but cannot deny the right of self-defense which is the purpose of the RKBA.   Hence, a ban on handguns is unconstitutional - but not a regime of registration and insurance,  except to the extent such regime is so onerous as to effectively deny the fundamental right.

And that's why marriage equality is the law of the land.   The Constitutional right at stake is the equal protection of the law.   And a state that chooses to ban the right of gays to marry under the civil law, while preserving that status for opposite sex couples,  has denied homosexuals the law's equal protection.    That violation of the federal Constitution is why Roy Moore was removed from office for refusing to permit gays to marry in Alabama.   Alabama's constitution may define marriage as between a man and a woman, but that constitution violates the Federal Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. 

So there's no contradiction in my positions -  Pennsylvania's gun laws are consistent with the Federal Constitution, but Alabama's prohibition on same sex civil marriage is not.     

[driftdiver]

And that's why marriage equality is the law of the land.   The Constitutional right at stake is the equal protection of the law.   And a state that chooses to ban the right of gays to marry under the civil law, while preserving that status for opposite sex couples,  has denied homosexuals the law's equal protection.    That violation of the federal Constitution is why Roy Moore was removed from office for refusing to permit gays to marry in Alabama.   Alabama's constitution may define marriage as between a man and a woman, but that constitution violates the Federal Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. 

So there's no contradiction in my positions -  Pennsylvania's gun laws are consistent with the Federal Constitution, but Alabama's prohibition on same sex civil marriage is not.   

Equal protection is the excuse activist judges used to push through the radical agenda.  In reality we had equal protection, any man could marry any woman and any woman could marry any man.     When you start throwing in personal preference then the law gets tossed out.   Polygamy is already moving forward.   Incestuous will be coming.   Dogs cats, trees and anything else someone says they "love".

No, you are full of contradictions and one of many that are paving the road to destruction of this country.

[Jazzhead]

Equal protection is the excuse activist judges used to push through the radical agenda.  In reality we had equal protection, any man could marry any woman and any woman could marry any man.     When you start throwing in personal preference then the law gets tossed out.   Polygamy is already moving forward.   Incestuous will be coming.   Dogs cats, trees and anything else someone says they "love".

No, you are full of contradictions and one of many that are paving the road to destruction of this country.

Denying gays the right to the benefits, protections and status of civil marriage is a violation of equal protection.  Yes, the culture has changed,  and some religions continue to condemn homosexuality,  but come on now - my neighbors are no threat to anyone else and deserve the same opportunity as you and me to be happy in a covenant relationship with the person they love.   

"Road to destruction"?  Don't be ridiculous - my neighbors tend their yard and walk my dog when I'm away.   I reject slippery slope arguments as false and oppressive.   If the issue is personal morality, then address divorce and promiscuity,  and display some respect for those of us who've done the hard work to make a marriage work -whether gay or straight.   

[driftdiver]

Denying gays the right to the benefits, protections and status of civil marriage is a violation of equal protection.  Yes, the culture has changed,  and some religions continue to condemn homosexuality,  but come on now - my neighbors are no threat to anyone else and deserve the same opportunity as you and me to be happy in a covenant relationship with the person they love.   

"Road to destruction"?  Don't be ridiculous - my neighbors tend their yard and walk my dog when I'm away.   I reject slippery slope arguments as false and oppressive.   If the issue is personal morality, then address divorce and promiscuity,  and display some respect for those of us who've done the hard work to make a marriage work -whether gay or straight.

Nonsense, they could have all that just like every one else.   More lies from the radicals.

[Jazzhead]

Nonsense, they could have all that just like every one else.   More lies from the radicals.

It's the law of the land.   Why should you and me have the benefits and protections of marriage but not my neighbors?   How is fundamental fairness  - the equal protection of the law - a "radical" notion? 

There is nothing that pleases me more than to see young people reject the idea that religion should serve to oppress people.   No,  that doesn't mean they've rejected Christianity, only that they view Christ's message in terms of acceptance and respect, not knee-jerk condemnation of two people living responsibly because of some stray passage in an ancient book.       

[Restored]

"Denying gays the right to the benefits, protections and status of civil marriage is a violation of equal protection.  "

No one denied gays of anything. I know lots of gay people who got married 30-40 years ago. Most had children in those marriages. One of my pastors was married to a gay man and had two children with him.

So quit pushing that weak and inane optic.

[Jazzhead]

"Denying gays the right to the benefits, protections and status of civil marriage is a violation of equal protection.  "

No one denied gays of anything. I know lots of gay people who got married 30-40 years ago. Most had children in those marriages. One of my pastors was married to a gay man and had two children with him.

So quit pushing that weak and inane optic.

Thank God that doesn't need to happen anymore.

[driftdiver]

It's the law of the land.   Why should you have the benefits and protections of marriage but not my neighbors?   How is fundamental fairness a "radical" notion?   

Your neighbors had that right before activtism took over.   Any man could marry any woman and any woman could marry any man

If "benefits" was truly the goal it would have been easy to change the law to allow hospital visitation or such things.  No you all had to go for the one thing you knew would be an attack on Christians and the foundation of this country.

BTW, where in the Constitution are we guaranteed 'fairness"?  Who defines fairness?    Face it we've become a nation of men and the rule of law is whatever they say it is or isn't.   Thus dies a once great nation.

[driftdiver]

It's the law of the land.   Why should you and me have the benefits and protections of marriage but not my neighbors?   How is fundamental fairness  - the equal protection of the law - a "radical" notion? 

There is nothing that pleases me more than to see young people reject the idea that religion should serve to oppress people.   No,  that doesn't mean they've rejected Christianity, only that they view Christ's message in terms of acceptance and respect, not knee-jerk condemnation of two people living responsibly because of some stray passage in an ancient book.     

limiting marriage to one man and one woman used to be "the law of the land".    until activists took over. Funny how hypocritical the lefties are with that phrase.

[INVAR]

No,  that doesn't mean they've rejected Christianity, only that they view Christ's message in terms of acceptance and respect, not knee-jerk condemnation of two people living responsibly because of some stray passage in an ancient book.     

'Stray passage in an ancient book'.

So tell us then you who are so-wise in his own eyes, where is the 'stray passages' that state a message from Jesus that everyone must accept and respect homosexuality and those engaged in committing abomination and wickedness as the bible itself defined it?????

This mythical 'message of acceptance and respect' is as unscriptural and bogus as are your perversions of the Constitution you cite to impose your brand of tyranny.  They exist only in your own mind and in the minds of other tyrant-pushers and hedonists who follow the prince and power of the air as you do.

[Restored]

Thank God that doesn't need to happen anymore.

Don't kid yourself. It happens all the time. People's sexuality changes over time. That how you can marry a woman, have 6 kids with her and then decide you are now exclusively attracted to men.

[INVAR]

It was again hilarious to read Jazzy fall right into the trap of justifying his hypocrisy on this issue.   

Hoodat NAILED him point-blank and he picked it ups and ran with his inane justifications of unmitigated bullshit to justify the tyranny he pushes.

You have openly advocated again and again and again that the rule of law should be discarded for the tyranny imposed by unelected judges wearing black robes.  Your record speaks for itself.

Instead, you demand that Vermont law be imposed upon California by black-robed tyrants - at least as long as you support what they are doing.  Yet that same rule doesn't apply when it comes to California law being imposed upon Vermont.

And here this morning, he goes to great lengths to justify that hypocrisy.

It's what tyrants and their mobs of sycophants do.

And it is precisely why we have a Second Amendment, to defend ourselves against such tyrants.

[Jazzhead]

No hypocrisy, sir.   Alabama's constitution doesn't Trump the federal Constitution and its guarantee of equal protection.  Gays can marry, thank God, and you can't do a damn thing about it except to mouth empty threats of violence.   
   

[Free Vulcan]

Denying gays the right to the benefits, protections and status of civil marriage is a violation of equal protection.  Yes, the culture has changed,  and some religions continue to condemn homosexuality,  but come on now - my neighbors are no threat to anyone else and deserve the same opportunity as you and me to be happy in a covenant relationship with the person they love.   

"Road to destruction"?  Don't be ridiculous - my neighbors tend their yard and walk my dog when I'm away.   I reject slippery slope arguments as false and oppressive.   If the issue is personal morality, then address divorce and promiscuity,  and display some respect for those of us who've done the hard work to make a marriage work -whether gay or straight.

Problem is now they are trying to extend the same rights to transgenders, which is a strictly psychological designation and has no basis in science. Yet they are trying to impose their nebulous gender fluidity via the law upon us despite the fact they have no solid factual ground to stand on.

Not to mention that 'marriage equality' is quite selective as is 'identity'. Only those marriages recognized by the State are legal, as are identities. Those that aren't do not have legal status. So the 'equal protection' you cite is selective protection and not equal at all. It's only those who fall within a certain political agenda that are protected.

[Bigun]

It was again hilarious to read Jazzy fall right into the trap of justifying his hypocrisy on this issue.   

Hoodat NAILED him point-blank and he picked it ups and ran with his inane justifications of unmitigated bullshit to justify the tyranny he pushes.

And here this morning, he goes to great lengths to justify that hypocrisy.

It's what tyrants and their mobs of sycophants do.

And it is precisely why we have a Second Amendment, to defend ourselves against such tyrants.

While I personally lack the patience to deal with his sophistry I'm very glad that we have people around who do! 

GREAT post!

[DiogenesLamp]

The states are sovereign entities that have chosen to confederate under the umbrella of the Constitution.   To that end,  each state can reasonably regulate firearms as they see fit, and there is no requirement of uniformity since firearms possession is intrinsically a local concern.  So, yes,  Philadelphia ought to have the right to reject the trappings of Texas gun culture if it determines that open carry in the public square is inappropriate.    And a Texan traveling to Philly with a firearm (or vice versa) should be subject to local laws,  just as he is when purchasing/consuming alcohol.   

This is highly amusing.   For someone with whom i've gone round and round about the inappropriateness of using the 14th amendment to apply Federal restrictions to the states regarding religion,   you are seemingly all in favor of taking the "state's rights"  position regarding the second amendment.   


How is it appropriate to require the states to ban religion under the pretension that Federal requirements apply to the states,   but to reject this same claim when discussing the second amendment?   


You can't have it both ways.   

[DiogenesLamp]

Denying gays the right to the benefits, protections and status of civil marriage is a violation of equal protection. 

It is not.  Homosexuals are "non compos mentis"  and legally not in their right minds.   They couldn't "consent" according to the law up until Kook judges came along and declared that they could. 

The Kook judges upended normal law,  and substituted their kookery,  and then declared it to be "the law."   

[DiogenesLamp]

No hypocrisy, sir.   Alabama's constitution doesn't Trump the federal Constitution and its guarantee of equal protection.

No it doesn 't,  but the US Constitution does not recognize marriage between anyone other than a single man and a single woman.   


I do not care that modern lying kook bat judge say otherwise,  reality and history contradict their claims. 

Justice Kennedy was the deciding vote.   He's a nit-wit kook,  and we do not have to respect his single handed changing of the law in contradiction to the 200+ years of this nation's existence. 



We should deliberately defy any efforts to re-define our laws in contradiction with the principle "consent of the governed."   


We did not consent.   

[TomSea]

These are matters of jurisprudence, but one can't tell me that Alabama is a liberal state and it was their governmental committee, someone said "ethics committee" that removed Moore 2 times.

[Jazzhead]

This is highly amusing.   For someone with whom i've gone round and round about the inappropriateness of using the 14th amendment to apply Federal restrictions to the states regarding religion,   you are seemingly all in favor of taking the "state's rights"  position regarding the second amendment.   


How is it appropriate to require the states to ban religion under the pretension that Federal requirements apply to the states,   but to reject this same claim when discussing the second amendment?   


You can't have it both ways.

There's no contradiction.   The Second Amendment trumps state laws that would infringe the rights of gun owners.  The 14th Amendment trumps state laws that would deny the law's equal protection.   

Plenty of state gun laws are, of course, perfectly Constitutional - that's because the Second Amendment has always been construed to permit reasonable regulation.  But a state law that denies its citizens equal protection is  per se unConstitutional.

If Alabama wants to provide benefits and protections to straight couples who marry under the civil law, it must extend those same rights and protections to gay couples.   That's the law of the land - equal protection.  That's the Constitution's restriction on the arbitrary exercise of government.   But individuals aren't so constrained - so don't worry, gentle Christians -  the First Amendment protects religious bigotry.   

[Jazzhead]

We did not consent.   

You have no right to consent.  This isn't a democracy ruled by religious mobs, it's a Constitutional republic.   The power of government is constrained - it cannot deny the law's equal protection. 

[DiogenesLamp]

There's no contradiction.   

:)

The Second Amendment trumps state laws that would infringe the rights of gun owners. 

It does indeed do that,  because it says "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "   

I note it has no wiggle room for state law exceptions. 

It does not even need the 14th amendment to apply it to the people.   It already applies to all the people,  regardless of what state in which they live. 

[DiogenesLamp]

You have no right to consent.

The entire premise of this government is built on legitimacy through the consent of the governed.   

  This isn't a democracy ruled by religious mobs, it's a Constitutional republic.   The power of government is constrained - it cannot deny the law's equal protection.

It did so for "four score and seven years",  and you are trying to tell me a constitutional Republic cannot?   You need to revisit your history.   They did it.   

[Jazzhead]

The entire premise of this government is built on legitimacy through the consent of the governed.   

You are still favoring democracy when you know darn well this isn't a democracy but a Constitutional republic.    Some things aren't to be taken away by a majoritarian mob - religion-fueled or otherwise.  One of those things is the law's equal protection.