Kentucky Clerk In Contempt For Denying Gay Marriage Licenses

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

Well, he is a Pecker fan.

Only smart thing about him.

[Reality 2,710]

 

Well, he is a Pecker fan.

/Thread

 

Hard to think of one who isn't a complete focking idiot around here.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Forget it, we are talking about gay marriage here. The libs check their double digit IQs at the door.

Ok, I'll play.

 

You want to know the difference between ghey marriage, legal weed, and sanctuary cities?

 

I would say they fall into three different classes.

 

Sanctuary cities is easy. The constitution clearly gives the federal governed the power to regulate immigration and naturalization. The supremacy clause applies. Jail or impeach the officials who refuse to enforce the law. Next.

 

Legal weed. I would argue that federal drug laws are unconstitutional anyway, as there is no ennumerated power in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to regulate this. Now, assuming arguendo that such laws are constitutional, the local authorities are not responsible for enforcing federal law. They have not "legalized" pot per se, they merely choose not to criminalize it. If the Feds want to hire more agents and patrol the crap out of these places, they are within their rights. In fact, a local cop CANNOT arrest on a violation of federal law alone. He has no jurisdiction.

 

Now, ghey marriage. The federal law banning it, as well as all state ones, were held to violate the 14th amendment. Just like segregated schools. This woman is a modern George Wallace. She had zero leg to stand on. Her religion is her personal business. Her official capacity is to follow the focking law.

 

See the difference?

[KSB2424 3,083]

Ok, I'll play.

 

You want to know the difference between ghey marriage, legal weed, and sanctuary cities?

 

I would say they fall into three different classes.

 

Sanctuary cities is easy. The constitution clearly gives the federal governed the power to regulate immigration and naturalization. The supremacy clause applies. Jail or impeach the officials who refuse to enforce the law. Next.

 

Legal weed. I would argue that federal drug laws are unconstitutional anyway, as there is no ennumerated power in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to regulate this. Now, assuming arguendo that such laws are constitutional, the local authorities are not responsible for enforcing federal law. They have not "legalized" pot per se, they merely choose not to criminalize it. If the Feds want to hire more agents and patrol the crap out of these places, they are within their rights. In fact, a local cop CANNOT arrest on a violation of federal law alone. He has no jurisdiction.

 

Now, ghey marriage. The federal law banning it, as well as all state ones, were held to violate the 14th amendment. Just like segregated schools. This woman is a modern George Wallace. She had zero leg to stand on. Her religion is her personal business. Her official capacity is to follow the focking law.

 

See the difference?

You're close. The answer of 'why' this lady can be jailed but not the sherif in San Fran was answered in a link a while back I this thread.

 

But that only speaks to the jail part. In the instance of the sanctuary cities, the local officials are supposed to follow the law too. But they don't. The Feds cannot jail gov't employees, but they can do other things to put pressure on the locals. Withhold local funds, public pressure, lawsuits, all sorts of things. A bill was introduced to do just that and the President squashed it. Apparently he's fine with certain people not following the law, but not others.

 

We turn a blind eye in that case. All the while making this one lady in Kentucky go to jail making her a martyr.

 

Seems to not be very consistent to me. In both cases the federal law should be upheld. But people are only pissed at one.

[MDC 5,895]

You're close. The answer of 'why' this lady can be jailed but not the sherif in San Fran was answered in a link a while back I this thread.

 

But that only speaks to the jail part. In the instance of the sanctuary cities, the local officials are supposed to follow the law too. But they don't. The Feds cannot jail gov't employees, but they can do other things to put pressure on the locals. Withhold local funds, public pressure, lawsuits, all sorts of things. A bill was introduced to do just that and the President squashed it. Apparently he's fine with certain people not following the law, but not others.

 

We turn a blind eye in that case. All the while making this one lady in Kentucky go to jail making her a martyr.

 

Seems to not be very consistent to me. In both cases the federal law should be upheld. But people are only pissed at one.

Has anybody here defended sanctuary cities? I don't know a ton about the issue because I don't live in one. Maybe I'd oppose it if you started a thread?

 

Mostly it seems like you're trying to deflect from the dumb focking cat lady. Can we all agree that she's dumb and fat?

[KSB2424 3,083]

Has anybody here defended sanctuary cities? I don't know a ton about the issue because I don't live in one. Maybe I'd oppose it if you started a thread?

 

Mostly it seems like you're trying to deflect from the dumb focking cat lady. Can we all agree that she's dumb and fat?

 

The cat lady needs to either follow the law OR resign in protest.

 

And not many people here have "defended" Sanctuary cities.....but I created a thread and nobody chimed in against them either. It's ignored, when its a bigger issue and more violent issue than marriage. And while nobody here has defended Sanctuary Cities.....this happens by our administration. Now I am not one to blame Obama for everythign under the sun. But in this case its warranted.

 

 

 

The Obama administration on Thursday threatened to veto a House bill that would strip federal law enforcement grants from "sanctuary cities."

The bill would deny cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration laws certain Justice Department grants, and is expected to get a House vote on Thursday. The bill is a response to the shooting death of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant who had been deported several times.

An illegal immigrant, Francisco Sanchez, was a convicted felon but was released from custody by law enforcement in San Francisco in April, despite a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement order to hold him so he could again be deported. He has been charged with killing the 32-year-old Steinle.

But a White House statement indicated that the Obama administration doesn't see that event as a reason to pressure sanctuary cities to enforce federal laws.

 

 

In other words. "WE MUST FOLLOW FEDERAL LAWS OR ELSE" only really is pertinent dependent on if we personally like the federal law in question it seems.

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

 

The cat lady needs to either follow the law OR resign in protest.

 

And not many people here have "defended" Sanctuary cities.....but I created a thread and nobody chimed in against them either. It's ignored, when its a bigger issue and more violent issue than marriage. And while nobody here has defended Sanctuary Cities.....this happens by our administration. Now I am not one to blame Obama for everythign under the sun. But in this case its warranted.

 

 

 

In other words. "WE MUST FOLLOW FEDERAL LAWS OR ELSE" only really is pertinent dependent on if we personally like the federal law in question it seems.

 

You keep making statements like this and all it does it show you still don't get the difference between the two cases.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

I'm at a loss why KSB is so desperate to defect when he apparently agrees that the lady has to either follow the law or quit

[Frank M 181]

Is it really a reasonable accommodation to have the legislature take up the issue of removing her name from the documentation? Or to have the licenses possibly be invalid if she doesn't approve them?

 

Seems to me to go far beyond what is "reasonable" for a religious bigot who's going to end up on the wrong side of history when it's all said and done.

[Frank M 181]

I'm at a loss why KSB is so desperate to defect when he apparently agrees that the lady has to either follow the law or quit

He's strange that way. Like when we were having a nice conversation about John Kasich and he got all indignant about Democrats voting for him midway through the thread after gocolts stated his disdain.

 

Weird.

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

You keep making statements like this and all it does it show you still don't get the difference between the two cases.

 

The difference is in how (i.e. what measures) the Federal Gov't can force the Federal Law to be followed. Not that in each case things can be done to get the same result (follow the damn law).

 

You don't find it weird that our Federal Gov't does nothing when a local gov't ignores the law? They put zero pressure on them and if a bill comes up to do so its vetoed. That doesn't strke you as odd?

 

I'm consistent. The law needs to be followed and those that don't should be held accountable in whatever way is deemed. In the cat lady case she can be jailed, in the sanctuary city case funds can be withheld. Only one of those happened. Why is that?

[KSB2424 3,083]

I'm at a loss why KSB is so desperate to defect when he apparently agrees that the lady has to either follow the law or quit

 

I'm not deflecting, imo this woman should follow the law or resign. It's pretty cut and dry (which is boring as its a no-brainer) to me so I spun it forward a different way. This thread is weeks old and on page 4. It evolved for me to include other federal laws that are not followed. Why it seems okay for some and not others. The inconsistency.

 

Hope that is okay with you.

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

 

The difference is in how the Federal Gov't can force the Federal Law to be followed. Not that in each case things can be done to get the same result (follow the damn law).

 

You don't find it weird that our Federal Gov't does nothing when a local gov't ignores the law? They put zero pressure on them and if a bill comes up to do so its vetoed. That doesn't strke you as odd?

 

I'm consistent. The law needs to be followed and those that don't should be held accountable in whatever way is deemed. In the cat lady case she can be jailed, in the sanctuary city case funds can be withheld. Only one of those happened. Why is that?

 

This is incorrect, read the link again, you still don't get it. The fed isn't forcing anything.

 

You don't find it weird that our Federal Gov't does nothing when a local gov't ignores the law? They put zero pressure on them and if a bill comes up to do so its vetoed. That doesn't strke you as odd?

I'm consistent. The law needs to be followed and those that don't should be held accountable in whatever way is deemed. In the cat lady case she can be jailed, in the sanctuary city case funds can be withheld. Only one of those happened. Why is that?

 

 

This is not a new phenomenon.

[KSB2424 3,083]

I read the link. Let me ask you a simple question to whittle this down.

 

 

The Obama administration on Thursday threatened to veto a House bill that would strip federal law enforcement grants from "sanctuary cities."

 

 

 

Why don't we put pressure on the San Fran local authorities to follow the Federal Immigration Law? The Fed's cannot 'force' them based on your link (which is the difference between the cat lady and this), but they can put pressure on them to do so, yet we don't. Why?

[MDC 5,895]

I'm at a loss why KSB is so desperate to defect when he apparently agrees that the lady has to either follow the law or quit

My guess is that he perceives this woman o be on his "team," in that she's a cultural conservative, and therefore cannot let criticism of her stand without trying to draw a strained parallel to hypocrites who don't reside on this bored but may be out there somewhere.

[NewbieJr 540]

My guess is that he perceives this woman o be on his "team," in that she's a cultural conservative, and therefore cannot let criticism of her stand without trying to draw a strained parallel to hypocrites who don't reside on this bored but may be out there somewhere.

Winner winner chicken dinner. He doesn't want the Fox News crowd angry with him.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Nobody can answer my simple question. The silence speaks.

[MDC 5,895]

Nobody can answer my simple question. The silence speaks.

Probably because nobody here supports sanctuary cities.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Probably because nobody here supports sanctuary cities.

.

 

That wasn't my question. Why would the president veto a bill that puts pressure on them to comply with federal laws?

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

I read the link. Let me ask you a simple question to whittle this down.

 

 

Why don't we put pressure on the San Fran local authorities to follow the Federal Immigration Law? The Fed's cannot 'force' them based on your link (which is the difference between the cat lady and this), but they can put pressure on them to do so, yet we don't. Why?

 

Yes, you've posted that before and again, this is not new. The executive branch since Jefferson has decided in some cases to not enforce certain laws it they disagree with them, believe them to be unconstitutional, or prosecutorial discretion. It's pretty rare, but it does happen, like in this instance. Ball is back in congresses court.

[MDC 5,895]

.

 

That wasn't my question. Why would the president veto a bill that puts pressure on them to comply with federal laws?

I don't know. Why don't you start a thread about it?

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

I don't know. Why don't you start a thread about it?

 

If he were really interested, he should focking google it, instead of running around here waiting for people to educate him.

 

KSB2424, on 14 Sept 2015 - 2:32 PM, said:

Nobody can answer my simple question. The silence speaks.

 

It's actually a pretty complicated question.

[MDC 5,895]

 

If he were really interested, he should focking google it, instead of running around here waiting for people to educate him.

I don't know the answer either. But I do know that KSB is deflecting hard.

[KSB2424 3,083]

I don't know. Why don't you start a thread about it?

 

I did, it was silent....nobody answered my question.

 

People can't seem to answer it with a straight face...because they know it shows inconsistency. It shows the president picking and choosing laws to push others to enforce. It's very Roger Goodell like. Inconsistent.

 

The answer is:

 

People choose which Federal Laws to enforce based on personal beliefs. That's wrong. The cat lady is in the wrong on the Ghey Marraige thing and the President is wrong for saying he would veto a bill putting pressure on Sanctuary cities.

 

And only one of those has cost lives.....which seems to me to be of greater importance.

[MDC 5,895]

 

I did, it was silent....nobody answered my question.

 

People can't seem to answer it with a straight face...because they know it shows inconsistency. It shows the president picking and choosing laws to push others to enforce. It's very Roger Goodell like. Inconsistent.

Oh so in this story the fat cat lady is the victim and Obummer is the bad guy. I should have guessed.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

.

 

That wasn't my question. Why would the president veto a bill that puts pressure on them to comply with federal laws?

You're really getting out in the weeds here.

 

I don't really know anything about the sanctuary city stuff so I will take your representations of the veto and so forth as true.

 

Still it is an entirely different situation. The U.S. Constitution compels the states and local government to allow and recognize gheys marriage. The Constitution does not, so far as I know, compel cities to report illegal immigrants.

 

Now I know what you're going to say, or at least what you're trying to say. Federal law does compel cities to report (I'm not sure about that though: is there a specific statute or anything?) and federal law is supreme.

 

But that isn't the same thing a direct constitutional command like with ghey marriage. So with ghey marriage this cat lady is ignoring a direct command of the constitution whereas sanctuary cities are arguably ignoring some federal statute or regulation.

 

Why does the difference matter? Because there are all kinds of laws the federal government chooses not to aggressively enforce out of deference to the states or other policy reasons. You've already pointed to one with medical marihuana and now full legalization of marihuana. Technically the federal government can make laws prohibiting it and they have, but at the same time some states have chosen to do something different and, for now at least, the federal government is not obstructing that.

 

So again, the difference is that sanctuary cities or states legalizing pot are not ignoring a direct constitutional command. Rather they are arguably ignoring federal law that states/cities have no obligation or even ability to enforce, and which the federal government has chosen not to aggressively pursue.

 

Now I suspect this will be lost on you somehow but at least now you can't say that nobody bothered to waste their time and energy responding to your attempts at deflection

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

The executive branch since Jefferson has decided in some cases to not enforce certain laws it they disagree with them.

 

 

 

Which is wrong and the President should not do it. Congress has a bill that puts pressure on a locality to FOLLOW FEDERAL LAW. And he says he will veto it? That is B.S. in my opinion. It's something a leader like Goodell would do. Pick and choose based on preference. Be inconsistent. I don't care if it was ever done before.

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

 

I did, it was silent....nobody answered my question.

 

People can't seem to answer it with a straight face...because they know it shows inconsistency. It shows the president picking and choosing laws to push others to enforce. It's very Roger Goodell like. Inconsistent.

 

The answer is:

 

People choose which Federal Laws to enforce based on personal beliefs. That's wrong. The cat lady is in the wrong on the Ghey Marraige thing and the President is wrong for saying he would veto a bill putting pressure on Sanctuary cities.

 

And only one of those has cost lives.....which seems to me to be of greater importance.

 

NO, the cat lady is being asked to implement state laws---which must be in accordance with the Constitution. Sanctuary cities are choosing not to enforce federal laws and are under no obligation to do so.

 

For fock sake, we've been over this 5 times and my damn cat has a better grasp on this then you.

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

 

Which is wrong and the President should not do it. Congress has a bill that puts pressure on a locality to FOLLOW FEDERAL LAW. And he says he will veto it? That is B.S. in my opinion. It's something a leader like Goodell would do. Pick and choose based on preference. Be inconsistent. I don't care if it was ever done before.

 

Really, like when Kennedy decided not to enforce a separate but equal doctrine, because his administration thought it was unconstitutional(correctly by the way)---that was wrong. Sorry, kid, the world isn't always black and white.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Because there are all kinds of laws the federal government chooses not to aggressively enforce out of deference to the states or other policy reasons.

 

Congress chose to aggressively enforce a federal law, but the President says he will veto.

 

I want to know why? And also why nobody seems to care.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

 

Congress chose to aggressively enforce a federal law, but the President says he will veto.

 

I want to know why? And also why nobody seems to care.

Okay now you are just being obstinate. Mike Honcho and now myself have directly engaged you but you pretend not to understand or are actually incapable of understanding. Either way I have no further use for this line of conversation

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

NO, the cat lady is being asked to implement state laws---which must be in accordance with the Constitution. Sanctuary cities are choosing not to enforce federal laws and are under no obligation to do so.

 

For fock sake, we've been over this 5 times and my damn cat has a better grasp on this then you.

 

The exact way I feel.

 

My point, and I'll type slow.....

 

They are under no obligation, because Obama will choose to veto a bill that would give them a reason to actually choose to follow the law. That, in a nutshell is my point of contention. A local authority is choosing to not follow Federal laws, Congress puts forth a bill to put pressure on them to do so, yet it will get vetoed.

 

It makes no sense to veto that bill from the Executive Branch. It only makes sense if you think the President rules which laws are okay on personal agendas. I know people do it, but that is B.S. and not the sign of a good leader.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Okay now you are just being obstinate. Mike Honcho and now myself have directly engaged you but you pretend not to understand or are actually incapable of understanding. Either way I have no further use for this line of conversation

 

Ask me a specific question then. WTF can you not comprehend?

[IGotWorms 3,317]

 

Ask me a specific question then. WTF can you not comprehend?

Somebody is having massive comprehension problems, but it ain't me

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

Really, like when Kennedy decided not to enforce a separate but equal doctrine, because his administration thought it was unconstitutional (correctly by the way)---that was wrong. Sorry, kid, the world isn't always black and white.

 

Barack Obama would be the among good company when it comes to saying he will not enforce a law. For example, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt all stated their intention of non-enforcement or, in Lincoln’s case, he actually followed through (The Habeas Cases). Unlike the aforementioned Presidents, however, Obama is basing his non-enforcement decision not on the constitutionality of the law or provision, but on what can only be described as a policy disagreement. It could best be described as political pandering,

 

Unless Obama thinks the current Federal Immigration Law is unconstitutional, then he would be the first to not enforce a law based on a different reason.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Somebody is having massive comprehension problems, but it ain't me

 

That's not a question. Did you not comprehend my post? Lets try again...

 

Ask me a specific question then.

[Magnificent Bastard 190]

What a bunch of idiots, with their King.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

 

That's not a question. Did you not comprehend my post? Lets try again...

 

Why the fock would I be asking any questions?

 

You drew a parallel between the cat lady incident and sactuaty cities and asked how they were different. Multiple people have explained it to you multiple times. You either can't understand it or are pretending not to understand it. And now you appear to be shifting the goalposts to boot.

 

So I don't have any questions. You did, and didn't like the answer

[KSB2424 3,083]

Why the fock would I be asking any questions?

 

You drew a parallel between the cat lady incident and sactuaty cities and asked how they were different. Multiple people have explained it to you multiple times. You either can't understand it or are pretending not to understand it. And now you appear to be shifting the goalposts to boot.

 

So I don't have any questions. You did, and didn't like the answer

 

We've gone over this already. Are you not reading the thread?

 

Ghey Marraige vs. Sanctuary Cities

 

The difference between them is "How" they can be enforced. It is much easier to make Cat Lady obey the law, she can even be put in jail (like she rightfully was), and the Federal Gov't can force her to comply pretty easliy. It's not that easy in the Sanctuary City case as the type of laws are different, The feds are not compelled to force them. That is the difference. Everyone understands this as of a week ago.

 

However over the course of a week and 4 pages the conversation evolved too: Even though it's more difficult to make local authorities comply with Federal Law on immigration.....why don't they in this case? Why would Obama veto any bill trying to do so? What is wrong with holding illegal aliens that are criminals?

 

Unless Obama thinks the current Immigration law is unconstitutional then he is only doing it for political pandering reasons. And I think that is B.S. Nobody will answer my bolded questions.....you and others only keep going back to things we already know (the first paragraph) or deflect to personal attacks. I'm asking direct questions here.

 

ETA: When that whole Kate's Law was in the news regarding Sanctuary Cities my first reaction was "Well that should be at least one thing that everyone agrees on and should get bi-partisan support". Then a day later Obama said he'd veto it. Sheesh.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

Oh I get it now, you just want to b1tch about a veto obama supposedly threatened and which has nothing to do with this thread. Okay, carry on