Guest shiloh357 Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Supreme Court: "Because We Said So" By: Anne Reed Posted: Friday, June 26, 2015 10:40 AM (Excerpt from article) What has happened to our country? This doesn’t seem real! And sadly, too many Americans either don’t understand or don’t care about the sinkhole of corruption consuming our constitutional republic. In generalized terms, the responsibility of the three branches of government are as follows: Legislative (Congress) makes laws, Executive (President) implements and enforces those laws, Judicial (Courts) applies those laws. However, the clarity, order, and protection provided by the three branches have been replaced with chaos. The following assessment (borrowed from my husband) presents the sad truth: We now officially have three legislative branches of government: 1) Congress does and should write laws. 2) President Obama uses executive orders to create laws and refuses to enforce the ones he doesn't like. 3) The courts chose to interpret any way they like with no regard for the Constitution. And they rewrite laws to fit their opinions. http://www.afa.net/the-stand/the-culture-war/supreme-court-because-we-said-so/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted June 26, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,993 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,691 Content Per Day: 11.76 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted June 26, 2015 It is sad but it is the tip of the iceberg of what this world will see in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted June 26, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,260 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,988 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted June 26, 2015 what do we do about it...... the only person running that I agree with is Donald Trump and most of you won't consider him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwalker Posted June 26, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 92 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 2,054 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 1,753 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/09/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted June 26, 2015 Completely disregarding the will of the people and the will of the state is bad enough but by saying the 14th amendment applies to desires, sexual or otherwise, this opens the door to every weird behavior. That slippery slope. No I am, afraid this is the end of American Greatness Socialism is taking over, freedom is waning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 It won't be long until every weird perverted sexual preference is put out there for acceptance. How long before a man can marry his daughter? How long until pedophilia is considered a sexual "orientation?" How long before three people want to be a three-way marriage?? The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds. The Supreme Court was created to regulate the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government. It was not given power by the Constitution to override either the will of the people or the laws of a given state. The Federal government has forgotten that every state is a sovereign entity and make its own laws. Each state has its own supreme court, its own legislative and executive bodies and each state should decide for themselves if they plan to recognize gay marriage. That is a state decision and not in the purview of the federal Supreme Court. Many pastors will simply engage in civil disobedience and will not perform gay marriages. I know several pastors who will not endorse gay marriage and have already stated that they are willing to face jail time if they are given a choice between jail or submitting to the homofacsists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted June 27, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,993 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,691 Content Per Day: 11.76 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted June 27, 2015 It won't be long until every weird perverted sexual preference is put out there for acceptance. How long before a man can marry his daughter? How long until pedophilia is considered a sexual "orientation?" How long before three people want to be a three-way marriage?? The Supreme Court overstepped its bounds. The Supreme Court was created to regulate the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government. It was not given power by the Constitution to override either the will of the people or the laws of a given state. The Federal government has forgotten that every state is a sovereign entity and make its own laws. Each state has its own supreme court, its own legislative and executive bodies and each state should decide for themselves if they plan to recognize gay marriage. That is a state decision and not in the purview of the federal Supreme Court. Many pastors will simply engage in civil disobedience and will not perform gay marriages. I know several pastors who will not endorse gay marriage and have already stated that they are willing to face jail time if they are given a choice between jail or submitting to the homofacsists. It is coming.We have only seen the previews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted June 27, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,260 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,988 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted June 27, 2015 when we are under Sharia we won't have to deal with any of this..... question is can we live under Sharia Law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted June 27, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 27, 2015 I understand the SCOTUS was reading the line in red, below, when they made their decision. However, read the last line of this amendment. There was NO law guaranteeing the right to marry FOR ANYONE, gay or straight, before this law was passed. How then could one be interpreted (legislative branch) or enforced (executive branch)? In other words, the SCOTUS made a law. I'm not even a lawyer and I know this. What's wrong with the do nothings in Congress? Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted June 27, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted June 27, 2015 Donald Trump isn't going to be able to fix this problem, and neither will any other single candidate for President. The issue is the courts acting as national dictators. If we elected a Libertarian candidate, they couldn't fix this problem, at least for many years to come. It would require having someone as President with the desire to nominate only people that will faithfully defend and uphold the Constitution according to original intent, and a Senate that agrees with their choices. People like that would have to win several elections in a row. That is the uphill battle we face. We need to be careful who we vote for, and where they stand on judges, but what are the odds we can succeed in doing this, when people win or lose elections based on whether or not their dog rides on top of their car, or someone accuses them of not paying their taxes with no evidence. No matter who is nominated and affirmed to sit on the Supreme Court, it's no guarantee. You've only to look at Scalia and Roberts to know this is true. The two of them are jokes as far as being conservative justices goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts