Donald Trump: Kentucky clerk broke ‘the law of the land’ by blocking gay weddings

.

Homosexuals infiltrated the Catholic church.

And stop calling them "gay." The term is Homosexuals.

.

You are forgetting one thing. Interracial marriage is still marriage. This gay stuff isn't. Because it can't be done without redefining the word marriage. And those laws in the bible were for the tribe of Israel. Homosexuality is also mentioned in the New Testament and it is called an abomination. The abomination of desolation (no offspring)standing in the holy place (alter). It's pretty dang serious. Time is pretty short now.

It is simply fatuous to bring up the scenario that she might decide to "do whatever she wants". She is an ELECTED official, so if she did anything the people of her county did not back up, they would vote her out or impeach her.

That is the solution. Local control.

She wasn't making up any law. She was following KY law. And she was performing civil disobedience against the nullification of KY law by SCOTUS. If the population of her county wanted to back her up in civil disobedience, then the Fed Judges would have to send Marshals to arrest the whole damn county. But instead they arrested the representative of the county, the elected clerk. A big F-YOU to the people of Kentucky, claiming that they were denying the homos a "right" protected by the US constitution, which is complete BS.

That was 15 years ago in 2000 and opinion has changed considerably since then. Polling data shows majority support for gay marriage, so no there is no likelihood Congress could or would support a bill overturning the SCOTUS ruling.

Bingo! And don't believe the fucking 'polls",they are pure bullshit used to create the impression there is more support for something than there is.In every case where it has been put up for a vote in a referendum it has been defeated,even in California

Every media poll including and especially Gallup is social engneering scam/

POLLS ARE BULLSHIT. Whoever is counting the votes will always "count" them to support whatever they want them to.Common fuckign sense

The thing is, if she feels this way she should resign because she is not performing the duties of her job. It's cut and dry. If she wants to make a point then fine, but take it elsewhere to another venue.

No that's not it. Her mistake was bringing religion into government. She is part of the secular (non-religious) government, and a conscientious objector is a private individual. Once the conscientious objector enters the military and goes into combat, he cannot change his mind and decide to become a pacifist and refuse to fight. But as a private individual he can do that. A pastor as a private individual can refuse to marry a gay couple, but a government official cannot refuse to issue a gay couple a license to marry .

Oh looky! Cognitive Dissonance for GLP!

So, so cute.

Exactly! The polling data he is probably citing is the same polling data that says jeb is a front runner and Hillary has massive support....

The major reason homosexuals want a piece of paper is for health benefits, survivorship, etc. It's all about money and blurting out they feel unequal. I'd say, it's just a feeling they won't heal with marriage. Give them the piece of paper, and they'll contribute to the financial economy, period.

The Supreme Court was wrong. The Majority ruled according to their personal beliefs, and the minority dissent was according to actual Law. Therefore, since even the majority of SCOTUS is not considered INFALLIBLE, the States have remedy when they believe the SCOTUS has acted unlawfully.

They can IGNORE SCOTUS. And FIGHT for their RIGHTS, and the RIGHTS of their elected citizen officials to civilly disobey SCOTUS while they seek to overturn the decision by appealing to the branches of govt which can CHECK the SCOTUS.

In the meantime, the Federal Courts can TRY to hold a citizen from the State accountable for contempt, and perhaps should. But the County Sheriff needs to keep an eye on the situation and make sure the Feds law enforcement (marshals) do not punish civil disobedience in an unbalanced manner. Such as imprisoning a clerk for not issuing a license that has never been issued before. There is not significant injury (felony) to warrant imprisonment.

It is tyrannical insanity to imprison an elected official for not issuing a license for marriage privileges. Fed f*cking Goonery.

There is a reason why society has chosen to give certain breaks and benefits (privileges if you will) to men and women who marry. It is to encourage the creation and perpetuation of nuclear families which are the backbone of a strong civilized community and thus nation. Most of the criteria regulating the attaining of a marriage license and the benefits resulting revolve around making it easy to procreate, to raise the children healthy, and enable them to have children, inherit the property and keep the dynastic legacy going.

This creates a strong nation and enables the nation to prosper and be able to defend itself better against opposition, or worse, invasion.

Homos can't procreate. They don't perpetuate dynastic legacies. Since time immemorial they have been a small margin, because that is the way life is. But, if they get a foothold to obtain a piece of the taxpayer pie meant for normal families, that takes away from the normal families, the backbone of the community. Which will weaken the society. This common sense is why 75% of Kentuckians voted NO GAY MARRIAGE LICENSES.

Homos can still create a marriage ceremony, live with one another and love one another, contract for equity in property and inheritance, without demanding perks meant strictly to strengthen families.

If it was only that, then they would have been happy with that legal partnership solution. If they only wanted health benefits, survivorship, etc., they wouldn't be taking bakers, photographers and other people with moral objections to court and suing them. It's pretty dang obvious it is not about benefits and such, it is about shoving their third leg down our throats and making us like it or else. That's what it is about. A war on religious people. They can cry their fake tears all they want. We know who guides them and we know their objective.

It's much less complicated than you're making it.

U.S. Supreme Court decisions are binding on the States and their Courts. They must follow those decisions according to the way federalism itself is created. States cannot be forced to implement a federal program, but the U.S Supreme Court has the power of independent judicial review through Marbury and its decisions are binding on all lower courts in the nation. That's what makes it "Supreme."

State courts must follow the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court as they were similarly forced to do so during Brown v. Board of Education. It's simple, it's called federalism, and it's how this country had operated for a long time now. The Kentucky clerk is a clerk for a state jurisdiction which is similarly subject to following the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. There's nothing new going on here.

It's true SCOTUS can't create law, but they can interpret laws, including the Constitution, as they apply to other policies/programs/laws/ordinances and decide whether certain programs are legal in view of certain laws, the Constitution, etc. Those decisions are "binding" on other courts, meaning that other courts have to follow them, thus effectively "creating" law other courts have to follow (state pro-slavery laws were made illegal, segregation was made illegal, state gay marriage bans were made illegal all as the result of SCOTUS decisions). Although yes, only Congress had the power to "legislate." Ultimately though, law is "created" through all 3 branches of gov.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Supreme Court decisions must be followed by the states. And to back this up you cite other Supreme Court rulings.

I'm just an average American here, but what that sounds like to me is the Supreme Court can rule whatever they want and everyone has to follow it because the Supreme Court says so? Wouldn't that be like me standing on a soapbox saying "every woman that walks by has to show me her tits or go to jail" and when people say that's not right, I say "I ruled it as right so it is now right, please see my previous ruling giving me ultimate authority regardless of the constitution"

How is that not tyranny?

All scientific polling data shows that Hillary still has the lead among democrats, Trump has a wide lead among conservatives and that gay marriage has roughly 55-60% support among the public.

But oh, you must be paying attention to the ones Karl Rove was trusting back in 2012...

You are correct, that SCOTUS decisions have the force of law, but they are not infallible and can rule contrary to Constitutional principles. Which they just did. In which case the other poster is correct that She did not break the law, because SCOTUS broke the law. It is just that there is no one currently with the guts or the power to reign in SCOTUS when they break the law. This is the job of the congress and even the people themselves can act.

The major problem here is the way the Fed Judge went about dealing with this act of civil disobedience in a matter that is not a felony. There is no real injury in that no homo in Kentucky has ever been allowed the privilege of a marriage license before, and they are not losing anything, they simply do not gain something they want. So disobeying this new "law" should not result in prison. The Feds should work with the State and county to resolve the issue using other persuasive methods. If the county residents back the clerk up in her disobedience and refuse to impeach her, the Fed Judge could order a house arrest as last resort, forcing the public to elect a new clerk to do the job. Then she would be free to pursue a new career.

Arresting her and imprisoning her is complete Tyrannical B.S. Especially when the majority of the public disagrees with the decision.

It is only tyranny if you have no recourse when the SCOTUS makes a ruling that is blatantly unconstitutional and tries to enforce it on you.

In other words, if your congress sits back and does nothing, then you are under full governmental tyranny. In which case you need to take the next step. Organize towards a constitutional convention of the States in order to amend the constitution directly in order to nullify the unconstitutional SCOTUS ruling that your corrupt congressmen backed up. If you fail to get that done, you have to judge whether the tyrannical law is grave enough to take the next step or not. 1776 style.

The Supreme Court has battled many times with the Executive to give themselves the power they have, but they still have that power regardless of what you make of it. Marbury v. Madison was one of the first battles in which they said they have the power to exercise independent judicial review of federal laws and decide the constitutionality of those laws. So yes, they have given themselves power through their own decisions, as ridiculous as that sounds, nor was President John Adams happy about it when that case was decided. But it has become the basis of the law as it now exists because it hasn't been overturned. Generally, that case is now seen as creating a valuable check on Executive power.

But it breaks down like this: under the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. SCOTUS, under Article III of the Constitution, is the highest court in the land, making it's decisions binding on all lower courts, both federal and state. And in Marbury v. Madison, SCOTUS said it has the power to strike down laws that conflict with the law of the land as it sees it. So, all those subsequent cases - like Brown v. Board of Education - have their basis in the precedent set in Marbury. That's why the Feds had the authority to force Southern states to desegregate, and that's the same reason they have the authority to impose punishment on the Kentucky clerk here and now.

Rather, at the end there, I should say "that's the reason SCOTUS had the ability to strike down the gay marriage bans and subsequently impose punishment on the clerk.

So: supremacy clause makes Constitution highest law of the land. Constitution creates SCOTUS as highest court in the land, making its decisions binding on all federal and state courts. SCOTUS gives itself power in Marbury to invalidate state and federal laws. Combined with the Supremacy Clause, SCOTUS can invalidate federal and state laws and make have those decisions be binding on state courts.

Barry Soetoro himself isn't legal.

None of his court appointees are legal.

No county clerk signed off on the marriages.

Another Barry Soetoro mess. Maybe he will be outed soon. Shemitah coming up in 8 days.

Does this add to their joy knowing they sent her to jail?

Donald Trump holds marriages at his hotels. Business.

Basically in everything you said the end result is the Supreme Court can do anything it wants and is not subject to any bounds or balances, they are the final say and they give themselves power.

For some reason that doesn't sound like what was originally intended for the Supreme Court.

I do understand where you are coming from but be honest, does that all sound just a little oppressive to you? I mean they ruled that obamacare was constitutional even though obamacare is corporatism due to the fact everyone has to have insurance from said corporations and the government is the enforcer. At no point ever should the federal government be the strong arm of the corporations, but in the real world that is exactly what is happening all over this country.

They were given too many powers. Jefferson complained about it.

Barry Soetoro really made use of it. Jefferson saw it coming.

I think the executive branch is much more oppressive than the judicial branch. Having the ability to invalidate a law is one power, but the executive branch could promulgate another one within an executive agency, or attempt to stack the Court with its own Justices, like FDR tried to do. You have to keep it in perspective relative to what the other powers can do.

Forcing people to purchase private health care plans under Obamacare should be seen as unconstitutional (especially because of what you noted -- the power of corporations to write the legislation and then use the government as enforcer to enroll as many people as possible), although I have no problems with its other provisions. SCOTUS managed to tiptoe its way through that issue by calling the fee for not enrolling a "tax" as opposed to a penalty (taxes under the Tax and Spend Clause of the Constitution are subject to a much less stringent level of review and are thus often viewed as Constitutional) and validating it on that basis. Of course, it was hugely political, as it took Obama 15+ months to pass the law and was his "signature" achievement, and they didn't want to invalidate it for that reason, either... ;)

All this to say that yes, the government has far exceeded the bounds of what the founders would have considered the proper constitutional limits of the government's power, but not because of what they did in Kentucky. That I don't think is a huge abuse, or really even an abuse for that matter. The big abuses happen within the federal police agencies and within the FISA courts, which are subject to "review" by Article III federal judges but which I don't think have much oversight at all when it comes down to it. Snowden released a few secret orders from FISA courts which confirmed a bunch of things for us, e.g., telecoms are using dragnet surveillance on all citizens, searches and seizures are not conducted according to actual "law" you find in public opinions issued by judges and laws you find in the books, etc. All this, mind you, coming from the executive branch, and not the judiciary, which, with the exception of those FISA judges, really take a back seat when it comes to these huge international affairs entirely. Just my two cents. Yeah, I have a legal background if it isn't obvious by now haha.