The Governor cannot pick what laws he will and will not enforce that the people themselves have agreed upon.

He can and does and has since the day the state became a state. So can the Attorney General. So can any police officer or judge. SCOTUS have even ruled that there is no provision that requires enforcement. They are free to look the other way.

---

The Governor cannot pick what laws he will and will not enforce that the people themselves have agreed upon.

He can and does and has since the day the state became a state. So can the Attorney General. So can any police officer or judge. SCOTUS have even ruled that there is no provision that requires enforcement. They are free to look the other way.

He cannot. That would be a breach of contract, the contract being called the Constitution.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

The Governor cannot pick what laws he will and will not enforce that the people themselves have agreed upon.

He can and does and has since the day the state became a state. So can the Attorney General. So can any police officer or judge. SCOTUS have even ruled that there is no provision that requires enforcement. They are free to look the other way.

He cannot. That would be a breach of contract, the contract being called the Constitution.

If the govenor dosent like the bill beofre him he can veto it or just not sign it.

---

[/quote]

Old James

The Governor cannot pick what laws he will and will not enforce that the people themselves have agreed upon.

He can and does and has since the day the state became a state. So can the Attorney General. So can any police officer or judge. SCOTUS have even ruled that there is no provision that requires enforcement. They are free to look the other way.

He cannot. That would be a breach of contract, the contract being called the Constitution.

If the govenor dosent like the bill beofre him he can veto it or just not sign it.

Then that bill makes its way back to the house and senate of that state and can be passed again, or in the case of your state it can be put on ballot and voted on by the public.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

ID, you don't have any idea about the specifics of Calif. state law or it's constitution according to Gary and he lives there. He also has the advantage of being much more legally officious than you.
OBTW, his argument holds true legally in my state.

---

ID, you don't have any idea about the specifics of Calif. state law or it's constitution according to Gary and he lives there. He also has the advantage of being much more legally officious than you.
OBTW, his argument holds true legally in my state.

OBTW, this thread isn't about Gary's state, it's about Hobby Lobby.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver said Hobby Lobby had a reasonable chance of prevailing against the government.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

He can start his education with the Columbia Law Review.
http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/112-3_Devins_Prakash.pdf
He should read all the footnotes and the material they reference as they contain invaluable wisdom.

Of course that Jefferson himself chose to ignore laws while he was President should be enough to quiet ID, but we will see.

---

He can start his education with the Columbia Law Review.
http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/112-3_Devins_Prakash.pdf
He should read all the footnotes and the material they reference as they contain invaluable wisdom.

Of course that Jefferson himself chose to ignore laws while he was President should be enough to quiet ID, but we will see.

That's a good article, maybe everybody should take a couple of days out to read and understand it.

Of course I will read it. Allow me a day or so.

I haven't read the piece but I can accuse Jefferson of breaking the very contract he helped form in the case of the Barbary Coast Pirates.

Never the less....

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Gary -- you sound like MLK there 'I have a dream'

Of course that Jefferson himself chose to ignore laws while he was President should be enough to quiet ID, but we will see.

The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states beyond a doubt that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." SCOTUS's attack on the DOMA, the majority in United States v. Windsor pretends to have respect for practices affecting the authority of governments in the United States. It does not respect the people, if the fact that 37 states have already said a marriage is between one man and one woman wasn't enough, I don't know what else could have clued the 9 in on intent of the people? In this regard, the longest-standing view of the American people, stated [Declaration of Independence] in the very act of war by which they declared our Independence as a people, holds that human beings are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," and that "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men."

"They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." ~ Alexander Hamilton


Then we still have the Tenth Amendmant that tells us what is not within the rights of our Constitution is wholely up to the states themselves.

I reject the illogical premise that Gary has offered as the means of government. "Here sir, the people rule!" ~ Alexander Hamilton

Anything less is an act of war by our own government against it's people. It also stomps on the individual's right to a conscience, the smallest of minorities.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

I feel that I must correct myself. The correct quote...

"Here, sir, the people govern; here they act by their immediate representatives."~ Alexander Hamilton

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states beyond a doubt that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." SCOTUS's attack on the DOMA, the majority in United States v. Windsor pretends to have respect for practices affecting the authority of governments in the United States. It does not respect the people, if the fact that 37 states have already said a marriage is between one man and one woman wasn't enough, I don't know what else could have clued the 9 in on intent of the people?

Oh, perhaps if marriage has been enumerated. It isn't. As it wasn't and DOMA was a Federal Law, DOMA went into an area exclusively reserved for the people (states, counties, cities, neighborhoods but not the Feds). (I thought you wanted that so you could have restrictive voter registration laws?) So if some states want gay marriage, they can have it. If some states want to allow marriage between a man and an ET, they can have it. The Federal Government had no place in ordering states to define marriage whatsoever. So says the 9th and very correctly so says SCOTUS!

The exact opposite part of the 9th came into play in Prop 8. California has a law that requires the disclosure of campaign contributions. Due to the First Amendment (enumerated), a Federal court struck that law and if can't be enforced. I think your side was shouting in victory when it did not have to disclose who the donors were and thereby tricking the California electorate by lying as to who was footing the bill. BTW that law was also a ballot initiative -- a vote of the people ignored by the court! -- and then you cheered when the court struck it down. You speak out of both sides of your mouth.

Finally as to Prop 8, no Federal court overturned it. Saying so as you repeatedly do is a bald faced lie. The Federal Courts said, Amendment 9, it is a California issue, we don't do anything either way. Absolutely correct. And since you don't live in California you don't get to vote for the California Supreme Court either.

Oh, you didn't know the justices stood for election? Why don't you and your fundie buddies get together and do a recall? Waste some more millions. We could use the tax revenue from all the advertising sales.

If you wish to continue living in your version of reality, don't be surprised when it caves in upon itself with serious consequences for those trapped inside.

---

Gary -- you sound like MLK there 'I have a dream'

Perhaps. But unlike MLK I know my dream isn't going to happen in my lifetime.

---

The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states beyond a doubt that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." SCOTUS's attack on the DOMA, the majority in United States v. Windsor pretends to have respect for practices affecting the authority of governments in the United States. It does not respect the people, if the fact that 37 states have already said a marriage is between one man and one woman wasn't enough, I don't know what else could have clued the 9 in on intent of the people?

Oh, perhaps if marriage has been enumerated. It isn't. As it wasn't and DOMA was a Federal Law, DOMA went into an area exclusively reserved for the people (states, counties, cities, neighborhoods but not the Feds). (I thought you wanted that so you could have restrictive voter registration laws?) So if some states want gay marriage, they can have it. If some states want to allow marriage between a man and an ET, they can have it. The Federal Government had no place in ordering states to define marriage whatsoever. So says the 9th and very correctly so says SCOTUS!

The exact opposite part of the 9th came into play in Prop 8. California has a law that requires the disclosure of campaign contributions. Due to the First Amendment (enumerated), a Federal court struck that law and if can't be enforced. I think your side was shouting in victory when it did not have to disclose who the donors were and thereby tricking the California electorate by lying as to who was footing the bill. BTW that law was also a ballot initiative -- a vote of the people ignored by the court! -- and then you cheered when the court struck it down. You speak out of both sides of your mouth.

Finally as to Prop 8, no Federal court overturned it. Saying so as you repeatedly do is a bald faced lie. The Federal Courts said, Amendment 9, it is a California issue, we don't do anything either way. Absolutely correct. And since you don't live in California you don't get to vote for the California Supreme Court either.

Oh, you didn't know the justices stood for election? Why don't you and your fundie buddies get together and do a recall? Waste some more millions. We could use the tax revenue from all the advertising sales.

If you wish to continue living in your version of reality, don't be surprised when it caves in upon itself with serious consequences for those trapped inside.

No that is not what the court said about the 9ths ruling. The right held by the people in your state was a marriage between one man and one woman. That is what they voted on. That is the natural law the only way you get chic's is to cut a rooster lose in the hen house, that is what is called natural law and that is what the people voted on.

The 10th comes into play by that DIRECT vote of the people in your state.

Bill Clinton signed DOMA into effect. We have 37 states that say marriage is one man and one woman. DOMA can become an amendment if voted on as a Constitutional amendment by 38 statehouses, if approved it can be pushed up into the Fed houses. This is law. Doesn't matter what SCOTUS says if it is an added amendment.

I do believe I said SCOTUS had no right to even take up United States v. Windsor. I said I agreed with the desenting opinion. Please try to keep up. Calling me a lier without all the facts is a tad bit much. Calm yourself least I red x you.

I might just take vacation and help in that recall.

You..."If you wish to continue living in your version of reality, don't be surprised when it caves in upon itself with serious consequences for those trapped inside."

Me..." You wont get another warning from me. "

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

ID, it's much too early for you to take a time out. Please try to be civil and stick around. I think many of us enjoy hearing you state you piece.

---

No that is not what the court said about the 9ths ruling.

You can read. But can you comprehend?

See: Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 573–574.

No decision because there is no controversy and therefore nothing to rule on.

The right held by the people in your state was a marriage between one man and one woman.

Right? utter BS! Hint: Read the California Constitution. It lists those rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss_v._Horton wrote:

Whether voters can override inalienable rights
The Attorney General's response to the lawsuits included a new argument that the Court should overturn Proposition 8. That brief contends that California's initiative-amendment process does not give voters the right to overturn rights in California's Declaration of Rights without a "compelling justification"

That is what they voted on.

What that? Who they? California court, 9th, SCOTUS? Be specific, or your straw is showing.

That is the natural law the only way you get chic's is to cut a rooster lose in the hen house, that is what is called natural law and that is what the people voted on.

Be careful about saying "natural law." The "natural law" is that persons of African ancestry are 3/5 of a person.

Oh and the court (2nd Appellate) said: "the Court finds that no conceivable rational basis exists for the provision."

So much for natural.

The 10th comes into play by that DIRECT vote of the people in your state.

Yep, and you can read. Wondered if you would see the intentional typo. But then you know the Federal Courts had no jurisdiction to hear a case at all and whatever the California Courts decided is the law in the land, that land being California. Oh, there is a district court ruling out there, but it applies to only four people.

Bill Clinton signed DOMA into effect.

And rues the day he did.

We have 37 states that say marriage is one man and one woman. DOMA can become an amendment if voted on as a Constitutional amendment by 38 statehouses, if approved it can be pushed up into the Fed houses.

Pigs will fly first.

This is law. Doesn't matter what SCOTUS says if it is an added amendment.

Dreams are not reality.

I do believe I said SCOTUS had no right to even take up United States v. Windsor. I said I agreed with the desenting opinion. Please try to keep up.

You can believe it all you want. But it doesn't change any facts. They did.

The parties in this case had standing, unlike Prop 8.

BTW you do realize if the court had not taken it up DOMA would still be unconstitutional. Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management 10 CV 1750 (D. Conn. July 31, 2012), Windsor v. United States, F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2012).

I might partly agree with Scalia, in which case the Court should not have taken up Gore v. Bush and allowed Florida to miss its deadline and thrown the election into the House of Representatives.

Calling me a lier[sic] without all the facts is a tad bit much. Calm yourself least I red x you.

Be my guest.

I might just take vacation and help in that recall.

Have fun in Palm Springs at the White Party.

---

Amen to that.

Gary -- you sound like MLK there 'I have a dream'

Perhaps. But unlike MLK I know my dream isn't going to happen in my lifetime.

Circuit recognizing that business owners have religious liberty rights. This was the first definitive federal appellate ruling against the HHS mandate.

Not exactly the supreme court ruling that one would expect. Seems the circuit courts are just a pass through for the higher court. I'm betting thje gubberment will fight this one out.

Now I have no doubt that the owner has rights but as an owner he isn't consider a religious organization. So unlike the Catholic Church owned Hospitals he'll have no recourse but to comply

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope