Sunday, September 13, 2015
Consider This
What if a government employee refused to do her job because of religious objections and she was ordered to fulfill her duties by the court. But she still refused and so was arrested for contempt of court. Now suppose that her job was to sign gun permits. Would there be rallies in support of her position? Who would attend such gatherings?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting that there is so much to do about marriage licenses and enforcing the law yet so little is said or done about enforcing immigration law.
ReplyDeleteIt's called selective enforcement where the administration forces their will on the people like it or not.
Either enforce all the laws or none of the laws.
Get it?
How Does the Rule of Law Exist Right Now?
ReplyDeleteIn what sense do we presently live under “the rule of law”?
How can we speak of the rule of law in light of the following: President Obama’s executive orders.
Queen Hillary and the amazing, disappearing emails.
No-knock raids on political opponents (with no elected officials in jail over it). Internal Revenue Service agents eating out the substance of law-abiding citizens and Lois Lerner still walking the streets.
States who refuse to enforce federal drug laws. Sanctuary cities where federal immigration laws are ignored.
And they want to prosecute 1 person for not handing out marriage licenses.
Smacks of government hypocrisy at it's finest.
So Mick, which rule of law violation is most egregious?
Violation of the law should be punished. The problem is, which law, Federal, state or local. And who chooses when they are in conflict?
DeleteThat's a pretty good summary louman.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting where the government can pick and chose the laws they want to enforce.
DeleteHence the definition of a broken law.
A law government doesn't like or want to enforce.
No one answered my questions. Should she be prosecuted for refusing to uphold a law you agree with, or only those you disagree with?
DeleteHow can you prosecute a person for a violation of the law and ignore other violations??
DeleteIt's never as simple as answer my question without considering the issue I presented.
My answer is yes, prosecute her for refusing to obey a lawful order right after you prosecute the people mentioned above. Other wise your discriminating against a person.
Congress never passed legislation supporting gay marriage. The amendments do not specifically state anything regarding gay marriage. The Supreme court acted as De facto lawmakers and created this mess out of whole cloth. What's next, equality of marriage for poligamists?
DeleteThat should be no problem as well as marriage to animals etc.
DeleteGay marriage is all about another group of people sharing benefits, exploiting existing regulations for a check, getting licence then obtaining divorce licence.
DeleteBigger government, more work for lawyers.
That's all it's ever about in our nanny socialist state.
How can you prosecute a person for a violation of the law and ignore other violations?? Well, the judge who prosecuted this case was responding to a specific law suit. If suits are brought against people in the other cases you mentioned, then they will be adjudicated as well. But that would be out of this jurisdiction.
DeleteThat is exact;y what I was referring to.
DeleteSelective law enforcement.
Either you enforce all the laws or none of the laws.
Or are we no longer a nation of laws? Rule of law no longer applies?
“Where Congress won’t act, I will.” The rhetoric is not the only thing that’s different; we have seen his administration rewrite laws while circumventing Congress, decide to not enforce entire provisions of laws and ignore constitutionally mandated Congressional oversight.
DeleteThe administration announced it would delay the employer mandate — a central provision to the Affordable Care Act — for one year. The law gave the administration no such authority to do so. The law states employers who do not provide health care coverage will incur penalties, and they “shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.” If the president can modify health care law so long as his motives are good, can he modify other categories of the law?
In August 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Department of Justice would no longer inform judges of the drug amounts in cases, thereby obviating mandatory minimum sentencing statutes. Never mind Congress passed these laws 20 years ago, and prosecutors and judges have used them since. So long as our motives are good and our intentions laudable, what difference does the boring language of the actual statute make?
In 2012, President Obama ignored the Senate’s constitutional duty of “advise and consent” and moved ahead with four controversial appointments, even though the Senate was not in recess. He ignored previous legal precedent and his own administration’s analysis of what constitutes a “recess” to subvert a constitutionally mandated Congressional responsibility.
“The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.” Obama.
Good intentions do not trump plainly worded statutes. If you do not like a law, work with Congress to change it or change those who are thwarting your efforts. We are not a nation of good intentions. We are a nation of laws worthy of an executive who will execute them faithfully.
"That should be no problem as well as marriage to animals etc."
ReplyDeleteWell, I did hear something to the effect that some gay men like bears.
Are bears that friendly??
Delete