Kim Davis and the new standard of old laws

[shagster01]

In other threads here about Kim Davis several members have defended her supposed right for an accommodation by stating that when she was elected the laws were different and gay marriage was illegal, therefore she should be allowed to only do the job she was elected to do.

Here are some examples of posts along these lines:

she was elected by local voters based on existing law

When she agreed to take the job it was not part of her job put her name to a same sex marriage licence. Why take that aggressive stance? why can't an accommodation be reached which satisfies everyone?

So naturally I asked a question that went unanswered by anyone with this opinion:

So just to be clear...

If somebody is elected to that position right now when gay marriage is legal, and scotus later decides to make it illegal again, you would support an accommodation being made for that person to still issue gay marriage licenses if they so choose because the law was that way when they were elected?

Or are you just a big fat hypocrite?

So what is it? Are you ok with Davis trying to set this standard that elected officials can act according, not to current laws, but to the laws that were in place when they were elected? This standard could make any reversal of gay marriage by the scotus pointless as clerks could just continue to give the license to gays based on what the law was when they were elected. Are you ok with that?

Or do you only want a one way road?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Or do you only want a one way road?

Two things:

SCOTUS doesn't have the constitutional authority to define marriage. legalize same sex buggery nor to murder the innocent unborn.

That being said: If SCOTUS were to overturn the above barbaric acts, I would be pleased, as they would be correcting unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions.

 

[shagster01]

Two things:

SCOTUS doesn't have the constitutional authority to define marriage. legalize same sex buggery nor to murder the innocent unborn.

That being said: If SCOTUS were to overturn the above barbaric acts, I would be pleased, as they would be correcting unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions.

If they don't have the authority to legalize it then they don't have the authority to criminalize it either.

 

[Caledvwlch]

If they don't have the authority to legalize it then they don't have the authority to criminalize it either.

But that doesn't matter, because they obviously do have the authority. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about this. It really doesn't matter if aCW or anyone else thinks they shouldn't.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

If they don't have the authority to legalize it then they don't have the authority to criminalize it either.

Correct. Congress should override unconstitutional decisions by SCOTUS.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...congress-has-the-power-to-overturn-roe-v-wade

 

[aCultureWarrior]

But that doesn't matter, because they obviously do have the authority. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about this. It really doesn't matter if aCW or anyone else thinks they shouldn't.

Show us who gave SCOTUS the constitutional authority to make decisions that involve the killing of the unborn and legalizing sexual perversion.