Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

When seeking employment by a government entity...

Sep 4, 2015 3:59AM PDT

...be it local, state or higher...be prepared to accept only the US government's code of conduct. Be aware that this code may change at any time and you must change with it. Whatever you do, do not link your personal code with that of an established religion as a reason for not adopting policy even if it wasn't an issue when you began your job. There is no guarantee of "grandfathering" when this happens. Failure to adapt to government changes in policy can and will result in a fine or imprisonment.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
and it still has social ramifications
Sep 7, 2015 12:03AM PDT

which make it not a good idea. I think many become involved in such marriages without considering all the problems involved first. While some are stable, many more of them on average fail. For some reason OJ and his wife Nicole keeps coming to mind on such a subject. Some seem to do quite well like Robert DeNiro and his wife. The children from such unions suffer in schools being neither of one race or the other, sometimes rejected by one race or the other, or by both, not feeling as belonging to either one fully. During the VietNam war, the children of those who returned with Asian wives had problems in schools, fitting in with any other race there. Mixed race children of white and black seem to fare better since black people have a historicla background of more race mixing than most other races in America, other than perhaps native American with both black and white.

Children of mixed race tend to identify stronger with one of their race more than another, but if in an area where there's a number of similar mixed race children they tend tobond together as if a separate race themselves.

Just things I've observed over the years.

- Collapse -
I think we fail to consider that older laws may have been
Sep 7, 2015 2:25AM PDT

made with good intentions and not out of hatred or spite. Old attitudes about interracial marriage tended to focus on problems that children might have because of prejudices of the day. The real intent was to protect and not punish. We forget that. Surely we'll hear writings today that don't and can't represent the real reasons for such laws but will attempt to vilify people of that day for their thinking. We can't get smug here and tomorrows generations could well look back and think of us as quite socially backward.

- Collapse -
only way to remove her name
Sep 5, 2015 2:07PM PDT

If she wants her name removed, then she should resign. That is the only way without requiring a change in state law.

- Collapse -
That's what I said before
Sep 5, 2015 3:32PM PDT

If a judge offered her the option to allow others to issue the licenses, he should have also known that her name on those licenses would also allow the State to make the assumption that she condoned them. The State legislature needs to accommodate her and others like her by removing that 'name' law and let the assistant clerks put their own names on the document instead.

- Collapse -
wrong
Sep 5, 2015 2:16PM PDT
"Kim Davis....Christian, refusing to issue a marriage license = NO BAIL"

instead;
Refusing to endorse sexual perversity and give it color of law as equal to heterosexual union called "Marriage". Instead they should perhaps issue certificates of "Sexual Corruption" or in the case of males it could be "Certificate of Sodomy Union".
- Collapse -
And perhaps you could be the
Sep 5, 2015 7:45PM PDT

Official that signs THOSE certificates...

Oh the irony....

YOU get to chose the title of the document, Sign the document...AND you would be condoning their actions (according to some).

YES!!!!!!!

If only you had to make sure they were doing everything properly......

You don't just "sign a document"...there is a lot of responsibility that comes with the position.

- Collapse -
You're changing your argument....flip flop
Sep 6, 2015 4:44AM PDT

"You don't just "sign a document"...there is a lot of responsibility that comes with the position."

You said previously that her signature doesn't assume acceptance (tolerance, responsibility).....and that it could be 'chicken scratch'/illegible and still be legal. Why should she be forced to accept/condone and action that had never been imposed on her before in the 30 years she's held that job?

FIRST Amendment gives her protection under the Constitution against a law that has never been written or voted on by CONGRESS.....the branch that CREATES law.

- Collapse -
RE: the branch that CREATES law.
Sep 6, 2015 5:16AM PDT

In another post you claimed SCOTUS creates a law.

- Collapse -
SCOTUS has created new law three times in three years
Sep 6, 2015 6:03AM PDT

THAT is the CONGRESS' place in our government.....see my previous posts on this. Perhaps, one day, you will figure it out.....or you will come back and be pissed off when our SCOTUS 'creates' a new law that you don't agree with out of thin air on the side of Conservatives

- Collapse -
RE: SCOTUS has created new law three times in three years
Sep 6, 2015 7:23AM PDT

Got a "credible source" that makes that claim...AND could you please provide a link?

Thank you.

- Collapse -
I've already told you which three laws, JP
Sep 6, 2015 8:34AM PDT

Obamacare twice........and gay marriage.

SCOTUS changed the 'fine' to a 'tax' ignoring the actual wording of the law that was passed.

SCOTUS changed the subsidies to include areas of government when the law itself was worded otherwise.

SCOTUS changed DOMA to include gay marriage even though the law itself excluded them.

- Collapse -
Re: SCOTUS
Sep 6, 2015 8:57AM PDT

In such a case, Congress should make the law even more clear and explicit, so that SCOTUS can't interpret it otherwise than it was meant.
In case of gay marriage, wasn't it the case that SCOTUS found the law unconstiutional? Then the Congress should start the steps to change the constitution.

Did they, or didn't they? If they didn't, they seemingly agree, because they have the power to do, in principle.

Kees

Post was last edited on September 6, 2015 11:42 AM PDT

- Collapse -
RE:wasn't it the case that SCOTUS found the law
Sep 6, 2015 1:28PM PDT
wasn't it the case that SCOTUS found the law unconstiutional? Then the Congress should start the steps to change the constitution.

Change the Constitution OR change the law so it agrees with the Constitution.

There ya' go....

And when a law is "unconstitutional"...it's "unenforceable" and therefore...NOT a law. Change the "wording of the law you are trying to pass" so it agrees with the constitution....THEN it is enforceable/a law.

The Constitution lays out the territory exactly how and what laws can say or try and do. The SCOTUS interprets any conflicts between the 2 (constitution and the law "makers"). SCOTUS has the final say.

Them's the breaks. Someone has to be "The Decider" in this case it's the SCOTUS.
- Collapse -
Since you STILL refuse to comprehend
Sep 6, 2015 2:14PM PDT

I'll lay it out for you ONE MORE TIME..........

The laws that SCOTUS changed on its own (without authority to do so) were ALREADY exactly written....two in Obamacare (FINE vs TAX) and NO subsidy to any State that set up a FEDERAL outlet....and BOTH were written by the president's OWN PEOPLE WHO BRAGGED ABOUT THAT FACT. One in DOMA that EXCLUDED gay marriages.

There was NO conflict.....the laws were written EXACTLY as intended, and SCOTUS 'decided' on its OWN to change both the wording and its 'intent'.

How many criminals do you think have gone free because they didn't INTEND to kill someone in the course of a robbery or house invasion or just walking down the street with a gun they 'found' or got behind the wheel drunk and killed people or crossed the border to join a gang that decided as 'induction' they needed to kill someone (other than illegal aliens, of course).

Bye.........

- Collapse -
RE: There was NO conflict.....the laws were written EXACTLY
Sep 6, 2015 7:36PM PDT
There was NO conflict.....the laws were written EXACTLY as intended, and SCOTUS 'decided' on its OWN to change both the wording and its 'intent'.

Apparently the "SUPREME" COTUS decided there was a conflict.

What is the purpose of the word "SUPREME" in the title?

Exactly WHY do you think the people that created that group (Long before Obama) decided to put "SUPREME" in their title?

su·preme/so͞oˈprēm/
adjective

(of authority or an office, or someone holding it) superior to all others.


Just look it as a parent (SCOTUS) telling the kids(Government)...it's time to go to bed.
- Collapse -
supreme court, NOT supreme law maker
Sep 7, 2015 12:13AM PDT

I'm all for an Constitutional Amendment that undoes the mistake of a Supreme Court which our forefathers made.

"The Supreme Court and Judicial Review
Judicial Review

The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court's nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review.

But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government. Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility.

The answer is that the court just started doing it and no one has put a stop to it. This assumption of power took place first in 1794 when the Supreme Court declared an act of congress to be unconstitutional, but went largely unnoticed until the landmark case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Marbury is significant less for the issue that it settled (between Marbury and Madison) than for the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall used Marbury to provide a rationale for judicial review. Since then, the idea that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the Constitution granted this power.

The Constitution NEVER GRANTED THE SUPREME COURT THIS POWER. They gave it to themselves"


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread826757/pg1

http://www.robgagnon.net/JeffersonOnJudicialTyranny.htm



“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” (Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)

“The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will.” (Letter to John Wayles Eppes, 1807)

“Our Constitution . . . intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given—according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819)
(more quotes there from Jefferson on the mistake the forefathers made in not keeping SCOTUS accountable to the real intended rulers of the nation, Congress from the people.)

- Collapse -
RE: Why should she be forced to accept
Sep 6, 2015 5:22AM PDT
Why should she be forced to accept/condone and action that had never been imposed on her before in the 30 years she's held that job?

It's a good thing she wasn't Amish?

When a doctor signs a death certificate...does that mean they think the person deserved to die?

When a person pays for a relative/friends funeral...they think the person deserved to die?
- Collapse -
Babble again????? I think you type just to hear the keyboard
Sep 6, 2015 6:04AM PDT

Make a real point instead of nonsense, please

- Collapse -
LOL, JP needs one of these!
Sep 6, 2015 6:51AM PDT
- Collapse -
RE: Babble again?????
Sep 6, 2015 1:30PM PDT

I've tried common sense numerous times with you...I thought I'd try something different.

I'm running out of options here.

- Collapse -
YOUR common sense IS babble........
Sep 6, 2015 2:15PM PDT

You always have the option to stop.....is that the one you have left?

- Collapse -
RE: You're changing your argument....flip flop
Sep 6, 2015 5:40AM PDT

I'm not "changing" MY argument

I'm using a different argument for THIS foolishness provided by James...

issue certificates of "Sexual Corruption" or in the case of males it could be "Certificate of Sodomy Union".

- Collapse -
If that's the case, then make your
Sep 6, 2015 6:05AM PDT

argument.....if you are using 'sarcasm', make that clear. You sound like HC now.