Hucakbee says we should just ignore the United States Supreme Court

Just.....fucking.....nuts.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...t-gay-marriage

He, Canadian Cruz and Bobby Jindal also take the position that we should amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage if (when) the SCOTUS invalidates all state statutes prohibiting the practice.

These are the policy priorities of the Republican Party.

Just.....fucking.....nuts.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...t-gay-marriage

He, Canadian Cruz and Bobby Jindal also take the position that we should amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage if (when) the SCOTUS invalidates all state statutes prohibiting the practice.

These are the policy priorities of the Republican Party. Originally Posted by timpage

But... but.... what about the Bible?

I suppose that depends on which Bible you're talking about.

Just.....fucking.....nuts.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...t-gay-marriage

He, Canadian Cruz and Bobby Jindal also take the position that we should amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage if (when) the SCOTUS invalidates all state statutes prohibiting the practice.

These are the policy priorities of the Republican Party. Originally Posted by timpage

That would be the correct way of doing it.
It would also be the correct way of legalizing it if SCOTUS decided to ban gay marriage. Would you be just as upset if someone suggested that?

You do realize what it takes to amend the Constitution, right?

That would be the correct way of doing it.
It would also be the correct way of legalizing it if SCOTUS decided to ban gay marriage. Would you be just as upset if someone suggested that?

You do realize what it takes to amend the Constitution, right? Originally Posted by boardman

Better than you, I suspect. The Constitution doesn't need to be amended to protect the rights of gays. The 14th Amendment already does that......

read...learn.....
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bi...:N:1412336:S:0

Better than you, I suspect. The Constitution doesn't need to be amended to protect the rights of gays. The 14th Amendment already does that......

read...learn.....
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bi...:N:1412336:S:0 Originally Posted by timpage

Well it did a piss poor job of it for 200 plus years!

I suppose that depends on which Bible you're talking about. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Whichever one Huckabee is quoting.

Fuck Huckabee.

Leave the Constitution alone.

I think all of you are gay.

Fuck Huckabee.

Leave the Constitution alone. Originally Posted by Jackie S

I'll second that.


Jim

You do realize that the SCOTUS approved of slavery, segregation, and involuntary sterilizations don't you? The SCOTUS has been wrong before and there are a couple of ways to fix it; you can craft a law that gets around SCOTUS restrictions like they did with sterilizations or you can amend the Constitution which is what the founders required. So I don't see (actually I do) why our resident libs are getting in a lather....they're afraid that Roe V Wade might be put on the chopping block. Our locals don't give a rat's ass about that but those are the talking points being sent out.

I think all of you are gay. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

There you go confusing 'think' with 'hope'.

Better than you, I suspect. The Constitution doesn't need to be amended to protect the rights of gays. The 14th Amendment already does that......

read...learn.....
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bi...:N:1412336:S:0 Originally Posted by timpage

And the 19th amendment invalidated the 18th.

You seem to be missing my point. You stated that some fucktards wanted to amend the constitution to conform with their beliefs if Scotus said it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.
I asked if you would also feel the same way about some fucktards wanting to amend the constitution to conform to their beliefs if Scotus said it is constitutional to ban gay marriage.

So what if some assholes want to amend the constitution to conform to their Christian or Pagan beliefs. Damn near everybody has an opinion on it. Those guys are expressing theirs. You got a problem with that?

Regardless of how SCOTUS rules there won't be an amendment passed that invalidates their ruling. We're much too divided on the subject. An amendment can be passed to invalidate any part of the constitution. That doesn't mean it will.

It's much adieu about nothing.

And the 19th amendment invalidated the 18th.

You seem to be missing my point. You stated that some fucktards wanted to amend the constitution to conform with their beliefs if Scotus said it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.
I asked if you would also feel the same way about some fucktards wanting to amend the constitution to conform to their beliefs if Scotus said it is constitutional to ban gay marriage.

So what if some assholes want to amend the constitution to conform to their Christian or Pagan beliefs. Damn near everybody has an opinion on it. Those guys are expressing theirs. You got a problem with that?

Regardless of how SCOTUS rules there won't be an amendment passed that invalidates their ruling. We're much too divided on the subject. An amendment can be passed to invalidate any part of the constitution. That doesn't mean it will.

It's much adieu about nothing. Originally Posted by boardman

You're the one missing the point. A person who wants to be POTUS ought not be advancing the argument that the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States be ignored. It's called Rule of Law.....and the system doesn't function properly without it.

You're the one missing the point. A person who wants to be POTUS ought not be advancing the argument that the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States be ignored. It's called Rule of Law.....and the system doesn't function properly without it. Originally Posted by timpage

You mean like now with the sitting president ignoring the rule of law?

The man isn't saying the rule of law should be ignored. Why does the guy actually doing it get a pass while you focus on someone who has about a 5% chance of winning the presidency in two years.

Here' what Huckabee actually said, not what the headline said:

"If the courts make a decision, I hear governors and even some aspirants to the presidency say well, that's settled, and it’s the law of the land," he said. "No, it isn't the law of the land. Constitutionally, the courts cannot make a law. They can interpret one. And then the legislature has to create enabling legislation, and the executive has to sign it, and has to enforce it."

If the courts interpret that there is no provision in the Constitution to allow gay marriage, will you be just as upset with a Democrat hopeful suggesting it's time we propose an amendment?