top prosecutor is refusing to enforce a law he considers unconstitutional.

[Sparks]

Hmmm. I don't see anything about Marriage in the Constitution at all.

So maybe Government should stop making laws/rulings on something they have no power over?

My reasoning, laws are logical, not moral. Being against SSM is a morality stand, which is fine, I don't care.... But being that it is a moral judgement, it should not be a law.

Furthermore, Marriage is a religious sacrement....

I'll argue the last point.

Marriage is not just a religious sacrament.

While most marriages are church based, there are quite a lot that are not. Marriages are also performed by Justices of the Peace, by judges, and by vessel captains.

Marriages perform a dual function, the first and traditional bond between two people, the second, is the legal bond. A married couple have a different legal standing than two close friends. A example we are familiar with is a firearm transfer between husband and wife is legal without an FFL transaction, a transfer between roommates, needs the paperwork.

So, should the government be involved in regulating marriages, possibly. They do already; you need to be a certain age, you need a license, how many people you can marry at any one time.

[Dasbalddog]

I'll argue the last point.

Marriage is not just a religious sacrament.

While most marriages are church based, there are quite a lot that are not. Marriages are also performed by Justices of the Peace, by judges, and by vessel captains.

Marriages perform a dual function, the first and traditional bond between two people, the second, is the legal bond. A married couple have a different legal standing than two close friends. A example we are familiar with is a firearm transfer between husband and wife is legal without an FFL transaction, a transfer between roommates, needs the paperwork.

So, should the government be involved in regulating marriages, possibly. They do already; you need to be a certain age, you need a license, how many people you can marry at any one time.

JOP/Sea Captains perform wedding of a agnostic/atheist/arligious nature because the ruling authorities decided at one point that just because you didn't belong to a Church, or were 1,000 miles from the closest church, that you should have the freedom/right to be married.

This does not subtract from the inherant religious (and yes, atheism is an abstract variation on religion) nature of marriage.

A long time ago, the governments of the world decided that they should regulate he functions of the church. Example, there was a point wher several countries had taxes on Communion, baptisms.

So we shrugged SOME of these religious/arigious usurpations, but others remain. Taxes in the death of a person, licensing marriages (registering a marriage for social purposes I understand but paying for licenses is asking for the governments permission).

The short side of it, in my opinion, is that if a homosexual couple seeks to be married in a Church that will grant it to them... Who is the government to say no? Try and argue it from a logical standpoint and not a morality base.





How this ALL relates to the article. The first law of the country (most important, not literally the first time wise) is the Constitutioon... And you are well aware of the Second Ammendment by now.

This Prosecutor is just saying that he believes the Illinois law to be unconstitutional and therefore invalid.


Are you familia with Jury Nullification? It says that I, as a juror can find a Pot user innocent of pot charges if the law is irrelevant, illegal, unconstitutional, etc... Even if the user is CLEARLY guilty of possession. The same way a jury could find a NFA violator innocent regardless of how many illegal MG's he has manufactured.

I admit it's not likely... But in the words of the Declaration of Independance,

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--


In short, the government is fucking up our lives at all angles and deserves to be ignored/overruled when found wanting.

This prosecutor is doing just that. f'ing huzzah!

[ErSwnn]

Really? Did you read it all?



So you have no problem with Obama essentially exercising his executive power (or discretion) to not deport illegal immigrants?

It's the same thing. If this does not strike you as bad, I urge you to reconsider.

For good or for bad Obama initiated a lawful power. He didn't violate the COTUS in doing so.

Illinios on the other hand is blatantly in violation of the 2A and a prosecutor is calling them out on the issue.

[gascolator]

JOP/Sea Captains perform wedding of a agnostic/atheist/arligious nature because the ruling authorities decided at one point that just because you didn't belong to a Church, or were 1,000 miles from the closest church, that you should have the freedom/right to be married.

Well, not quite.

Seamen were very religious; add to that that the captain of a ship is the highest civil (and religious; they were intertwined in those days) authority in said domain, it is clear that he can, and does, preside over all ceremonies, from baptisms, to marriages, to funerals. Absent, of course, an ordained clergyman of the state religion in the country of the vessel's flag.

The captain's power to marry a couple at sea had a practical / theological basis. Generally the couple was "hot to trot." If they hadn't "trotted" already, with the attendant concern or fruition of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. The Captain's authority could prevent the scandal of "fornication" or a bastard-child.

Essentially, the captain could lend practical legitimacy to that which had already taken place.

The tradition remains today because it is... well, tradition.

It's akin to the mayor of a city being able to preside over marriages.

[MDJschool]

I agree with his intentions but not his methods.

We are a nation of laws for a reason.

So you have no problem with Obama essentially exercising his executive power (or discretion) to not deport illegal immigrants?

It's the same thing. If this does not strike you as bad, I urge you to reconsider.

We are a nation of acts and statutes for a reason: total supremacy over the power of the people to legitimately exercise our rights... We are, however, intended to be a nation of law, indeed.

Do you believe that only the judiciary has the role to determine and act upon constitutionality, that the legislature may pass unconstitutional acts at its will to be deemed law, that the police shall arrest, seek and receive warrants, on unconstitutional acts, that the prosecutors shall prosecute on acts which are not law?

Or do you believe, at the very least, that the judiciary has the duty to declare void such unconstitutional acts, each judge by his order and judgment, and that the legislature has the duty not to pass, and to otherwise repeal, unconstitutional acts, each legislator by his introduction of bill and vote? So what of the executive?

While I can imagine some scenario where it might make sense to have the requirements of the other two branches but not the third, at this time I see no delineation: void is void, from inception. Any act which is unconstitutional is void from its inception, be it a bill or a doing by an executive officer.

There is an order of events that should take place if official abuse the notion of unconstitutional acts and therefore fail to carry out their duties appropriate as public officials. I can come around and detail them in my next post on the thread.

[giles_farmer]

We are a nation of laws for a reason. This kind of thing tends to only be cheered by the side or group that agrees with the interpretation of the official in question.

that's kind of the point- the law is a system of checks and balances, multi-faceted. one aspect is prosecutorial discretion. he's doing exactly what he's supposed to do, which is set policy, as an elected officer of the executive government.

There is a slippery slope problem with this--because this stuff only works when you happen to agree with the outcome. It's not something you want "the other guy" doing

thats what politics is all about. preach to the choir, build up support, and take what's yours.

[TheF00L]

Really? Did you read it all?



So you have no problem with Obama essentially exercising his executive power (or discretion) to not deport illegal immigrants?

It's the same thing. If this does not strike you as bad, I urge you to reconsider.

I did read it my esteemed fellow poster. Seems to me in paragraph 4 and 5 my point was covered.

What did you see that I did not in relation to him acting lawfully???

[phoenix01]

Really? Did you read it all?



So you have no problem with Obama essentially exercising his executive power (or discretion) to not deport illegal immigrants?

It's the same thing. If this does not strike you as bad, I urge you to reconsider.

There are many laws that are not enforced, either because they are antiquated or unconstitutional. Prosecutors have the discretion to decide what alleged crimes to prosecute, based on case load, available evidence, likelyhood of conviction, or the validity of the law. Jonesboro, Georgia has a law that makes the use of the phrase "Oh Boy!" in public illegal. Do you think that Jonesboro police officers are arresting people who say "Oh Boy!" in the public square? I don't think so. Just as I am sure that no woman has been charged lately for wearing cosmetics without a special license in Morrisville, Pennsylvania. Or that anyone has been found guilty lately of not checking the working function of fire hydrants in Connellsville, Pennsylvania, an hour before a fire breaks out. Or anyone spending the last year in prison for singing in a bathtub anywhere in Pennsylvania. These are all laws on the books, none of which are enforced or prosecuted.

I'm not saying that this decision or the decision that 0bama made are wise or correct. I'm just saying it happens more often than you think.

[giles_farmer]

whatever i like is by definition not bad. it's someone else task to factor some other view. "do yourself no harm, they're plenty of others willing".

the law is an ass, and only an ass follows a bad law.

[Aaronhr]

Nice to see that he steps up to this, although he does it at a time where he has little to fear.... just before stepping down...