The Anarchic Tale of Two Democrat State Atty Generals

[eyer]

Democrat Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring has announced he will not defend his state's prohibition against gay marriage because he personally disagrees with the law...

...in North Carolina, Democrat Attorney General Roy Cooper also personally disagrees with his state's law which prohibits gay marriage, but when NC's law was challenged in court last year, Cooper said his job as the state’s chief lawyer trumped his personal views and he vowed to vigorously defend the law.

So, the questions are:

1. Which Democrat Attorney General has committed perjury evidenced by the direct violation of the oath of Office he took, and

2. Which Democrat Attorney General should resign his Office for willful refusal to uphold the law as he swore he would?

 

[KingOrfeo]

1. Which Democrat Attorney General has committed perjury evidenced by the direct violation of the oath of Office he took, and

That is not a form of perjury.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Eeyore and Retard Ruse seem to be locked in a fierce battle today to see who can make the most inane comment.

They have given us a truly awesome display of fact-free spittle-flecked oratory.

The Derp Gods are smiling.

 

[eyer]

When a citizen lies to government, it's a felony...

...when a government lies to citizens, it's politics


☑ 2 votes for anarchy recorded, heavy on the side of progressive political partisanship

 

[IrezumiKiss]

*late nite pity bump for the lonely, grid-eschewing and socially bereft überminimalist*

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md3ukoOYpm1qa6g1m.gif

 

[miles]

They're just following the president's lead. We're becoming a nation of men, not laws.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Democrat Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring has announced he will not defend his state's prohibition against gay marriage because he personally disagrees with the law...

...in North Carolina, Democrat Attorney General Roy Cooper also personally disagrees with his state's law which prohibits gay marriage, but when NC's law was challenged in court last year, Cooper said his job as the state’s chief lawyer trumped his personal views and he vowed to vigorously defend the law.

So, the questions are:

1. Which Democrat Attorney General has committed perjury evidenced by the direct violation of the oath of Office he took, and

2. Which Democrat Attorney General should resign his Office for willful refusal to uphold the law as he swore he would?

The former is being honest, the latter is trying to get reelected.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

They're just following the president's lead. We're becoming a nation of men, not laws.

And while it is their men, the Left celebrates.

 

[Ishmael]

They're just following the president's lead. We're becoming a nation of men, not laws.

We are going the way of Rome.

Ishmael

 

[miles]

We are going the way of Rome.

Ishmael

Maybe our Italian food will improve.

 

[Ishmael]

Maybe our Italian food will improve.

Only if they can figure out a way to replace the nutrition labels on the food packages with cartoons so our confused women shoppers can make rational purchasing decisions.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

We are going the way of Rome.

Ishmael

Adding bronze to the silver...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Only if they can figure out a way to replace the nutrition labels on the food packages with cartoons so our confused women shoppers can make rational purchasing decisions.

Ishmael

 

[miles]

I believe this is the wave of the future....politicians will change laws they dislike with a wave of their hands. Maybe we'll be able to prod them with petitions!

How do the Lit libs weigh in on this? I expect nothing but crickets.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I believe this is the wave of the future....politicians will change laws they dislike with a wave of their hands. Maybe we'll be able to prod them with petitions!

How do the Lit libs weigh in on this? I expect nothing but crickets.

That Obama is acting within the law because Bush did it.

 

[Ishmael]

I believe this is the wave of the future....politicians will change laws they dislike with a wave of their hands. Maybe we'll be able to prod them with petitions!

How do the Lit libs weigh in on this? I expect nothing but crickets.

And rationalizations, don't forget the rationalizations.

Ishmael

 

[miles]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SMb68A9ApiI/UulleOZ22LI/AAAAAAAAIgo/p4n_1_LW8K8/s1600/great_dictator_chaplin-obama_SOTU_600x450.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

He has to make law.


It's obstructionism. And ATMs. Tsunamis...

 

[miles]

And rationalizations, don't forget the rationalizations.

Ishmael

"He has to take action, because Republicans block his every move."

 

[Wrong Element]

Democrat Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring has announced he will not defend his state's prohibition against gay marriage because he personally disagrees with the law...

I think he actually said the ban is unconstitutional, not that he disagrees with it. That's a pretty major difference. And a federal judge apparently concurs.


He's on a lot more solid legal ground than the moral degenerates who dragged their Obama paranoia into a non-Obama thread.

 

[eyer]

I think he actually said the ban is unconstitutional, not that he disagrees with it. That's a pretty major difference.

Only if you fantasize he agrees with it, but thinks it's unconstitutional...

...and only if you imagine that a state Attorney General has any legal standing at all to determine what laws are federally constitutional or not.

Your irrelevancy only further deflects from the legal point:

A Virginia Attorney General's job doesn't legally entail interpreting whether or not the law contained within the Constitution of Virginia is constitutional or not because by the law simply being amended to the C of V, it is - in legal fact - constitutional in Virginia. Knowing that, upon entering his office, Herring swore under oath to support that Constitution of Virginia.

He is, in fact, in direct violation of the oath he swore by overtly not supporting a law dictated by the Constitution of Virginia.

As far as the Constitution for the United States is concerned:

He has no legal standing at all to decide whether or not Virginia's law is unconstitutional under the federal Constitution - the Supreme Court of the United States of America is the constitutionally charged interpreter of that. And the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the feeling of the Attorney General of Virginia or any federal court/judge who may agree with him.

The overall legality of this specific situation as it stands right now is that the law in Virginia is indeed constitutional and, until the Supreme Court rules that it is not, it remains the law until the folks of Virginia amend their Constitution otherwise.

The definitions of marriage are powers clearly reserved to the people and the states, if you understand the framers' design to specifically limit and contain the powers of the new federal government it was creating, and comprehend why the 10th Amendment was specifically ratified within the Bill of Rights...

...the Supreme Court has recently ruled that the federal government must recognize legal same-sex marriages in its dealings with citizens, a ruling fully within its constitutional charge because it addresses only the federal government, which is specifically separated constitutionally from the people and the states.

That was why the framers' specifically created a federal government...

...what the USSA has employed in its march to supreme dominance in all matters of American citizen life - regardless of the clear barriers the framers placed to prevent such a tyrannically collective goal - is a national government that is unbound by any ruling not its own and considers itself superior in every regard to the states and the people.

The Attorney General of Virginia, you obviously and others, evidently favor more the national government America is currently under occupation of than the federal government created by the framers and entailed in the Constitution for the United States of America...

...and that's exactly why the USSA today is certainly a nation of men, not of law.

 

[bill-pix-trade]

They're just following the president's lead. We're becoming a nation of men, not laws.

Sadly I agree.