Discussion for article #241497
STATEs RIGHTs!! SUPERCEDE US COnstitUTIONS!!!11one!!11! ExcEPT for 2ND ARmendment!1!!!1one11!!1!
jesus h christā¦ there are moments recently i could weep at the stupidity of these political āleadersā.
perhaps it would be useful to forward a copy of the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES to this fucking moron that already addresses this issue.
Then there is the problem of the First and Fourteenth Amendments that canāt be resolved by the OK constitution.
If these people spent as much time governing and they do pandering, weād have a great place to live.
Mary, fuckoff.
When itās liberal ideas, the right wingers are all:
When itās conservative ones, they hand out loudspeakers like halloween candy.
If those were the original tablets that Moses is reported to have broughtdown the mountain, Iād buy them as āhistorical monumentsā but something bought and paid for by private citizens intent on making themselves the only religion in the land ā¦ sorry, not buying that brand of bull shit.
Two words: Supremacy Clause.
Someone needs to beat it into these moronsā heads: YOUR STATE CONSTITUTION IS PRE-EMPTED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
āOkla. Guv Calls For Constitutional Amendment To Return Ten Commandments Monumentā
Okla. Guv Proposes Constitutional Amendment to Pave the Way for Sharia Law
FIFY
This is the governor who chooses to ignore the sixth commandment unless sheās forced to because of lack of efficient lethal drugs.
āhistorical monumentsā
That were put up in 2012?
Is it OK to slap her yet?
So much pasta thrown against the wall, hoping to see if any of it sticks. I would hate to see her kitchen.
Once again an ELECTED GOVERNOR (Republican of course) doesnāt know what any 8th grader who has taken a Civics class knows; State Law (even State Constitutions) do not supersede Federal Law (and the US Constitution.) Full Stop. End of Story.
See āSupremacy Clauseā: Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as āthe supreme law of the land.ā
The first amendment to the US Constitution states āCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofā The two parts, known as the āestablishment clauseā and the āfree exercise clauseā respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Courtās interpretations of the āseparation of church and stateā doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became Americaās doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against oneās will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism
Your childish beliefs in an invisible stone-age sky-god do NOT supersede the US Constitution.
Oy vey. She STILL doesnt get it.
Not only that, but the Constitutions, both state and federal, already allow display of the religious monument ā they just donāt allow it to be an exclusive, and courts wonāt swallow transparent lies about the nature of the monument and the motivation for displaying it.
The monument was removed from the state capitol late Monday night after the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in June that the monument must be removed.
I think this calls for Oklahoma to create a resolution begging gawd to continue passing them over.
āMoving forward, I believe the people of Oklahoma should have the opportunity to vote on a proposed constitutional change to ensure that historical monuments like this one are not pushed out of public spaces,ā
Does she know that the bible is not exactly a history book?
The current state of the Repug Party is to cling to religious symbols in a naked attempt to distract from policies that are an anathema to everything Jesus stood for.
And she never will----Mary Fallin is demonstrably stupid, and itās not a curable condition.
I hope Iām wrong, but Iām not sure the Supreme Court will strike this down. They allowed something similar in 2005 in Van Orden v. Perry. Any lawyers want to weigh in?
STATes RIGHTs! TEntH AMENdmant! FederalIST paPErs OR SOMEthing1!11!!!one!1!!!1!!