Paul Rayon gave a lie to all he said in just the second paragraph of his speech, which of course he delivered without a Teleprompter because, as we all know, Obama could not do without one. Here is the Big Lie, borrowed from David Barton and all those embarked on a systematic brainwashing of Americans into believing, as that fat little turd Gomer Shuckabee once put it, "it's time to interpret the U. S. Constitution according to Christian principles." (America is the only country in the world with a cable news outfit willing to hire a former hick state evangelical governor -- just after Clinton, I might add -- to do a political talk show. The FCC should pull their license or take back any tax breaks or other perks at such blatant mixing of government and the Christian fucking religion.) Put on your night eye-masks so you won't have to see this:
"Each of these great moral ideas is essential to democratic government -- to the rule of law, to life in a humane and decent society. They are the moral creed of our country, as powerful in our time, as on the day of America's founding. They are self-evident and unchanging, and sometimes, even presidents need reminding, that our rights come from nature and God, not from government."
Does anyone see something wrong with this? No, no, not the awkward syntax, which loses you about where "They are self-evident..." begins. The equation of Judeo-Christian morality with God and our "rights." The use of "nature and God" as code words for fundamentalist teachings including creationism, the idea that all things were createdd at once in six days about six or seven thousand years ago. You might want to discuss as well the total contradiction of an Ayn Rand freak discussing anything called "God." Like the aptly named Rand Paul, the individualist, objectivist atheist of the 40s has become enslaved to myth, irrationality, superstition, and very fuzzy thinking (if you can call it that: there is a move on to ban "critical thinking" from our schools, and guess which political party has or had it in their platform?).
Ummm.... Do you mean Paul Ryan?
No, Paul Rayon. Like Romney, he is entirely polyesther.
Rush Limbaugh became Lush Rambo in my lexicon. The first name is awkward because oxycontin doesn't affect you like alcohol, but Rambo has come to suggest wild lashing out. I like to switch the first letters of names and see if I can find something appropriate.
Well, you know, this is a guy who did not bother to learn the meaning of one word when he was in school (I don't think he has a college degree, does he?). The word is hypocrisy. Prior to, during, and after the oxycontin scandal, he was saying that pill poppers and other druggies are faking it when they claim their addiction is a "disease." And he was advocating a minimum tolerance approach to enforcement. He did not want taxpayer money spent on rehab because he did not believe it worked. He wanted long, hard, maximum sentences for minimum quantities of everything that would get you high or stoned. Then it turned out he had a opioid pain killer habit that actually had him sending his Cuban domestic to different doctors around town and different pharmacies to obtain sufficient quantities of oxycontin to keep it going. When he got caught he used his money and influence to avoid jail or prison time. This means, yes, Virginia, Lush Rambo is a thoroughgoing phony.
I wonder ... if a governmental official attempted to subvert a secular law by giving it a religious (christian) reading, that would amount to unconstitutional action, right? Question for you law students and lawyers out there: are there statutes in the US code out there regarding subversion of law? If so, how often are they enforced and what are the penalties?
Long story short: I would LOVE to hang these asses out on their own ignorance of the laws of their own country!
I'm a lawyer, and don't really understand what you specifically mean by "subversion of law." Allow me to give an example of what I think you mean, and if I'm wrong, please correct me.
My State, Illinois, has some fairly strict gun laws. Recently, a prosecutor in McClean County stated he was not going to enforce the statute which criminalizes carrying a concealed weapon. Now, he took an oath to enforce the criminal laws when he took office. Let's say he took this rather bizarre stance based upon his belief in a "god given right" to carry a firearm. (That wasn't his stated motive, but let's use that assumption anyway). He's obviously "subverting" the legislature's criminalization of certain behavior. However, there are two problems here.
One is that you can't look at a prosecutor's motive for filing a particular charge, or declining to file a particular charge. Motive is irrelevant, so long as there is some legal justification for a prosecutor doing what they do.
Second (and I speak as a former prosecutor), a person may be arrested driving through Illinois with a concealed firearm, coming from a State where that is legal and he/she has a valid permit from that State. Should an otherwise law abiding citizen from Colorado or Arizona be convicted of a felony for not knowing Illinois law? I'm aware of the maxim Ignorantia juris non exuse (ignorance of the law is no excuse). However, I'm also aware of the ethical obligation of a prosecutor to "do justice." In this example I didn't enforce the law, but believe I did justice. I informed the citizen of Illinois law, insuring he properly unloaded and cased the firearm in his vehicle, and sent him on his way with a warning.
Since I and the McClean county prosecutor did not enforce the law as written, but for entirely different motives which motives can't be challenged, should he, me, both, or neither have sanctions imposed?
James, you're an attorney. Jump on in.
That works as well as anything, Pat. Molto grazie.
There is also full faith and credit, and yet most states without same sex unions, much less marriages, already announced they will not recognize such things, and there is an opinion in Texas, I think, saying that since same sex unions are illegal in Texas, so is same sex divorce. I think it's all selective, like Obama's ordering Holder to lay off prosecutions of medical marijuana shops, a position I understand they have reversed.
Sir, you nailed it! The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. Article 4, Section 1 states, Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
There is nothing in the US Constitution that deals with marriage. And, under Article III, Federal Courts are actually courts of limited jurisdiction. State Courts are courts of general jurisdiction, e.g. adoption, guardianship, probate, and marriage. If a state court, like Hawaii or Massachusetts, says two people are married, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, South Carolina and Texas don't have choice but to recognize that marriage should the couple move there.
Therein lies the rub. The extremists who scream at the top of their lungs wanting to wrap themselves in the Constitution, are the very ones who would just as soon wipe their ass with it.