• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Kim Davis - Kentucky's theocratic ruler

Damn white people. Staying where they came from and taking jobs away from hard working illegal immigrants. :mad:
 
maxparrish said:
Who'da thunk? ;)
Click to expand...

Obviously you didn't.

50th. Kentucky

Debt per Capita: $8,899 (37th)Unemployment Rate: 10% (38th)
Home Price Change (’06 – ’09): 6.1% (24th)
Median Household Income: $40,072 (47th)


Although Kentucky doesn’t place 50th in any one category, its overall poor scores secures its place as the worst-run state on our list. It is 43rd in GDP per capita, 47th in median household income, 47th in citizens with high school diplomas, and, at 18.6%, is 48th for percentage of the population below the poverty line. Kentucky also has an extremely weak S&P rating of AA-, supporting our assessment that it is the worst-run state in the country.


Read more: The Best and Worst Run States In America: A Survey of All Fifty - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/investing/2010...-america-a-survey-of-all-fifty/#ixzz3lpbzU2dQ
Follow us: @247wallst on Twitter | 247wallst on Facebook
Click to expand...
 
Unfortunately, Louisville is actually an extension of Indiana.

Just ask anybody from anywhere else in Kentucky...
 
We've gone a day without Kim Davis in the news? They realize they have absolutely no recourse here?

I could make a quip about a hunger strike, but I'm above that.

:thinking:
 
jonatha said:
There is no such requirement anymore, although if two under-18 females living in Rowan County wanted to marry they would have to obtain their license in Morehead and couldn't just go to the county next door (as Davis's lawyers have suggested).
Click to expand...

I thought I'd ask you since you're from Kentucky; has Section 233A of the Kentucky Constitution been repealed? I've checked and I've read a lot about proposals to repeal it but nothing which says it actually has been repealed or rendered obsolete due to executive order.
 
Gambler said:
jonatha said:
There is no such requirement anymore, although if two under-18 females living in Rowan County wanted to marry they would have to obtain their license in Morehead and couldn't just go to the county next door (as Davis's lawyers have suggested).
Click to expand...

I thought I'd ask you since you're from Kentucky; has Section 233A of the Kentucky Constitution been repealed? I've checked and I've read a lot about proposals to repeal it but nothing which says it actually has been repealed or rendered obsolete due to executive order.
Click to expand...

It's been rendered obsolete due to a Supreme Court ruling and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution....

ETA - I doubt it will be formally repealed before midcentury.
 
jonatha said:
Gambler said:
I thought I'd ask you since you're from Kentucky; has Section 233A of the Kentucky Constitution been repealed? I've checked and I've read a lot about proposals to repeal it but nothing which says it actually has been repealed or rendered obsolete due to executive order.
Click to expand...

It's been rendered obsolete due to a Supreme Court ruling and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution....

ETA - I doubt it will be formally repealed before midcentury.
Click to expand...

Supremacy clause? Are you sure about that? I can think of three ways right off the bat to argue you're wrong. So in other words section 233A is still the law in Kentucky?
 
Gambler said:
Keith&Co. said:
So can Mrs. Davis' lawyers. Six if you count Leviticus.
Click to expand...

I'm not religious and am not basing my arguments or opinions on religion in any way. I believe in the rule of law. You don't?
Click to expand...
For someone with 4 posts at this point, you really don't have any idea what Keith&Co (or anyone else here) believe in.

But you can feel free to inform us on those three ways how Kentucky allegedly can continue to ignore SCOTUS.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Gambler said:
I'm not religious and am not basing my arguments or opinions on religion in any way. I believe in the rule of law. You don't?
Click to expand...
For someone with 4 posts at this point, you really don't have any idea what Keith&Co (or anyone else here) believe in.

But you can feel free to inform us on those three ways how Kentucky allegedly can continue to ignore SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

You're a post snob? Alright.
 
Gambler said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
For someone with 4 posts at this point, you really don't have any idea what Keith&Co (or anyone else here) believe in.

But you can feel free to inform us on those three ways how Kentucky allegedly can continue to ignore SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

You're a post snob? Alright.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the most convincing of arguments.

- - - Updated - - -

Keith&Co. said:
Gambler said:
You're a post snob? Alright.
Click to expand...
Does that mean you're NOT going to actually state your three arguments?
Click to expand...
I mean at least Perry could get to two.
 
Gambler said:
jonatha said:
It's been rendered obsolete due to a Supreme Court ruling and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution....

ETA - I doubt it will be formally repealed before midcentury.
Click to expand...

Supremacy clause? Are you sure about that? I can think of three ways right off the bat to argue you're wrong. So in other words section 233A is still the law in Kentucky?
Click to expand...

Are you perhaps part of Kim Davis's legal team?

It is no more the law in Kentucky than Mississippi's ban on interracial marriage was the law in Mississippi between the decision in Loving v Virginia in 1967 and the formal repeal of the ban by the Mississippi legislature in 1987.
 
jonatha said:
It is no more the law in Kentucky than Mississippi's ban on interracial marriage was the law in Mississippi between the decision in Loving v Virginia in 1967 and the formal repeal of the ban by the Mississippi legislature in 1987.
Click to expand...
There are a whole raft of 'alcohol must have been involved' laws on the books, such as it being illegal for women to smoke in public between their front porch and the paved street (women in houses on gravel and dirt roads not affected), or it being illegal to allow a giraffe to drink from the horse trough in the city square during Lent.
These books are unenforced, but remain enforceable, if a police officer was desperately bored or if the violator wanted 15 minutes of fame. So whether or not they're 'the law of the land' is an interesting point for discussion. They are probably best termed 'a law still on the books,' though not one most people are going to worry about, whether obeying or enforcing.

The laws that infringe on constitutional rights, however, which SCOTUS or the Constitution specifically point out as being unconstitutional, though they are 'laws still on the books,' are not laws that can be enforced. So i'd think they cannot possibly be considered 'laws of the land.'
 
In Atlanta, it's illegal to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole.

I lived in that city for seven years and every day it pissed me off that I didn't have a giraffe so that I could tie it to a telephone pole as an act of civil disobedience. :mad:
 
Tom Sawyer said:
In Atlanta, it's illegal to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole.

I lived in that city for seven years and every day it pissed me off that I didn't have a giraffe so that I could tie it to a telephone pole as an act of civil disobedience. :mad:
Click to expand...

Apparently you were tied to a telephone pole in that shit hole for seven years. :tomato:
 
Tom Sawyer said:
In Atlanta, it's illegal to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole.

I lived in that city for seven years and every day it pissed me off that I didn't have a giraffe so that I could tie it to a telephone pole as an act of civil disobedience. :mad:
Click to expand...
You should write to Miley Cyrus. If she ever drops the slut-chic act, maybe she can travel the country for press through civil disobedience....?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom