State attorney general won’t defend gay marriage ban

[AGENT J]

1.)Another Democrat who refuses to uphold the oath of office they took. The same thing happened in California, Both the Governor and Attorney General (both liberal Democrats) refused to defend Prop 8 in front of the SCOUS in violation of the oath of office they took.

This seems to have become the SOP of Democrats who have been elected to public office and have taken an oath but ignore the oath they took. From President Obama all the way down to dog catcher.

she violated no oaths of office, dont know about the others you mentioned but this lady broke no laws and violated no oaths, if the rest of your post is true maybe start a new thread where that subject matters.

 

[Gaius46]

Another Democrat who refuses to uphold the oath of office they took. The same thing happened in California, Both the Governor and Attorney General (both liberal Democrats) refused to defend Prop 8 in front of the SCOUS in violation of the oath of office they took.

This seems to have become the SOP of Democrats who have been elected to public office and have taken an oath but ignore the oath they took. From President Obama all the way down to dog catcher.

I wouldn't be so sure. By virtue of the oath he takes the President of the United States has a duty to not defend laws he believes to be unconstitutional. I wouldn't be surprised if governors had the same duty.

 

[Gina]

Re: Pennsylvania attorney general refuses to defend gay marriage ban

Moderator's Warning:

Merging duplicate threads.

 

[Anagram]

Another Democrat who refuses to uphold the oath of office they took. The same thing happened in California, Both the Governor and Attorney General (both liberal Democrats) refused to defend Prop 8 in front of the SCOUS in violation of the oath of office they took.

This seems to have become the SOP of Democrats who have been elected to public office and have taken an oath but ignore the oath they took. From President Obama all the way down to dog catcher.

From my understanding of Pennsylvania law, she is following the confines of her office. Not giving a half hearted defense by somebody who has already spoken out publicly against the law, is probably better for the laws survival anyway.

 

[APACHERAT]

she violated no oaths of office, dont know about the others you mentioned but this lady broke no laws and violated no oaths, if the rest of your post is true maybe start a new thread where that subject matters.

She has refused to uphold the oath of office she took. It's what liberals do.

You say you don't know about the others ? You should. It's a perfect example how liberal Democrats ignore the law and the oath of office they took.

>"The Supreme Court’s decision Wednesday on Proposition 8 unlocked the door for same-sex marriage in California but also may have stifled the voices of the state’s voters.

In its 5-4 decision, the high court ruled that the private group behind the citizen-initiated measure on the November 2008 ballot had no standing to defend Proposition 8 in federal court, even after California Gov. Jerry Brown and state officials refused to do so.

The ruling on standing, while seemingly technical, has alarmed critics on both ends of the political spectrum, who worry that the decision effectively gives state officials the unchecked power to nullify ballot initiatives they dislike by refusing to enforce them or defend them in court."<

Read more: Critics say Supreme Court's Prop 8 ruling takes power from voters, gives it to state officials - Washington Times


Then you have the other liberal scam that Democrats use so they can say "I'm upholding the oath of my office." Probably the same scam that AG Kane will use.

How a liberal governor flipped off the voters of California. Prop 187 was over whelming passed by the citizens of California. The Mexican government, extreme radical leftist and non citizen illegal aliens challenged Prop 187. Basically what Governor Gray Davis (Lib-D) did. After Governor Wilson appealed the ruling of it being declared unconstitutional in a lower court, which brought the case to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in 1999, the newly elected Democratic Governor Gray Davis had the case brought before mediation. His administration withdrew the appeal before the courts in July 1999, effectively killing the law.

 

[AGENT J]

I wouldn't be so sure. By virtue of the oath he takes the President of the United States has a duty to not defend laws he believes to be unconstitutional. I wouldn't be surprised if governors had the same duty.

correct not only is the law on her said so is her oath

" "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."

“I cannot ethically defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's (law banning same-sex marriage), where I believe it to be wholly unconstitutional,” Kane told reporters in Philadelphia.

"I cannot ethically defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's version of DOMA, where I believe it to be wholly unconstitutional," Kathleen Kane told reporters at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Thursday

 

[APACHERAT]

I wouldn't be so sure. By virtue of the oath he takes the President of the United States has a duty to not defend laws he believes to be unconstitutional. I wouldn't be surprised if governors had the same duty.

Can you point out exactly what parts of the Constitution that President Obama believes are constitutional ? :2rofll:

 

[AGENT J]

1.)She has refused to uphold the oath of office she took. It's what liberals do.

1.) 100% false as proven by FACTS

the law says

attorney general may allow lawyers for the governor's office or executive-branch agencies to defend a lawsuit if it is more efficient or in the state's best interests.

the oath says:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."

she says in many ways

“I cannot ethically defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's (law banning same-sex marriage), where I believe it to be wholly unconstitutional,” Kane told reporters in Philadelphia.

"I cannot ethically defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's version of DOMA, where I believe it to be wholly unconstitutional," Kathleen Kane told reporters at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Thursday

sorry you lose to facts, no laws and no oaths were broken and your opinion wont change that
next

 

[APACHERAT]

1.) 100% false as proven by FACTS

the law says

the oath says:


she says in many ways




sorry you lose to facts, no laws and no oaths were broken and your opinion wont change that
next

The oath she took says she must uphold the Constitution of the "Commonwealth" of Pennsylvania.
Now I haven't read the Pennsylvania Constitution and it's likely it's different from the majority of the other states constitutions. From what I read there are a few of the original 13 colonies constitutions that are based upon "Common Law" while the U.S. Constitution and most of the other states constitutions are based on "Natural Law." Remember after we won our Independence from a monarchy, we tried to distance ourselves from King George and English Common Law. The Law of Nations was the direction we went.

What AG Kane is likely to do is drop this in the laps of an incompetent lawyer who will represent the state and will make an appearance in court and make a half ass argument to defend the state. That's the way liberals do things.

I could be wrong but I have history on my side.

 

[CanadaJohn]

State attorney general won&apos;t defend gay marriage ban | TribLIVE



I very much respect this woman for standing up for her principles. I believe she should leave her job because it is her job to defend the state's laws. However, great to see her standing up for what she believes is right. Tough call on her part.

Not such a tough call when the leader of her party, the President of the United States, ignores and doesn't defend the laws of the country on a regular basis - she has a great role model.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)The oath she took says she must uphold the Constitution of the "Commonwealth" of Pennsylvania.
Now I haven't read the Pennsylvania Constitution and it's likely it's different from the majority of the other states constitutions. From what I read there are a few of the original 13 colonies constitutions that are based upon "Common Law" while the U.S. Constitution and most of the other states constitutions are based on "Natural Law." Remember after we won our Independence from a monarchy, we tried to distance ourselves from King George and English Common Law. The Law of Nations was the direction we went.

What AG Kane is likely to do is drop this in the laps of an incompetent lawyer who will represent the state and will make an appearance in court and make a half ass argument to defend the state. That's the way liberals do things.

I could be wrong but I have history on my side.

yes both the US and common wealth and add PA law of her responsibilities and her statements an it all ads up to one thing.

your statement was 100% false

she violated no laws or oaths

the rest of your partisan, opinion based, hyperbolic, meaningless ranting doesnt matter to facts

 

[APACHERAT]

yes both the US and common wealth and add PA law of her responsibilities and her statements an it all ads up to one thing.

your statement was 100% false

she violated no laws or oaths

She may not have broken the law yet, but it seems she's incapable of fulfilling her job.

 

[Gaius46]

The oath she took says she must uphold the Constitution of the "Commonwealth" of Pennsylvania.
Now I haven't read the Pennsylvania Constitution and it's likely it's different from the majority of the other states constitutions. From what I read there are a few of the original 13 colonies constitutions that are based upon "Common Law" while the U.S. Constitution and most of the other states constitutions are based on "Natural Law." Remember after we won our Independence from a monarchy, we tried to distance ourselves from King George and English Common Law. The Law of Nations was the direction we went.

What AG Kane is likely to do is drop this in the laps of an incompetent lawyer who will represent the state and will make an appearance in court and make a half ass argument to defend the state. That's the way liberals do things.

I could be wrong but I have history on my side.

Constitutions and common law have little in common. Constitutions set up systems of governance while common law, at its most fundamental is about precedence.

Our legal, like many of England's former colonies is very heavily influenced by common law.

 

[AGENT J]

She may not have broken the law yet, but it seems she's incapable of fulfilling her job.

no laws have been broken
no oaths have been violated

and as far as legal requirements for fulling her job this doesn't hinder them, you got nothing but one wrong statement and now this statement that is at best a weak opinion.

 

[Master PO]

woman should be removed from her office, for her failure to enforce law.

as officials of a government you are given duties to uphold, if you refuse to do your duty you can be removed.

although his woman feels its wrong to enforce such a law, and i can understand that, she can removed it would to be the decision of the people above her.

her feelings do not keep her immune from losing her job.

when you take a stance on something, you better be prepared, for what may happen.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)woman should be removed from her office, for her failure to enforce law.

2.) as officials of a government you are given duties to uphold, if you refuse to do your duty you can be removed.

3.) although his woman feels its wrong to enforce such a law, and i can understand that, she can removed it would to be the decision of the people above her.
4.) her feelings do not keep her immune from losing her job.
5.) when you take a stance on something, you better be prepared, for what may happen.

1.) sorry this is false and the law doesnt support you
2.) this is true, good think she has upheld her duties
3.) dont know what this says
4.) no they do not but that has no impact here
5.) im sure she is prepared.

 

[Master PO]

1.) sorry this is false and the law doesnt support you
2.) this is true, good think she has upheld her duties
3.) dont know what this says
4.) no they do not but that has no impact here
5.) im sure she is prepared.

1) this is a personal opinion.......nothing about law here.
2)wrong .....if you dont do your job...you CAN be removed from it..it going to depend on her boss, of if the people petition to have her removed
3)its simply means again, i understand her feelings, not wanting to do this, however her feelings to not keep her from losing her job, if the people above her choose to let her go.
4) again if the people above her, or the people in general want her gone becuase of her actions...she will not hold her position.
5)well she better know the climate for making this decision, becuase if she is crying about its later, she is the only one to blame.

 

[AGENT J]

1) this is a personal opinion.......nothing about law here.
2)wrong .....if you dont do your job...you CAN be removed from it..it going to depend on her boss, of if the people petition to have her removed
3)its simply means again, i understand her feelings, not wanting to do this, however her feelings to not keep her from losing her job, if the people above her choose to let her go.
4) again if he people above her, or the people in general want h r gone becuase of her actions...she will not hold her position.
5)well she better know the climate for making this decision, becuase if she is crying about its later, she is the only one to blame.

1.) factual false, what i posted is a fact see post 33 for you mistake, law proves you wrong
2.) she has fullfilled the lawful requirements of her job you are the only one factually wrong
3.) they currently have ZERO reason to do so based on this
4.) her actions are lawful and fullfill her oath, they have no reason too based on this
5.) the decision is sound, lawful and doesnt violate her job requirements in anyway

sorry you are wrong laws and facts make it that way, in case you dont want to go to post 33 ill just post the law, her oath and her comments

LAW:

attorney general may allow lawyers for the governor's office or executive-branch agencies to defend a lawsuit if it is more efficient or in the state's best interests.

OATH:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."

one of her qoutes:

"I cannot ethically defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's version of DOMA, where I believe it to be wholly unconstitutional," Kathleen Kane told reporters at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Thursday

 

[Master PO]

1.) factual false, what i posted is a fact see post 33 for you mistake, law proves you wrong
2.) she has fullfilled the lawful requirements of her job you are the only one factually wrong
3.) they currently have ZERO reason to do so based on this
4.) her actions are lawful and fullfill her oath, they have no reason too based on this
5.) the decision is sound, lawful and doesnt violate her job requirements in anyway

sorry you are wrong laws and facts make it that way, in case you dont want to go to post 33 ill just post the law, her oath and her comments

LAW:


OATH:


one of her qoutes:

wrong, this woman can lose her job, if the the people over her, or the people petition the government to remove her from office...this is the basics, you should understand.

 

[AGENT J]

wrong, this woman can lose her job, if the the people over her, or the people petition the government to remove her from office...this is the basics, you should understand.

nice reframing, your statement i called wrong is still 100% wrong you should understand. lol

 

[Master PO]

nice reframing, your statement i called wrong is still 100% wrong you should understand. lol

so you think that this woman is immune from losing her job?....that's its a guarantee

even the president can lose this job, it he fails to follow the constitution,. ..its only if the congress acts on him whether he keeps it his job.

the Governor of PENN, can fire the lady if he wishes, becuase he can state she failed to do her duty.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)so you think that this woman is immune from losing her job?....that's its a guarantee

2.) even the president can lose this job, it he fails to follow the constitution,. ..its only if the congress acts on him whether he keeps it his job.

3.) the Governor of PENN, can fire the lady if he wishes, becuase he can state she failed to do her duty.

1.) nope never said this, but please feel free to make up more stuff though
2.) thanks for the meaningless information
3.) more meaningless info that was never debated

awesome post, your statement i called wrong and false is still 100% false :shrug:
keep trying to deflect though maybe it will work in your next post lol

 

[Master PO]

1.) nope never said this, but please feel free to make up more stuff though
2.) thanks for the meaningless information
3.) more meaningless info that was never debated

awesome post, your statement i called wrong and false is still 100% false :shrug:
keep trying to deflect though maybe it will work in your next post lol

so you believe this woman can in no way lose her job, if her superior decides to ask for here resignation, becuase they believe she has not exercised her duties of office properly?

so no one can be fired then, in government?

you continued ridiculous responses, be just claiming wrong, and dodging the subject, shows your a master at being deceptive.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)so you believe this woman can in no way lose her job, if her superior decides to ask for here resignation, becuase they believe she has not exercised her duties of office properly?
2.) so no one can be fired then, in government?
3.) you continued ridiculous responses, be just claiming wrong, and dodging the subject, shows your a master at being deceptive.

1.) again never said this and you lying about it wont change that fact
2.) see 2
3.) FAIL, you are not talking about the subject, you are trying, and failing, to make up your own. Its cute you think this will fool anybody or your deflection will ever work.Your statement was 100% wrong and I provide facts to prove it.

she broke no laws
she broke no oaths
she has done her job as far as the subject is concerned

let me know when any of these facts change:shrug:

 

[Master PO]

1.) again never said this and you lying about it wont change that fact
2.) see 2
3.) FAIL, you are not talking about the subject, you are trying, and failing, to make up your own. Its cute you think this will fool anybody or your deflection will ever work.Your statement was 100% wrong and I provide facts to prove it.

she broke no laws
she broke no oaths
she has done her job as far as the subject is concerned

let me know when any of these facts change:shrug:

more unless information.

i state clearly in my post ......the woman could lose her job

and i stated firstly, that i thought she should lose her job....and stated that ...........it was opinion only!