Chris Wallace To Roy Moore: ‘You Already Got Fired Once For Putting Yourself Above The Law’
“I could recuse or dissent as a justice from Delaware did in the Dred Scott case [affirming slavery] in 1857,” the Alabama chief justice insisted. “They ruled black people were property. Should a court today obey such a ruling that is completely contradictory of the Constitution?”
Wallace pointed out that Moore’s directive that probate judges should refuse to issue same-sex
marriage licenses was similar to his refusal to remove the Ten Commandments from a the state Capital building after a federal court ordered him to.“A state ethics panel said that you had to be removed from office because you had put yourself above the law,” Wallace explained. “Are you doing the same thing now, sir?”
Moore, however, said that he was “obeying the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which does not prohibit the acknowledgement of God.”
“When federal courts start changing our Constitution by defining words that are not even there, like marriage, they’re going to do the same thing with family in the future,” Moore argued. “When a word is not in the Constitution, clearly, the powers of the Supreme Court do not allow them to re-define words and seize power. The power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states or reserved to the states respectively or to the people.”
Don’t forget to click here and “like” us on Facebook
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2015 Liberaland
78 responses to Chris Wallace To Roy Moore: ‘You Already Got Fired Once For Putting Yourself Above The Law’
« Previous 1 2Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
John Tarter February 16th, 2015 at 13:04
Where does ANY Federal judge get off making ANY ruling on same sex marriage? The last I looked marriage, same sex or otherwise, is not mentioned anywhere in the Federal Constitution. This is purely a state issue, defined as such by the 10th Amendment.
Now I know you libs will be crying that some people’s civil rights are being violated and I reject that argument. Just like you libs would reject the argument that my rights are being violated because I cannot legally carry a handgun in certain states because of their restrictive gun laws against doing such a thing. It’s a state issue folks, let the people of the respective states decide it.
Obewon February 16th, 2015 at 13:28
You’ve never read or comprehended the U.S. Constitution ‘One Supreme Court and any lesser courts congress may establish’, or Conservative majority SCOTUS 2013, or 2015 7-2 equal marriage rulings throughout the entire USA mandating Alabama Equal Marriage.upholding the 10th & 14th amendments and the Article 6 Federal Government “Supremacy Clause”.
“Where does ANY Federal judge get off making ANY ruling”-Tarter on Constitutionally illiterate Moore always being on the wrong side of U.S. Law and history.
William February 16th, 2015 at 13:34
Wrong again. Oh look, a federal law that supersedes a state law IE. concealed carry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act
John Tarter February 17th, 2015 at 02:26
So you would be just fine with a national concealed carry law? Great! But how about the “Full Faith and Credit” argument. If so-called gay marriages are recognized, and drivers licenses are recognized, why not gun carry permits, or gun carry licenses? According to you, they should all be respected, or are you picking and choosing as usual?
William February 17th, 2015 at 09:04
“So you would be just fine with a national concealed carry law? ”
Try to follow me here. I’ll type slow.
There already IS a national concealed carry law.
It was signed by Bush. It effects police officers and retired police officers that are QUALIFIED and remain QUALIFIED in the use of deadly force. Although I never bother carrying my off duty weapon, the law permits QUALIFIED people to carry concealed in all fifty states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act
Yeah we all get the fact that you are more concerned with having your warm gun security blanket (testosterone from a holster), than you are concerned with the rights of all Americans to simply live their lives in happiness.
Letting two people get a marriage license doesn’t endanger anyone. Allowing an unqualified goober to carry a gun anywhere does.
See the difference now?
John Tarter February 17th, 2015 at 11:03
Oh yes, a national concealed carry law only applicable to a certain few.
Look, I really don’t care one way or another about what people do in the privacy of their own home, but the proclaiming of same sex marriage as some sort of Federal civil rights issue when the Federal Constitution says nothing on the matter is I disagree with.
The Constitution exists to protect the human rights we all inherently have and in the whole experience of humanity same sex unions have never been seen to be on par with the man and woman concept.
What right do those who advocate this retreat from the natural order of things have to shove this down the people’s throats through selected judges and without the consent of the majority through the legislative process? If anything, it is a state issue and should be decided there.
William February 17th, 2015 at 11:19
“Oh yes, a national concealed carry law only applicable to a certain few.”
and yet less than a day ago you insisted no such federal law existed.
For the very same reason not everyone is allowed to pilot a jet airliner.
Yeah but, duh the Consti-tooshin gives me the right to freedom of movement don’t it?
So why can’t I fly an airliner without government intrusion?
Allowing people to get married is very different.
“proclaiming of same sex marriage as some sort of Federal civil rights issue”
Allowing people to get married regardless of their sexual orientation is EXACTLY a Federal civil rights issue.
John Tarter February 17th, 2015 at 11:50
I knew that law existed all right and I never said that one didn’t exist. What doesn’t exist is a a law where every citizen who had a permit to carry issued by his or her state could carry legally across the nation. Why are retired cops more “special” than other citizens? Equal protection under the law should be available to everyone regardless of what profession they worked at.
William February 17th, 2015 at 11:59
“Why are retired cops more “special” than other citizens”
They are not.
They just happened to be trained/qualified. Your obsession with carrying a gun to the point that you want to compare it to gay marriage is likely prima fascia evidence that you are NOT mentally qualified.
But don’t blame me, it’s your idiot that signed that law. The same idiot who signed a law requiring fuel truck drivers to get fingerprinted each and every time they renew their hazmat license. Because everyone knows that a terrorist will get fingerprinted and background checked before he steals a tanker and drives it into a Federal building.
BTW, allowing other cops to have their guns nationally has always been an unwritten courtesy.
Years ago when I attended a cop funeral in upstate New York, I was in uniform, armed and didn’t get arrested.
William February 17th, 2015 at 11:36
I think I’ve given you way too much credit for what most Americans take for granted as common knowledge.
You do understand that the Supreme court has ruled in favor of public safety over all other considerations right?
John Tarter February 16th, 2015 at 14:04
Where does ANY Federal judge get off making ANY ruling on same sex marriage? The last I looked marriage, same sex or otherwise, is not mentioned anywhere in the Federal Constitution. This is purely a state issue, defined as such by the 10th Amendment.
Now I know you libs will be crying that some people’s civil rights are being violated and I reject that argument. Just like you libs would reject the argument that my rights are being violated because I cannot legally carry a handgun in certain states because of their restrictive gun laws against doing such a thing. It’s a state issue folks, let the people of the respective states decide it.
Obewon February 16th, 2015 at 14:28
You’ve never read or comprehended the U.S. Constitution ‘One Supreme Court and any lesser courts congress may establish’, or Conservative majority SCOTUS 2013, or 2015 7-2 equal marriage rulings throughout the entire USA mandating Alabama Equal Marriage.upholding the 10th & 14th amendments and the Article 6 Federal Government “Supremacy clause”.
“Where does ANY Federal judge get off making ANY ruling”-Tarter on Constitutionally illiterate Moore being on the wrong side of U.S. Law and history.
William February 16th, 2015 at 14:34
Wrong again. Oh look, a federal law that supersedes a state law IE. concealed carry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act
John Tarter February 17th, 2015 at 03:26
So you would be just fine with a national concealed carry law? Great! But how about the “Full Faith and Credit” argument. If so-called gay marriages are recognized, and drivers licenses are recognized, why not gun carry permits, or gun carry licenses? According to you, they should all be respected, or are you picking and choosing as usual?
William February 17th, 2015 at 10:04
“So you would be just fine with a national concealed carry law? ”
Try to follow me here. I’ll type slow.
There already IS a national concealed carry law.
It was signed by Bush. It effects police officers and retired police officers that are QUALIFIED and remain QUALIFIED in the use of deadly force. Although I never bother carrying my off duty weapon, the law permits QUALIFIED people to carry concealed in all fifty states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act
Yeah we all get the fact that you are more concerned with having your warm gun security blanket (testosterone from a holster), than you are concerned with the rights of all Americans to simply live their lives in happiness.
Letting two people get a marriage license doesn’t endanger anyone. Allowing an unqualified goober to carry a gun anywhere does.
See the difference now?
John Tarter February 17th, 2015 at 12:03
Oh yes, a national concealed carry law only applicable to a certain few.
Look, I really don’t care one way or another about what people do in the privacy of their own home, but the proclaiming of same sex marriage as some sort of Federal civil rights issue when the Federal Constitution says nothing on the matter is I disagree with.
The Constitution exists to protect the human rights we all inherently have and in the whole experience of humanity same sex unions have never been seen to be on par with the man and woman concept.
What right do those who advocate this retreat from the natural order of things have to shove this down the people’s throats through selected judges and without the consent of the majority through the legislative process? If anything, it is a state issue and should be decided there.
William February 17th, 2015 at 12:19
“Oh yes, a national concealed carry law only applicable to a certain few.”
and yet less than a day ago you insisted no such federal law existed.
For the very same reason not everyone is allowed to pilot a jet airliner.
Yeah but, duh the Consti-tooshin gives me the right to freedom of movement don’t it?
So why can’t I fly an airliner without government intrusion?
Allowing people to get married is very different.
“proclaiming of same sex marriage as some sort of Federal civil rights issue”
Allowing people to get married regardless of their sexual orientation is EXACTLY a Federal civil rights issue.
John Tarter February 17th, 2015 at 12:50
I knew that law existed all right and I never said that one didn’t exist. What doesn’t exist is a a law where every citizen who had a permit to carry issued by his or her state could carry legally across the nation. Why are retired cops more “special” than other citizens? Equal protection under the law should be available to everyone regardless of what profession they worked at.
William February 17th, 2015 at 12:59
“Why are retired cops more “special” than other citizens”
They are not.
They just happened to be trained/qualified. Your obsession with carrying a gun to the point that you want to compare it to gay marriage is likely prima fascia evidence that you are NOT mentally qualified.
But don’t blame me, it’s your idiot that signed that law. The same idiot who signed a law requiring fuel truck drivers to get fingerprinted each and every time they renew their hazmat license. Because everyone knows that a terrorist will get fingerprinted and background checked before he steals a tanker and drives it into a Federal building.
BTW, allowing other cops to have their guns nationally has always been an unwritten courtesy.
Years ago when I attended a cop funeral in upstate New York, I was in uniform, armed and didn’t get arrested.
William February 17th, 2015 at 12:36
I think I’ve given you way too much credit for what most Americans take for granted as common knowledge.
You do understand that the Supreme court has ruled in favor of public safety over all other considerations right?
http://practice.findlaw.com/practice-guide/the-second-amendment-and-the-right-to-regulate-guns-in-public.html