Marriage invalidating a will

Folks, this is exactly what distinguishes the phony “respectable” Republican judges from people like Judge Roy Moore.

While they give lip service to the Constitution and then join along and even expand unconstitutional precedent that violates our foundation, Judge Moore will actually live by his oath of office.

Constitutional crisis: Bogus rules of standing make courts a super-legislature Freeze frame right here: This is exactly the point of Judge Moore — no branch of the federal government or state is the supreme law of the land. Even unelected federal judges have an obligation to uphold the Constitution.

But certainly the other branches of government — which wield more robust power — do. Thus, if one believes that a specific precedent (in this case, all sides agree it’s very dubious and muddled anyway) is unconstitutional, the judge has an obligation, pursuant to his oath of office, to uphold the Constitution.

A court doesn’t have veto power like an executive outside of a valid case with a legitimate grievance — and most certainly can’t actively demand a county redraw their flag.

Galloway, “[A]pplying the Clause against the States eliminates their right to establish a religion free from federal interference, thereby “prohibit[ing] exactly what the Establishment Clause protected.” Yet, here we have the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based atheist group, scandalously obtaining standing to sue a Pennsylvania county and get a federal court to erase the heritage of the state that has been there since the founding (this particular symbol for 70 years).

On Thursday, Judge Edward Smith of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, an Obama appointee, ruled that, based on “precedent,” the Christian cross contained in the official flag and seal of Lehigh County violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

While he seemed to indicate he personally believes it doesn’t violate the First Amendment, he incoherently hid behind phony precedent to say that it is incumbent upon defendants to show that the symbol has a secular purpose; otherwise, it is endorsing Christianity.

Democrats actually thought he was too conservative.

Indeed, he claims to personally believe the flag doesn’t violate the First Amendment but then goes out of his way to use mental gymnastics to say he is bound by precedent.

Search for marriage invalidating a will:

marriage invalidating a will-81marriage invalidating a will-60marriage invalidating a will-42

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “marriage invalidating a will”