If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MissouriNet)   Missouri lawmaker wants to impeach the governor for accepting tax returns from same sex couples   (missourinet.com) divider line 161
    More: Asinine, articles of impeachment, Missouri, tax filing  
•       •       •

2029 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2014 at 3:45 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



161 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-06 02:08:28 PM
Pfft.  Impeaching a Nixon.  It's been done.
 
2014-02-06 02:09:06 PM
Christ, what an asshole.
 
2014-02-06 02:11:34 PM
NIXON YOU DOLT!
 
2014-02-06 02:28:17 PM
Aren't states required to recognize marriages from other states even if they do not authorize them in their own?  IE - A few states allow first cousin marriages and most do not.  Don't the others have to recognize it as a marriage even if they do not allow those marriages to be performed in their state?
 
2014-02-06 02:30:42 PM

AntiGravitas: Aren't states required to recognize marriages from other states even if they do not authorize them in their own?  IE - A few states allow first cousin marriages and most do not.  Don't the others have to recognize it as a marriage even if they do not allow those marriages to be performed in their state?


technically that is up for debate

it has been assumed so (many states recognize, for example, common law marriages from other states) for a long time but the modern gop has no problem shiatting on states' rights when it lets them push a religious agenda soooooo
 
2014-02-06 02:31:14 PM
Nixon's order made a lot of sense because Missouri is one of many states that link their tax code to the federal government. That means if you file joint federal tax returns with the IRS must also file joint state returns with the Missouri Department of Revenue. Legally married same-sex couples can now file jointly with the IRS regardless of where they currently reside. Just one of many reasons this piecemeal approach to marriage equality is going to create problems.
 
2014-02-06 02:31:23 PM

AntiGravitas: Aren't states required to recognize marriages from other states even if they do not authorize them in their own?  IE - A few states allow first cousin marriages and most do not.  Don't the others have to recognize it as a marriage even if they do not allow those marriages to be performed in their state?


No, such an arrangement is called reciprocity, and it has to be made explicitly. E.g. marriage reciprocity or gun permit reciprocity.
 
2014-02-06 02:36:45 PM
We will get marriage equality but I see a whole big mess happening before we're there.
 
2014-02-06 02:44:35 PM
Dear Republicans,

You can't just impeach someone every time they do something you don't like, even if they're a Democrat.

Sincerely,
Sane People.
 
2014-02-06 02:45:18 PM
FTFA: A state representative has filed articles of impeachment against Governor Jay Nixon for his executive order telling the Revenue Department to accept joint tax returns filed by same-sex couples legally married in other states.

Hey, that dirty Democratic Governor is honoring the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.  Get him!
 
2014-02-06 02:52:24 PM
It never gets old seeing politicians cling to their bigotry by whatever legal means necessary.  You lost.  Quit wasting everyone's time.
 
2014-02-06 02:56:35 PM
Not quite as derpy as OK pols wanting to ban all marriage to avoid marriage equality, but nice try, MO!
 
2014-02-06 03:03:02 PM

sprawl15: technically that is up for debate


Actually, it's not. DOMA section 2 (which WASN'T struck down by the Supreme Court):

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
 
2014-02-06 03:03:41 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Dear Republicans,

You can't just impeach someone every time they do something you don't like, even if they're a Democrat.

Sincerely,
Sane People.


This. fark the GOP
 
2014-02-06 03:05:21 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Dear Republicans,

You can't just impeach someone every time they do something you don't like, even if they're a Democrat.

Sincerely,
Sane People.


Unfortunately, the governor probably took an oath of office to uphold both the state and US constitutions, if the state constitution says that same sex relationships cannot be recognized in the state, then they can technically argue that he is violating his oath to uphold the state constitution.
 
2014-02-06 03:13:05 PM

nmrsnr: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Dear Republicans,

You can't just impeach someone every time they do something you don't like, even if they're a Democrat.

Sincerely,
Sane People.

Unfortunately, the governor probably took an oath of office to uphold both the state and US constitutions, if the state constitution says that same sex relationships cannot be recognized in the state, then they can technically argue that he is violating his oath to uphold the state constitution.


the problem is that the State Constitution probably says something about observing the laws of the US constitution as well.
 
2014-02-06 03:20:12 PM

mrshowrules: the problem is that the State Constitution probably says something about observing the laws of the US constitution as well.


Which, until the rest of DOMA is struck down, don't apply to gay marriage in the state of Missouri.

Of course, if he is impeached, and the Missouri constitution is itself declared unconstitutional, would they have to reinstate him?
 
2014-02-06 03:20:50 PM

nmrsnr: Actually, it's not. DOMA section 2 (which WASN'T struck down by the Supreme Court):

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.


Which sounds like a total violation of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. IANAL, but isn't that unconstitutional based on the California Prop 7 ruling?
 
2014-02-06 03:24:45 PM
To be fair, this guy is from the far west part of the state, so he is basically from Kansas as far as I'm concerned. There are a lot of derpy teabaggers out there. My state rep is a Republican but I don't think he's a wacko teabagger. Too heavily contested of an area. St. Louis County has already flipped to (D) a few years ago and we are making some inroads into St. Charles County. We were a hair's breadth from getting a smoking ban in bars. Hope the flip happens soon.
 
2014-02-06 03:26:32 PM

nmrsnr: sprawl15: technically that is up for debate

Actually, it's not. DOMA section 2 (which WASN'T struck down by the Supreme Court):


adorable but the part that is up for debate is if full faith/credit applies in such a way to require recognition of other states' marriage licenses - i.e., if doma section 2 is also unconstitutional

i mean i get that a lot of people are confused about the way that scotus generally restricts itself to only answering the questions laid before it but that does not make it accurate
 
2014-02-06 03:29:16 PM

hardinparamedic: IANAL, but isn't that unconstitutional based on the California Prop 7 ruling?


I'm not a lawyer, either, but my understanding is that the Prop 8 ruling just said that California's state constitution can't ban gay marriage, nothing about any other state or full faith and credit.
 
2014-02-06 03:32:28 PM

sprawl15: i mean i get that a lot of people are confused about the way that scotus generally restricts itself to only answering the questions laid before it but that does not make it accurate


It's still not up for debate any more than any other law is up for debate. States aren't required to recognize other states marriage until the Supreme Court says that law is unconstitutional, which they have not yet done.
 
2014-02-06 03:35:21 PM

nmrsnr: It's still not up for debate any more than any other law is up for debate.


are you purposefully trying to act like no other law's constitutionality has been debated prior to a supreme court ruling on the subject or are you just unaware of the concept of history
 
2014-02-06 03:44:14 PM
So when do we start de-populating Missouri and turning it into vast solar and wind farms?
 
2014-02-06 03:50:03 PM
What is it like to get up every morning absolutely convinced that married HomoGheys are ruining your life?
 
2014-02-06 03:50:59 PM
wait, missouri is stil a state? why haven't they done anything of note in 70 years?
 
2014-02-06 03:52:09 PM
www.ralphdigiafund.org
 
2014-02-06 03:52:11 PM
What is it about gays that makes these people so pants-shiatting frightened?
 
2014-02-06 03:52:44 PM

hardinparamedic: nmrsnr: Actually, it's not. DOMA section 2 (which WASN'T struck down by the Supreme Court):

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Which sounds like a total violation of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. IANAL, but isn't that unconstitutional based on the California Prop 7 ruling?


The FF&CC has a second part: "And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." DOMA Section 2 is an exercise of that power.
 
2014-02-06 03:53:41 PM
Any governor who moonlights as a revenue clerk needs counseling at least.
 
2014-02-06 03:54:01 PM

sprawl15: nmrsnr: It's still not up for debate any more than any other law is up for debate.

are you purposefully trying to act like no other law's constitutionality has been debated prior to a supreme court ruling on the subject or are you just unaware of the concept of history


The jury is still out on history, allow me to show you unrelated things that support my position of nonaction
 
2014-02-06 03:54:51 PM

Herb Utsmelz: [www.ralphdigiafund.org image 600x596]


That's either Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan as a baby, learning how vow revenge against its liberal oppressors.
 
2014-02-06 03:55:57 PM

nmrsnr: mrshowrules: the problem is that the State Constitution probably says something about observing the laws of the US constitution as well.

Which, until the rest of DOMA is struck down, don't apply to gay marriage in the state of Missouri.

Of course, if he is impeached, and the Missouri constitution is itself declared unconstitutional, would they have to reinstate him?


Or would it just mean that we could revoke Missouri's license to be a state?
 
2014-02-06 03:56:25 PM

Tyrano Soros: What is it about gays that makes these people so pants-shiatting frightened?



They're afraid we'll be allowed to freely trash their interior decorating skills in the name of "progress".
 
2014-02-06 03:56:54 PM

tlchwi02: wait, missouri is stil a state? why haven't they done anything of note in 70 years?


Harry Truman
The F-15 and the F-18

i1.ytimg.com
That's... that's about it.
 
2014-02-06 03:56:56 PM

Tyrano Soros: What is it about gays that makes these people so pants-shiatting frightened?


I think in general it's straight men who are sexually abusive to women fear that gays would treat them the same as they treat women.

I mean that was the excuse for them not in the military "Hey if we let gays in they could sexual harass us like we do to women!"
 
2014-02-06 03:57:24 PM

Tyrano Soros: What is it about gays that makes these people so pants-shiatting frightened?


They think it a communicable disease.
 
2014-02-06 03:59:01 PM

Tyrano Soros: What is it about gays that makes these people so pants-shiatting frightened?


Artisan cheese and wine plates, smart decorating skills, a fierce love of Beyoncé, and the deep seated fear that they might enjoy things deep in their seats.
 
2014-02-06 03:59:30 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Dear Republicans,

You can't just impeach someone every time they do something you don't like, even if they're a Democrat.

Sincerely,
Sane People.


As far as the US House goes, if the House passes a bill that says "We're going to impeach the President for the High Crime of Presidenting While Black", the president's impeached, and the Senate gets to hold a trial. (The Constitution does specify treason and bribery as impeachable offenses, too.)

According to one Gerald R Ford (then Speaker of the House), Congress is allowed to impeach a president for whatever they want to call a "high crime". IIRC, this is the prevailing opinion today.
 
2014-02-06 03:59:41 PM
If only he had some kind of codified morality to help him to accept that gay marriage is coming.  Some kind of book or something, that says to treat others as you want to be treated.

/someone should write a book like that
//and make it simple
///not very long, so people read it
 
2014-02-06 04:00:06 PM

whidbey: Herb Utsmelz: [www.ralphdigiafund.org image 600x596]

That's either Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan as a baby, learning how vow revenge against its liberal oppressors.


Must be Ryan because Cruz was in Canada learning the evils of socialism first hand.
 
2014-02-06 04:00:17 PM

jm105: Tyrano Soros: What is it about gays that makes these people so pants-shiatting frightened?

They think it a communicable disease.



I think it's more that they are worried they are carriers but haven't had the environmental stimuli (lack of bigotry) to set the virus in motion. It's kind of like The Walking Dead.
 
2014-02-06 04:00:44 PM

sprawl15: are you purposefully trying to act like no other law's constitutionality has been debated prior to a supreme court ruling on the subject or are you just unaware of the concept of history


The question of "do states have to recognize other states' marriages" has a very clear answer: No. There are laws on the books that are very clear about this.

The question of "is the law constitutional" is very debatable.

Those are two different questions. The first one is not very debatable, the second one is.

When a conscientious objector refused the draft and was arrested, it wasn't "debatable" if they broke the law, what was debatable was if the law was constitutional. There is a difference.
 
2014-02-06 04:00:56 PM

Fubini: AntiGravitas: Aren't states required to recognize marriages from other states even if they do not authorize them in their own?  IE - A few states allow first cousin marriages and most do not.  Don't the others have to recognize it as a marriage even if they do not allow those marriages to be performed in their state?

No, such an arrangement is called reciprocity, and it has to be made explicitly. E.g. marriage reciprocity or gun permit reciprocity.


The Constitution:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Marriage licences would fall under public records.
 
2014-02-06 04:02:37 PM

nmrsnr: sprawl15: technically that is up for debate

Actually, it's not. DOMA section 2 (which WASN'T struck down by the Supreme Court):

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.


So they don't have to, can they choose to?
 
2014-02-06 04:03:20 PM
JOBS JOBS JOBS!
 
2014-02-06 04:03:39 PM

Warlordtrooper: Fubini: AntiGravitas: Aren't states required to recognize marriages from other states even if they do not authorize them in their own?  IE - A few states allow first cousin marriages and most do not.  Don't the others have to recognize it as a marriage even if they do not allow those marriages to be performed in their state?

No, such an arrangement is called reciprocity, and it has to be made explicitly. E.g. marriage reciprocity or gun permit reciprocity.

The Constitution:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Marriage licences would fall under public records.


The second part is what's at issue.
 
2014-02-06 04:04:33 PM

Karac: nmrsnr: mrshowrules: the problem is that the State Constitution probably says something about observing the laws of the US constitution as well.

Which, until the rest of DOMA is struck down, don't apply to gay marriage in the state of Missouri.

Of course, if he is impeached, and the Missouri constitution is itself declared unconstitutional, would they have to reinstate him?

Or would it just mean that we could revoke Missouri's license to be a state?


I suppose Congress could theoretically revoke statehood. Every state after the original thirteen colonies was admitted to the Union by an Act of Congress, and since Congress cannot bind a future Congress...
 
2014-02-06 04:05:25 PM

jm105: Tyrano Soros: What is it about gays that makes these people so pants-shiatting frightened?

They think it a communicable disease.


Irony, then, that the bile they spew - the hatred of the non-white, non-male, non-rich, non-'murikan enough - could be considered a communicable disease.
 
2014-02-06 04:05:52 PM

MFAWG: Warlordtrooper: Fubini: AntiGravitas: Aren't states required to recognize marriages from other states even if they do not authorize them in their own?  IE - A few states allow first cousin marriages and most do not.  Don't the others have to recognize it as a marriage even if they do not allow those marriages to be performed in their state?

No, such an arrangement is called reciprocity, and it has to be made explicitly. E.g. marriage reciprocity or gun permit reciprocity.

The Constitution:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Marriage licences would fall under public records.

The second part is what's at issue.


Doma section 2 is a law not a Constitutional amendment,  Wouldn't it then violate the first part of the Full Faith and credit clause seeing as how it basically says that the opposite.  The Constiution overrules normal laws.
 
Displayed 50 of 161 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report