OK. Governor Refuses to Remove 10 Commandments

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Original poster
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
It's Wednesday, time for a new Christian Sharia story. Much like the recent SC rulings, I don't think Republicans understand how our system of government works. Maybe this is Fallon's play for a VP spot.

It's funny how the same people who yell the loudest about upholding the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment are so quick to discard the 1st Amendment when it doesn't suit them. When it comes to issuing marriage licences, they cry foul play, claiming religious freedom, yet when it comes to this ****, they cry foul play and claim that this kind of **** is OK. smh


Gov. Mary Fallin on Tuesday said the Ten Commandments monument will stay at the Capitol despite a court ruling that said it violated the state Constitution and must be removed.

Fallin said Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court to reconsider its 7-2 decision, which was handed down last week after a challenge by the ACLU of Oklahoma on behalf of three plaintiffs.

In addition, lawmakers have filed legislation to let people vote on whether to remove a portion of the state Constitution cited in the ruling. Article II, Section 5 of the constitution reads:

“No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such,” according to the Oklahoma Constitution.

The court said the monument was obviously religious in nature and an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths. The constitution bans the state from using public money or property for the benefit of any religious purpose, according to the opinion.

The monument was privately funded by Rep. Mike Ritze, R-Broken Arrow.

“Oklahoma is a state where we respect the rule of law, and we will not ignore the state courts or their decisions,” Fallin said. “However, we are also a state with three co-equal branches of government.”

In her decision to let the monument stay, Fallin cited the petition for rehearing and legislation seeking to let people vote on amending the constitution.

“During this process, which will involve both legal appeals and potential legislative and constitutional changes, the Ten Commandments monument will remain on the Capitol grounds.”

Alex Weintz, a Fallin spokesman, said she is not ignoring the ruling, but giving the other branches of government a chance to weigh in on the issue.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/gov-mary-fallin-defies-supreme-court-ruling-says-ten-commandments/article_b6a922ce-2d5e-5675-9929-5f18658ee5b9.html
 

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,329
10,254
Scotland
Why settle for the 10 commandments? Why not add all the other prohibitions listed in the Bible (e.g., men with long hair)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: APlotdevice

APlotdevice

macrumors 68040
Sep 3, 2011
3,109
3,749
What's with "In God We Trust" on all the money?
Given that it was added to the coin during the Civil War, and paper money during the height of the Cold War (along with inclusion of God into the Pledge), it was pretty obviously done for propaganda purposes.
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
On what legal ground is she refusing to comply with this court order? Unless the Oklahoma Supreme Court put a stay on their ruling, that pretty much makes it effective immediately. It was a 7-2 ruling, what makes her think they will reconsider it? Every time something happens that a Republican doesn't like, they start trying to butcher constitutions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grey Beard

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Alex Weintz, a Fallin spokesman, said she is not ignoring the ruling, but giving the other branches of government a chance to weigh in on the issue.
She doesn't get it. The other branches of government have weighed in. The Judicial branch ruled it unconstitutional. What she is trying to do is quickly get the people to change their constitution around to get around this ruling, instead of comply with the judicial branch.

Nevermind the fact that she is still running afoul of federal court, which already has a ruling on this issue setting precedence. She isn't going to win this one, regardless of what she tries to do.

BL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grey Beard

ucfgrad93

macrumors P6
Aug 17, 2007
17,538
8,161
Colorado
On what legal ground is she refusing to comply with this court order? Unless the Oklahoma Supreme Court put a stay on their ruling, that pretty much makes it effective immediately. It was a 7-2 ruling, what makes her think they will reconsider it? Every time something happens that a Republican doesn't like, they start trying to butcher constitutions.
Weren't you calling for SC governor Haley to overstep her authority and pull down the Confederate flag from the capitol grounds? In that case, according to you, it was a good thing. In this case it is a bad thing. How about our politicians stay within the legal boundaries? In this case, the OK governor is wrong to ignore the court decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bradl and rdowns

tgara

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2012
993
2,733
Connecticut, USA
On what legal ground is she refusing to comply with this court order? Unless the Oklahoma Supreme Court put a stay on their ruling, that pretty much makes it effective immediately. It was a 7-2 ruling, what makes her think they will reconsider it? Every time something happens that a Republican doesn't like, they start trying to butcher constitutions.
Yes, it is effective immediately, but the court has no means of actually enforcing the judgment. That's the Governor's job, and apparently she's using her "prosecutorial discretion" to basically delay implementation of the court order, at least for now. Clearly, she's trying to buy time so the Legislature can vote on an amendment to the state constitution to allow this monument. That's the only way to overturn this ruling.
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
Clearly, she's trying to buy time so the Legislature can vote on an amendment to the state constitution to allow this monument. That's the only way to overturn this ruling.
The legislature doesn't get to amend the constitution on their own. They can only put it on the ballot for the voters to decide. In the meantime, that ruling is the law in Oklahoma. She's defying a court ruling. Whether you support it or not is a different question, but let's call it what it is.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,522
OBJECTIVE reality
I think the fundies would love nothing better than for a judge to get fed up and order it removed, and when some hired company comes around to haul it away they find it surrounded by state troopers armed with rifles. In other words, they want a standoff so they can wail about how persecuted they are.

Edit: corrected "funds" to "fundies". (Damned new forum spell check!)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: APlotdevice

aaronvan

Suspended
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
On the commandment against adultery, Wikipedia says, "Sexual intercourse between an Israelite man, even if he was married, and an unmarried or unbetrothed woman was not considered as adultery."

Funny how religious directives are always in the man's favor.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,998
Criminal Mexi Midget
On the commandment against adultery, Wikipedia says, "Sexual intercourse between an Israelite man, even if he was married, and an unmarried or unbetrothed woman was not considered as adultery."

Funny how religious directives are always in the man's favor.
AS it should be, things are much harder for men when it comes to relationships , MOST women just wink & bang, there we are, when men wink & make them breakfast in bed we get asked ********HOW did you get in here & who are you?***** followed by a restraining order............
 

tgara

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2012
993
2,733
Connecticut, USA
The legislature doesn't get to amend the constitution on their own. They can only put it on the ballot for the voters to decide. In the meantime, that ruling is the law in Oklahoma. She's defying a court ruling. Whether you support it or not is a different question, but let's call it what it is.
Yeah, I'm not sure about how it's done in OK, but changing the state constitution is probably done through the legislature and a voter referendum. There was some mention of that in the posted article. The case is currently on appeal, so the case is still technically pending and she feels that the status quo can suffice for now. Instead of openly defying the court order, what she should do is remove the monument as the court ordered, then go through the constitutional amendment process, then have the monument put back. But even if she doesn't, there's not much anybody can do about it. Remember also that the court is not the final word. Legislative remedies are always available.

It's worth mentioning that the current president has frequently defied court orders and ignored the law. The Oklahoma governor, I guess, feels that if President Obama can defy laws enacted by Congress and court orders, she can too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ucfgrad93

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
Yeah, I'm not sure about how it's done in OK, but changing the state constitution is probably done through the legislature and a voter referendum. There was some mention of that in the posted article. The case is currently on appeal, so the case is still technically pending and she feels that the status quo can suffice for now. Instead of openly defying the court order, what she should do is remove the monument as the court ordered, then go through the constitutional amendment process, then have the monument put back. But even if she doesn't, there's not much anybody can do about it. Remember also that the court is not the final word. Legislative remedies are always available.
On appeal to who? The same OK Supreme Court that issued the original 7-2 ruling? The wording in that part of the Oklahoma constitution is so cut and dry the court had no other way of ruling. It seems the the framers placed that wording there very intentionally. It is the final word, short of a constitutional amendment. In the meantime, like you said, she should at least temporarily take it down while she pursues her misguided attempt to change the state constitution to allow a stupid statue on state property. Amazing to think that the framers of the Oklahoma state constitution weren't even as far to the right as the nutjobs that occupy that state today. My oh my, what has happened to the GOP?

It's worth mentioning that the current president has frequently defied court orders and ignored the law.
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Eraserhead