and some minimal education in math, science and logical thinking, too.... that would weed out 'most every elected official in the US....
Which might be a Good Thing, too... :)

Disagree... she's not trying to 'rewrite law,' she's trying to defend her right to Disobey a Law based on her religious beliefs...
And if religious beliefs become the Get Out Of Jail Free Card for anyone and everyone who decides they don't want to Obey a Law, we, as a society are totally fucked.
Just watch.

That is actually a great idea! As a prerequisite to actually qualifying to be on the ballot, let alone taking the oath of office, a candidate take the same civics test that is taken by legal immigrants entering the country. At least what they used to be required to take,

There should be some kind of civics test before someone should be seated in Congress. If they all understood the Commerce Clause, for example, how in the world could they use it to enact a universal health insurance scheme under it?

Yeah, there is no question that they are doing it. And that goes to the source of so many of this country's problems.

It is therefore imperative that our Constitution and its jurisdictional definitions be understood before remedies can be applied. One of the repetitive mistakes being made is to challenge the constitutionality of a given piece of legislation and find that it is upheld. But what is not asked is where does it apply? No powers not enumerated in Article I and any amendments are just not applicable within any of the States. An Act may be considered constitutional but applies only to a territorial possession.

It is the maintenance of the myth that is allowing this to happen. Like any problem, if the root cause is not addressed it won't get fixed.

Dr. Paul weigh is in on the matter.

https://youtu.be/CW8LwE_DqH0

Had to do with unbelievers, not colors nor supposed faux races. As I said, they made it up, liberals do not comply with the authority of an author in context, they take things to mean what they want.
As I have said before...the left, the slave holders, the progressives are 'AntiLectual; that's why they do not get the meaning of words.

Gotcha.

If a state can do anything the voters approve, you might as well throw out the Constitution along with any notion of individual rights. I would not want to live in a society that subjected my life, liberty and property to the whims of the majority of the moment.

And it's hardly "manipulating society" to require a public official to either perform the duties of her office or resign.

In a free society, you don't give some of your freedom away to live in society. You merely delegate to the government some limited powers to act on your behalf in defense of your life, liberty and property. Government officials are tasked with the responsibility to facilitate citizens' exercise of these rights. Any government official not willing to do so has no business holding down a government job.

Enumerating rights on a piece of paper can simply mean acknowledging that such rights exist, and that the government recognizes that they exist. An example from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident." Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "the government hereby awards and confers the following rights to the people."

It doesn't matter if someone's religion "allows" issuing a license; it is not properly a consideration at all. Religion is not an exemption from the responsibility to do the job one is paid for doing.

She has gone out of her way to insist that it is about religion:

"Staver [her lawyer] said that Davis stands by her Christian faith, will not issue gay marriage licenses and has 'no remorse,' commending her 'incredible resilience and faith.'” http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/...

She has not "lost her rights". She has no right to rewrite law in her accordance with arbitrary religious faith. She is defiantly maintaining an irrational position in attempting to elevate her arbitrary religious beliefs to a privileged position. If she doesn't want to perform the duties of her job she should resign. She can engage in civil disobedience if she wants to, but that requires taking responsibility for breaking the law, which is exactly what is happening. Religion is not an exemption.

Is she a "prisoner of conscience"? She is a prisoner of her own irrational beliefs.

Inalienable means it comes from God or a higher authority than man. You don't need paper to explicitly give you inalienable rights. The Bill Of Rights explicitly states what government has no authority to tinker with, infringe on or remove.

How is defining a class of people's rights on paper not awarding rights?

This is an Ayn Rand forum and we do not live in a theocracy. We do not follow sacred text as "authority".

The 10th Amendment grants to the states only those " powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States." The 14th Amendments prohibits the states from denying citizens the equal protection of their laws. Thus, under the terms of the 10th Amendment, the federal government has the right to intervene in this marriage license case.

and her buddies just a hundred feet up the hill are even bigger
and older and more expansive. . these are probably "virgin" timber
here in the hinterlands. . old. . we cut one down to build this house
which was (I counted the rings) 115 years old. . in 2004. -- j
.

AMENDMENT XIV
. . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The federal government did not "award" the freed slaves their rights, they gave such rights formal recognition in the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. The 14th Amendment, among other things, specifically gave the federal government the power to intervene whenever states attempted to prevent some of their citizens from exercising their individual rights.

What is your position on individual rights? Are such rights absolute or are they dependent upon whatever the voters in a particular geographical area decide?

That sounds like a great view. Rural life is looking better and better by the day. You don't have all of the annoying foolish city people, all seemingly trying to flush the country down the toilet of socialism and insanity.

Precisely. The entire matter is federal coercion to force obedience.

Interesting, thanks. I can see how someone would use those passages for their own purposes.

U. S. Constitution LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
ARTICLE I SECTION 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate
and House of Representatives.

Congress passes laws. The Supreme Court does not legislate law. Has Congress passed a law making same-sex marriage legal? What she has done is not unconstitutional. She should not be in jail.

I think income taxes are equal or even higher when married. The ss benefits and hospital decision making you are right about