Post: #76

(09-04-2015 06:22 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 05:53 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  No I'm trying to turn it towards nullification. If a branch of the federal government is violating the constitutional separation of powers, state executives are within their right to resist. If they don't, this just keeps edging towards a federal 'decision' that the states are non-entities and that the US is a unitary state.

The prohibition of gay marriage was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court as it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. They are the final word on the subject. I'm not sure what is to be nullified.

Porsche, are you actually one of the justices by any chance? Your tone reminds me of the way the bully's side kick talks in a kids cartoon.

I can't imagine why any one would have so much deference to the opinion of a panel of unelected lawyers, who frequently legislate from the bench based on their political desires. I suppose if they decided that 'hate speech' wasn't protected by the 1st amendment, or that possessing handguns wasn't protected by the 2nd (which nearly happened by the way, 4-5), you'd be vigorously declaring "the final word has been had! bend over and accept the 'interpretation' of your masters!".

Post: #77

(09-04-2015 02:10 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  This is nothing even close to facism. The only hint of facism going on is the type of country the clerk would like- one where your religious beliefs determine whether you will get service from government workers. That is facism.

Exactly - calling this fascism makes about as much sense as this cunt's attorney/paid mouthpiece comparing the situation to Jews being exterminated in Nazi Germany. LAME.

Post: #78

(09-04-2015 02:08 PM)ElConquistador Wrote:  -She is an official that was elected before the SCOTUS ruling

Irrelevant. Are you trying to suggest you only have to follow laws in place the date of your election, and not new ones?

Quote:-Her Kentucky state laws do not recognize gay marriage

Doesn't matter what Kentucky thinks, its now Federal law. This has all been discussed, fought, in court, and now its over. Kentucky doesn't need to recognize it, its recognized as a right federally, and all states must comply.

Quote:-She swore an oath to the State of Kentucky's Constitution, not the Federal Government Constitution

Yes, and Kentucky must follow U.S. federal law, and thus the clerk must as well.

Quote:-She has refused to put her name to the marriage license, but has no problem with other clerks signing their names

She doesn't get to refuse service to anyone based on her personal beliefs in her position as a government agent, and thankfully so. And no one at that office was able/willing to issue licenses with her there, so thats a bogus argument. It's only now that she has been removed from her position that the other clerks have been allowed to proceed.

Quote:-She has been imprisoned for "contempt of court" (not actually breaking a law in the first place before going before the judge) without due process and will remain so until she starts signing gay marriage licenses

She's refusing a lawful court order- that's contempt of court. The matter has already been decided, and she's refusing to comply. Jail for contempt of court is due process.

Quote:-A little old woman refuses to sign her name to a piece of paper and she is imprisoned without due process.

Jailed, not imprisoned, and with due process.

Quote:Consequences: Society will fall apart rapidly without a respect for the law.

The only correct thing you've said. And thankfully the personal beliefs of some old lady aren't getting in the way of people following the law anymore.

I really, really do not understand how people don't see the very bad precedent that would be set had this government worker been allowed to refuse service to who she chooses, based on her personal beliefs. Thank God that is not the case.

Quote:If you think it is unacceptable for a state official to follow her oath that she swore and refuse to follow the federal government, then by logical consistency you would not tolerate soldiers in the military refusing to execute un-constitutional orders. For example; I'm sure most people here agree that a solder is in the right for refusing to execute an unarmed citizen. Please, let's have an ethical framework that offers logical consistency instead of making Ad Hoc arguments.

Gay marriage is legal now, whether we like it or not, period. She's not refusing to follow "un-constitutional orders", she's refusing to follow lawful orders, because of the god she prays to. Next time will it be a muslim lady refusing to serve you? Thankfully this is stopped now, not later.

This is not comparable to our great soldiers refusing to follow bad orders, in any way at all.

Post: #79

Precise rebuttal, GlobalMan.

Post: #80

I think there's a lot of people being blinded by their dislike of gays and gay marriage, and are all too willing to throw out crucial components of protections we all enjoy because of this one issue.

I'm a gun owner, and a frequent gun carrier. Imagine a liberal shithole if you will, a "May Issue" state, where the anti-gun sentiment is strong, you can't get a permit to carry, and people are on the Brady train. A ruling comes down from the Supreme Court that all states must issue carry permits to any person legally allowed to own a gun. A soccer mom who happens to be the sheriff of a county in that state decides that issuing gun carry permits is "too much for her conscience to bear", and refuses to do so.

I do not want to live in a place where the personal beliefs of a local government worker determine if I get the service I am entitled to.

Post: #81

(09-04-2015 02:08 PM)ElConquistador Wrote:  -She is an official that was elected before the SCOTUS ruling
Ask anyone who has worked for the government, their rules and regs change all the time. That's like me saying I'm allowed to text and drive because I've been texting and driving since before those laws were enacted.
-Her Kentucky state laws do not recognize gay marriage
Doesn't matter what Kentucky law says. Did you pass high school civics? Did you read my previous post about the Supremacy Clause in the US constitution?
-She swore an oath to the State of Kentucky's Constitution, not the Federal Government Constitution
Did you fact check this statement? Is this what Fox News said? Are you just saying what makes you feel good?

" Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution, oath of officers and attorneys:

Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

-The dissenting opinion for the gay marriage case stated that the decision had nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution
The dissenting opinion is the minority opinion. Just because you happen to agree with it, doesn't make it the right opinion.
-She has refused to put her name to the marriage license, but has no problem with other clerks signing their names
She's the county clerk, her name is on all of the clerk office documents, and she says she doesn't want her name on those documents at all.
-She has been imprisoned for "contempt of court" (not actually breaking a law in the first place before going before the judge) without due process and will remain so until she starts signing gay marriage licenses
She can resign
-The governor of Texas telling the citizens of his state to disobey the Federal Law on Marriage. Nothing happens to him.
Irrelevant
-Mayors of sanctuary cities refusing to follow Federal Immigration Law. Nothing happens to them.Irrelevant
-Th President of the United States refuses to do his job as executive of the United States and refuses to follow Federal Immigration law. Nothing happens to him.Irrelevant
-SCOTUS disobeys the Constitution. Nothing happens to them.And just how exactly did they disobey the Constitution? Because they made a decision you disagree with?
-A little old woman refuses to sign her name to a piece of paper and she is imprisoned without due process.A 300lb carousel rider disobeyed a lawful order from a federal court and was held in contempt. She will be released as soon as she complies in a manner satisfactory to the court.

Consensus: The branches of government are cowards for not using their checks to go after these big traitors, but instead go against a little old woman. Equality under the law and thus respect for it is ceasing to exist.
Consequences: Society will fall apart rapidly without a respect for the law.You're saying that society will fall apart when people show no respect for the law, but you're mad that this woman is in jail for contempt, which is essentially a matter of failing to show respect for the law.

If you think it is unacceptable for a state official to follow her oath that she swore and refuse to follow the federal government, then by logical consistency you would not tolerate soldiers in the military refusing to execute un-constitutional orders. For example; I'm sure most people here agree that a solder is in the right for refusing to execute an unarmed citizen. Please, let's have an ethical framework that offers logical consistency instead of making Ad Hoc arguments.

The oath she took is posted above. She did swear to uphold the US Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition of anal marriage is unconstitutional. The example you cited regarding the soldier is not unconstitutional, it is illegal. And the UCMJ obligates soldiers to disobey illegal orders. Even those that come from the president.

Post: #82

(09-04-2015 02:56 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  The oath she took is posted above. She did swear to uphold the US Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition of anal marriage is unconstitutional. The example you cited regarding the soldier is not unconstitutional, it is illegal. And the UCMJ obligates soldiers to disobey illegal orders. Even those that come from the president.

Exactly - some of these straw-man arguments cause me to wonder what the fuck happened with our educational system - is civics no longer taught in US schools? SMH

Post: #83

(09-04-2015 02:55 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  I do not want to live in a place where the personal beliefs of a local government worker determine if I get the service I am entitled to.

That's why we have states and counties: so you can pack up and move wherever you like. The states also have much more ways to control their government: they have citizens initiatives, recall elections, citizens vetos, and referendums etc. If the feds keep eating away at the sovereignty of the states, that liberty will disappear.

Post: #84

(09-04-2015 03:12 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:55 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  I do not want to live in a place where the personal beliefs of a local government worker determine if I get the service I am entitled to.

That's why we have states and counties: so you can pack up and move wherever you like. The states also have much more ways to control their government: they have citizens initiatives, recall elections, citizens vetos, and referendums etc. If the feds keep eating away at the sovereignty of the states, that liberty will disappear.

If a new Federal law has been put on the books that grants an new "right", I don't and shouldn't have to move to a different state to enjoy that right. This time its gay marriage, but what happens in the scenario I presented? States should be allowed to refuse a new "right" established by federal law? In fact, not even a state- one lady, who happens to be in control of issuing licenses to an entire county. How would that work if the person in control of each county decided to do whatever they wanted?

Post: #85

This woman was is an elected official ostensibly to the Executive branch of the local government. She doesn't get to unilaterally decide policy (that's the Legislative branch) or if a law is correct/ legal (that's the Judicial branch) Theoretically if the populace wants certain policies /laws in place then they elect the legislative officials who enact the policies they want. This county clerk should have just resigned if her conscience doesn't let her fulfill the jobs obligations. There is supposed to be a clear separation between Church (her religious beliefs) and State (her job). But she shouldn't be in jail either, just fired.

I for one have long been an advocate of getting government out of the "marriage business". These recent gay marriage shenanigans have only served to reinforce that position for me.

I agree many of the arguments posited in the recent ROK article:

http://www.returnofkings.com/69713/consi...vatization

Additionally there's no real reason marriage should be a "legal" enterprise anyway. (We as men have long been on the losing end of that construct). There are property and family laws already in place to cover every contingency that arises from "marriage" In the end a marriage is a psychological bond / commitment between the two (or more ) adults that enter it to it and God if they happen to believe in one.

The gay marriage issue is all the more reason to get government out of the clusterfuck that is legal marriage.

Post: #86

(09-04-2015 03:31 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  If a new Federal law has been put on the books that grants an new "right", I don't and shouldn't have to move to a different state to enjoy that right. This time its gay marriage, but what happens in the scenario I presented? States should be allowed to refuse a new "right" established by federal law? In fact, not even a state- one lady, who happens to be in control of issuing licenses to an entire county. How would that work if the person in control of each county decided to do whatever they wanted?

^ This.

Post: #87

(09-04-2015 03:47 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  Additionally there's no real reason marriage should be a "legal" enterprise anyway. (We as men have long been on the losing end of that construct). There are property and family laws already in place to cover every contingency that arises from "marriage" In the end a marriage is a psychological bond / commitment between the two (or more ) adults that enter it to it and God if they happen to believe in it.

Excellent point, completely agree

Post: #88

Quote:“The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order,” the judge said. “If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.”

Mr. Davis said Friday that his wife planned to remain in the Clark County jail “as long as it takes,” adding that he did not think that the marriage licenses the workers in the clerk’s office issued today, without the signature of the clerk, herself, would be legally valid. Ms. Davis refused to agree to the compromise measure approved by the judge, of allowing her deputies to grant licenses without her involvement; had she done so, she could have been released.

Not only does she refuse, she won't allow anyone else to. She's been given more consideration and leeway by the judge to comply with the law than you or I would ever get, yet she still refused. She was given the option of not having her signature on them, exactly the thing she wanted and said was the issue. It's not even good enough that she was offered the (insane) option of not signing documents she's supposed to as a compromise. In fact, not even a compromise- thats exactly what she wanted before. What she wants now is anyone's guess. This is exactly why no one should be given special allowances, it never ends at what they say they want.

Post: #89

(09-04-2015 02:32 PM)StudebacherHoch Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:10 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  This is nothing even close to facism. The only hint of facism going on is the type of country the clerk would like- one where your religious beliefs determine whether you will get service from government workers. That is facism.

Exactly - calling this fascism makes about as much sense as this cunt's attorney/paid mouthpiece comparing the situation to Jews being exterminated in Nazi Germany. LAME.

Uhhh fascism existed in more than the country of Germany. No one knows what you're talking about.

Post: #90

(09-04-2015 02:56 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  -The governor of Texas telling the citizens of his state to disobey the Federal Law on Marriage. Nothing happens to him.
Irrelevant
-Mayors of sanctuary cities refusing to follow Federal Immigration Law. Nothing happens to them.Irrelevant
-Th President of the United States refuses to do his job as executive of the United States and refuses to follow Federal Immigration law. Nothing happens to him.Irrelevant

How is any of this irrelevant? Either everyone is beholden to the laws or no one is.

Quote:-SCOTUS disobeys the Constitution. Nothing happens to them.And just how exactly did they disobey the Constitution? Because they made a decision you disagree with?

Or because there's nothing in the Constitution to defend their faggot views

Post: #91

(09-04-2015 02:55 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  I think there's a lot of people being blinded by their dislike of gays and gay marriage, and are all too willing to throw out crucial components of protections we all enjoy because of this one issue.

I'm a gun owner, and a frequent gun carrier. Imagine a liberal shithole if you will, a "May Issue" state, where the anti-gun sentiment is strong, you can't get a permit to carry, and people are on the Brady train. A ruling comes down from the Supreme Court that all states must issue carry permits to any person legally allowed to own a gun. A soccer mom who happens to be the sheriff of a county in that state decides that issuing gun carry permits is "too much for her conscience to bear", and refuses to do so.

I do not want to live in a place where the personal beliefs of a local government worker determine if I get the service I am entitled to.

You mean like this sheriff in California that has denied the constitutional rights of more than 7000 citizens, after a federal ruling told her to issue carry permits?

http://www.guns.com/2015/04/24/orange-co...-quagmire/

Way more important than a clerk denying marriage certificates to a couple mentally ill people.

Post: #92

(09-04-2015 03:31 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  If a new Federal law has been put on the books that grants an new "right", I don't and shouldn't have to move to a different state to enjoy that right. This time its gay marriage, but what happens in the scenario I presented? States should be allowed to refuse a new "right" established by federal law? In fact, not even a state- one lady, who happens to be in control of issuing licenses to an entire county. How would that work if the person in control of each county decided to do whatever they wanted?

Because it goes both ways. If the feds say you can no longer say whatever you want, or carry a gun (almost happened), or have privacy (happened), there is nowhere you can go to escape. Also it's not a right anyway ( /thread-50234-...pid1104021 ), it's an imposition on others (like welfare).

Sure, if every county did whatever they wanted, that might cause some problems (or not, assuming they have recall elections etc), but you can escape all of them with your feet. However if the president or the 9 lawyers did whatever they wanted (which they do), what you going to do?

Post: #93

(09-04-2015 09:18 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:56 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  -The governor of Texas telling the citizens of his state to disobey the Federal Law on Marriage. Nothing happens to him.
Irrelevant
-Mayors of sanctuary cities refusing to follow Federal Immigration Law. Nothing happens to them.Irrelevant
-Th President of the United States refuses to do his job as executive of the United States and refuses to follow Federal Immigration law. Nothing happens to him.Irrelevant

How is any of this irrelevant? Either everyone is beholden to the laws or no one is.

Quote:-SCOTUS disobeys the Constitution. Nothing happens to them.And just how exactly did they disobey the Constitution? Because they made a decision you disagree with?

Or because there's nothing in the Constitution to defend their faggot views

It's irrelevant because in those circumstances you're saying that politicians you don't like should be jailed because they make you unhappy. In the case of the homophobic Kentucky cow, she's sitting in jail because she's in contempt of court. So if you want something for reasonable comparison come up with some examples of people who should be jailed for contempt.

As for their being nothing in the Constitution to "defend their faggot views", you're right. There isn't. Faggots aren't acknowledged in it. As I've repeatedly pointed out, the ruling said that states cannot prohibit anal marriage as it would violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. You can try to twist the narrative into something it isn't but that shit ain't gonna work on me.

Post: #94

(09-04-2015 10:07 PM)kleyau Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:55 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  I think there's a lot of people being blinded by their dislike of gays and gay marriage, and are all too willing to throw out crucial components of protections we all enjoy because of this one issue.

I'm a gun owner, and a frequent gun carrier. Imagine a liberal shithole if you will, a "May Issue" state, where the anti-gun sentiment is strong, you can't get a permit to carry, and people are on the Brady train. A ruling comes down from the Supreme Court that all states must issue carry permits to any person legally allowed to own a gun. A soccer mom who happens to be the sheriff of a county in that state decides that issuing gun carry permits is "too much for her conscience to bear", and refuses to do so.

I do not want to live in a place where the personal beliefs of a local government worker determine if I get the service I am entitled to.

You mean like this sheriff in California that has denied the constitutional rights of more than 7000 citizens, after a federal ruling told her to issue carry permits?

http://www.guns.com/2015/04/24/orange-co...-quagmire/

Way more important than a clerk denying marriage certificates to a couple mentally ill people.

Agreed, and thats why I think it's a good example of why we can't have this kind of thing going on.

Post: #95

(09-04-2015 10:34 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 03:31 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  If a new Federal law has been put on the books that grants an new "right", I don't and shouldn't have to move to a different state to enjoy that right. This time its gay marriage, but what happens in the scenario I presented? States should be allowed to refuse a new "right" established by federal law? In fact, not even a state- one lady, who happens to be in control of issuing licenses to an entire county. How would that work if the person in control of each county decided to do whatever they wanted?

Because it goes both ways. If the feds say you can no longer say whatever you want, or carry a gun (almost happened), or have privacy (happened), there is nowhere you can go to escape. Also it's not a right anyway ( /thread-50234-...pid1104021 ), it's an imposition on others (like welfare).

Sure, if every county did whatever they wanted, that might cause some problems (or not, assuming they have recall elections etc), but you can escape all of them with your feet. However if the president or the 9 lawyers did whatever they wanted (which they do), what you going to do?

In examples going the other way, I'd agree with you. This is not one of those examples. A federal law is allowing more people to legally do something. I don't see how that can be argued to be trampling on anyone else's rights, unless you mean offending personal religious sensibilities, which are lawfully not taken into consideration. The government worker has never had a right to refuse duties based on her religious beliefs. Nothing has changed in that regard.

There are millions of people that are offended by contraception, and would refuse to allow it if they could, but since we have the separation of church and State it is (thankfully) difficult to base laws on (widely varying) religious belief alone. I'm glad about that.

Post: #96

Quote:I think deep down this is why some liberals do not like Christianity. Christianity teaches that there is a higher law than the government. Governments can pass laws, but they are not the ultimate arbiters of what is right and what is wrong.

Christianity also teaches

Quote:Mark 12:17
"Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.

Which to my understanding means you follow the rules of the land.

Post: #97

(09-05-2015 01:27 AM)cascadecombo Wrote:  

Quote:I think deep down this is why some liberals do not like Christianity. Christianity teaches that there is a higher law than the government. Governments can pass laws, but they are not the ultimate arbiters of what is right and what is wrong.

Christianity also teaches

Quote:Mark 12:17
"Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.

Which to my understanding means you follow the rules of the land.

I've hear this interpreted as "God is interested in your soul, not your wealth" Aka, as long as Caesar isn't trying to harvest souls then Jesus didn't really care. Handing out marriage liscences to two dudes when Jesus has already drawn the line on marriage is stepping on his toes. Aka marriage belongs to God, not Caesar. I mean I really think gov't should be out of the marriage business entirely.

Post: #98

(09-04-2015 02:55 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  I think there's a lot of people being blinded by their dislike of gays and gay marriage, and are all too willing to throw out crucial components of protections we all enjoy because of this one issue.

I'm a gun owner, and a frequent gun carrier. Imagine a liberal shithole if you will, a "May Issue" state, where the anti-gun sentiment is strong, you can't get a permit to carry, and people are on the Brady train. A ruling comes down from the Supreme Court that all states must issue carry permits to any person legally allowed to own a gun. A soccer mom who happens to be the sheriff of a county in that state decides that issuing gun carry permits is "too much for her conscience to bear", and refuses to do so.

I do not want to live in a place where the personal beliefs of a local government worker determine if I get the service I am entitled to.

You already live in a country like that. I could list several examples but one major one is our Attorney General is currently in contempt of Congress and not suffering anything for it. The rule of law is, for all intents and purposes, dead because one side has used strongman ends-justify-the-means measures for about a century and the other pathetically hopes that the institutions will somehow swing right if they elect cuckservatives.

The reason why she is in jail and being punished is because she's going against a leftist cause.

A cause which, in the case of anal marriage, Americans in several states REJECTED via popular referendum.

Post: #99

(09-05-2015 01:27 AM)cascadecombo Wrote:  

Quote:I think deep down this is why some liberals do not like Christianity. Christianity teaches that there is a higher law than the government. Governments can pass laws, but they are not the ultimate arbiters of what is right and what is wrong.

Christianity also teaches

Quote:Mark 12:17
"Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.

Which to my understanding means you follow the rules of the land.

It means pay your taxes, because Jesus didn't give a shit about money and didn't want his people being punished for not paying earthly authorities what was due to them. Context is everything. Read the verses before that.

Post: #100

(09-04-2015 03:47 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  This woman was is an elected official ostensibly to the Executive branch of the local government. She doesn't get to unilaterally decide policy (that's the Legislative branch) or if a law is correct/ legal (that's the Judicial branch) Theoretically if the populace wants certain policies /laws in place then they elect the legislative officials who enact the policies they want. This county clerk should have just resigned if her conscience doesn't let her fulfill the jobs obligations. There is supposed to be a clear separation between Church (her religious beliefs) and State (her job). But she shouldn't be in jail either, just fired.

I agree with all of this.

The problem with the gay marriage ruling, when you boil down to it, is the fact that the Supreme Court basically declared that the definition of marriage now includes same sex couples. That definition is at the crux of state marriage laws and thus the Supreme Court changed state laws across the country - which it does not have the power to do.

As it stood before the ruling, nobody in America was prevented from having access to marriage. If you were a man, all you had to do was find a woman and you could get married, vice versa if you were a woman. If gays want to get married to each other, they have to go through the legislative branch and get the definition of marriage changed.

If you hold that this woman is guilty of contempt of court or civil disobedience or whatever, you also have to acknowledge that she is in contempt of an illegitimate ruling. The 'but it's the law!' argument doesn't fly because it was established improperly, as far as the constitution is concerned.

Thus we have two wrongs, which I suppose don't make a right. At the same time, they're merely the latest wrongs, in a long list of wrongs of this sort, perpetrated by members of federal and local executive and judicial branches, as others have pointed out in this thread. But it's THIS situation in which the hammer is brought down. The judge even mentioned that a fine wouldn't be enough, even though that is what the prosecution recommended. An example had to be made of her, simply because her crime, above anything else, was a crime against social justice, or whatever you want to call it. That's where the fascistic element is - disagree and you go to jail, even if the disagreement is technically on solid footing.