If she was a "public servant" she would be responsible for executing the laws of those that voted her into office. Seeing how 75% of Kentuckians voted to define marriage between one man and one woman, it appears you believe she is required to serve a federal court ruling, not the "public" that voted her into office.
There is already a system in place to remove a county clerk that is derelict of duty, it is impeachment. What happens if Kentucky legislators don't impeach her? Is the federal government going to come in and JAIL KENTUCKY STATE REPRESENTATIVES UNTIL THEY REMOVE HER FROM OFFICE?
How far are you willing to take it - Feds invading Kentucky to force them to comply with a 5-4 supreme court ruling?
Yes, she is responsible for executing laws for her state...Including marriage, which now, the highest court in the US has deemed CANNOT EXCLUDE homosexuals. The ruling is not just a "federal" court ruling, it is a ruling based on the Constitution as the SCOTUS sees it. I could care less if KY voters defined marriage as union only between men and women between 25 and 35 years of age... if the restrictions of the law are deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, the law is invalid and unenforceable.
Using your "states rights" doctrine, we could still have blacks as slaves if a state passed such a law, correct?
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
Yes, she is responsible for executing laws for her state...Including marriage, which now, the highest court in the US has deemed CANNOT EXCLUDE homosexuals. The ruling is not just a "federal" court ruling, it is a ruling based on the Constitution as the SCOTUS sees it. I could care less if KY voters defined marriage as union only between men and women between 25 and 35 years of age... if the restrictions of the law are deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, the law is invalid and unenforceable.
Using your "states rights" doctrine, we could still have blacks as slaves if a state passed such a law, correct?
That's quite the stretch, comparing slavery to marriage licenses. Involuntary servitude and marriage licenses are exactly the same. Anyhow...you haven't answered...How far are you willing to go in order to impose the 5-4 SCOTUS decision onto a clerk that refuses to issue licenses? What if she isn't impeached by state legislators? Do you consider Kentucky rebelling against the Federal Government requiring federal agents to forcibly put down the rebellion?
That's quite the stretch, comparing slavery to marriage licenses. Involuntary servitude and marriage licenses are exactly the same. Anyhow...you haven't answered...How far are you willing to go in order to impose the 5-4 SCOTUS decision onto a clerk that refuses to issue licenses? What if she isn't impeached by state legislators? Do you consider Kentucky rebelling against the Federal Government requiring federal agents to forcibly put down the rebellion?
not a stretch at all.. there have both been deemed unconstitutional, laws that have been deemed unconstitutional are null and void.
As far as your question? Please.. it's not like she is holding the office hostage with a gun....If she continues to interfere with execution of laws or services for which a person has been deemed valid to receive constitutionally, she is again in contempt and should be jailed until she agrees not to interfere.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
As far as your question? Please.. it's not like she is holding the office hostage with a gun....If she continues to interfere with execution of laws or services for which a person has been deemed valid to receive constitutionally, she is again in contempt and should be jailed until she agrees not to interfere.
There is no law in Kentucky defining who qualifies for a marriage license, only a Supreme Court decision that prohibits the definition to be between one man and one woman. She isn't breaking a LAW she isn't executing a FEDERAL COURT ORDER.
It is interesting though how some people interpret the SCOTUS decision as a LAW.
There is no law in Kentucky defining who qualifies for a marriage license, only a Supreme Court decision that prohibits the definition to be between one man and one woman. She isn't breaking a LAW she isn't executing a FEDERAL COURT ORDER.
It is interesting though how some people interpret the SCOTUS decision as a LAW.
I never did... but I will say is all you are doing nothing but splitting hairs and arguing just for the sake of it.. SCOTUS rules on constitutionality questions and whether a law, or actions by an executor of a law are constitutional or not. That ruling becomes the ultimate precedent, at least in the US. Their decision in June prohibits exclusion of gays in reference to marriage laws nationwide.
The County clerk took it upon herself to discriminate. A Federal judge, using the SCOTUS decision as precedent, issued an order for her to comply. She refused.... that is contempt of a court order. She was jailed as punishment. If she continues to interfere, she can and should be jailed for contempt.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
you shouldn't be issued a LICENSE aka PERMISSION to marry.
if Gov Amighty is so hellbent on recording your private life..............then let them issue a CERTIFICATE....AFTER....you are married.
it's like you don't get a license aka PERMISSION.... BEFORE you have a child.
you get a birth CERTIFICATE after the birth.
the government 'grants you permission' via a license to drive a car, go fishing, hunting...etc.
the government should not be in the business of forcing you to get 'permission' to marry.
IT'S JUST THAT STUPID!!!!!
IDIOTS!!!
then we wouldn't be having this conversation....the clerk would only be recording the certificate, after the fact.........not issuing one....aka giving permission.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
The distinctive mark of the American political experiment is that we are a nation of laws, not men. And what we mean by a “law” is something enacted by the elected representatives of the people or by the people themselves, whether at the state level or federal level.
A corollary to the maxim that we are a nation of laws is that we are decidedly NOT a nation of “rulings.” A court ruling is not a “law,” it is a “ruling.” It may have the force of law due to the abject acquiescence of a meekly compliant people, but it is not a law. A “law” is not a “law” unless it is enacted according to constitutional procedure. Under our Constitution, courts have no power to make or change law, none whatsoever.
A second mark of American jurisprudence is that no one is above the law. No one. This means the president of the United States is not above the law, as both Richard Nixon and the disbarred Bill Clinton discovered. But it also means that the Supreme Court of the United States is not above the law either.
In Kentucky, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis is refusing to issue licenses to individuals wishing to enter into a sodomy-based marriage. She has every legal and constitutional right to do so, even though an activist judge is threatening to frog march her to jail in handcuffs for having the effrontery to follow both the law and her own conscience.
The Constitution could not be any clearer. The very first words, after the Preamble, are these (emphasis mine throughout): “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.”
If ALL legislative powers have been vested in Congress, how many legislative powers does that leave for the Supreme Court? None, zip, nada, zilch. The Supreme Court has not one ounce of legitimate authority to write law, to overturn law, or to amend law. None.
To paraphrase Martin Luther King, Jr., an unjust ruling is no ruling at all.
So the Court had precisely zero authority to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed by overwhelming and bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress, and signed into law by a Democrat president, Bill Clinton. DOMA makes it expressly clear that the business of defining marriage is an issue that belongs exclusively to the states. That is the LAW, passed by the elected representatives of the people in the constitutionally prescribed manner.
If DOMA is to be amended or overturned, there is only one body on earth which has the legitimate power to do so, and that is Congress. The Supreme Court has absolutely no moral or constitutional authority to tamper with it at all.
So if Congress by law has reserved to the states the right to define marriage, what has the state of Kentucky done about it? The people of Kentucky, according to the prescribed method outlined in its state constitution, have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, period. Kentuckians enacted their marriage amendment in 2004 with an overwhelming 75% of the vote.
Here’s how the Kentucky constitution reads:
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
Thus, in Kentucky, according to the rule of law, marriage licenses can only permissibly be extended to couples consisting of one man and one woman. A “marriage” between two people of the same sex is “not valid or recognized.”
Thus Kim Davis would actually be breaking the law and violating the constitution of the state of Kentucky by issuing same-sex licenses.
Bottom line: Kim Davis is the only one in this sorry saga who is following the law and the Constitution.
When she took her oath of office, it was an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Kentucky. She did not take an oath to uphold the rulings of the Supreme Court, especially when submitting to such rulings would require her to violate her oath to uphold the Constitution.
The federal judge who is threatening to throw her in jail is certainly not following the law. The braying hounds of the homosexual lobby who are threatening her life for obeying the law most certainly are not.
Is Mrs. Davis guilty of fomenting anarchy? Hardly. The lawless ones in this sorry business are the five members of the Supreme Court who imposed their moral views about sexual deviancy on the entire nation. Anarchy already exists, because of an out-of-control judiciary.
Kim Davis is challenging the lawlessness of the Court and seeking to return this land to the rule of law. She’s not guilty in the least of civil disobedience. She is in fact practicing civil obedience in the highest sense, obedience to the Constitution and the law.
If we are to get out from under the despotism of our judicial oligarchy, somebody has got to lead the way and strike the first blow against the chains of tyranny. Kim Davis may make an unlikely Joan of Arc, but Joan of Arc she may be. May her tribe of law-abiding, conscience-driven, public officials increase. Rapidly and soon.
"Approval ratings go up and down for various reasons... An example is the high post 911 support for GWB even though he could be said to be responsible for the event." --- Box A Rox '9/11 Truther'
Melania is a bimbo... she is there to look at, not to listen to. --- Box A Rox and his 'War on Women'
How far are you willing to take it - Feds invading Kentucky to force them to comply with a 5-4 supreme court ruling?
The same kind of 5-4 supreme court ruling that elected GWorst Bush!
Cissy hates the supreme court, but he loves the US Constitution...
Quoted Text
Article III Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The same kind of 5-4 supreme court ruling that elected GWorst Bush!
Cissy hates the supreme court, but he loves the US Constitution...
So do you support the federal government incarcerating the Kentucky county clerk indefinitely if the Kentucky state legislature fails to remove her from office for not issuing marriage licenses?
So do you support the federal government incarcerating the Kentucky county clerk indefinitely if the Kentucky state legislature fails to remove her from office for not issuing marriage licenses?
I asked of Bumbler with no reply, so I ask you: If she refuses to issue license to gays, then is it alright for her to issue licenses to transgender? Or is it alright for her to issue licenses to divorced couples? Or is it alright for her to pick and choose which facets of her religious beliefs she gets to enforce?
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
not a stretch at all.. there have both been deemed unconstitutional, laws that have been deemed unconstitutional are null and void.
No, slaves were emancipated through Lincoln's executive order, the practice of slavery wasn't deemed unconstitutional by a 5-4 supreme court decision. And then a Constitutional Amendment outlawed future slavery.
For slavery and gay marriage licensing to be similar, Obama would have to proclaim gay couples free from the bondage of unlicensed partnerships, then 2/3 of congress would have to pass a Constitutional Amendment outlawing states and county clerks from denying gay couples marriage licenses.
I asked of Bumbler with no reply, so I ask you: If she refuses to issue license to gays, then is it alright for her to issue licenses to transgender? Or is it alright for her to issue licenses to divorced couples? Or is it alright for her to pick and choose which facets of her religious beliefs she gets to enforce?
Is it ok? I don't know, I don't live in Kentucky, that would be up to them. If the Kentucky legislators that have the power to impeach elected officials believe she is not serving the will of the people, then they will remove her. Why aren't Kentucky legislators voting to remove her from her position?
Is it ok? I don't know, I don't live in Kentucky, that would be up to them. If the Kentucky legislators that have the power to impeach elected officials believe she is not serving the will of the people, then they will remove her. Why aren't Kentucky legislators voting to remove her from her position?
Like I thought...BS answer.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Logged
