Christian clerk fights on as Sixth Circuit orders her to issue gay ‘marriage’ licenses

Life Site News ^ | August 27, 2015 | Dustin Siggins

[Yosemitest]

The Constitution, FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCES. IS FOUNDED ON THE BIBLE, whether you like it on NOT !

[Yosemitest]

“For what business, in the name of common sense, has the magistrate with our religion?
The state does not have any concern in the matter.
In what manner does it affect society in what outward form we think it best to pay our adoration to God?
The consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation.
In contrast with this spiritual tyranny, how beautiful appears our constitution in disclaiming all jurisdiction over the souls of men,
securing by a never-to-be- repealed section the voluntary, unchecked moral persuasion of every person by his own self-directed communication with the Father of spirits!”
– William Livingston, Constitution Signer


“Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience and private judgment.
They are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, a
nd in that free situation they are now left.”
– John Jay, first Supreme Court Chief Justice

Original Intent of the First Amendment

Fisher Ames provided the wording for the First Amendment in the House of Representatives.
He did not say anything about “separation of church and state” in his debate, nor may it be inferred as his intent.
In fact, Fisher Ames said something that would be ruled unconstitutional because of the court’s modern application of that very phrase, “separation of church and state.”
He said,
“Not only should the Bible be in our schools, it should be the primary textbook of our schools.” xliv


Earlier, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, the founders discussed the individual rights of American citizens, which would later become the Bill of Rights.
How many times did they mention the phrase “separation of church and state?”
Zero.
They did not talk about it once.

The phrase “separation of church and state” was not even introduced into the American vernacular until a little over a decade after the First Amendment was adopted.
The phrase is exactly that - a phrase.
It is not a statute, it is not a law, and it is not an amendment to the Constitution.
It is simply a phrase lifted from a letter written by one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson was writing to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802, in response to a letter wherein
they raised their concerns about religious liberty ever being infringed by the American government.
Jefferson responded that this would not occur because the Constitution builds “a wall of separation between Church and State.” xlv
So much has been erroneously inferred from that one statement.
(I encourage you to read David Barton’s article in the November 2003 issue of the Notre Dame Law Review for a more thorough treatment of Jefferson’s intent.)

Simply stated, Jefferson was using the phrase to describe the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which says, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The protection of our rights to live out our faith without government interference is what was being expressed both in the letter and in the First Amendment.


What About Separation of Church & State

The Supreme Court twisted the meaning of the First Amendment by isolating those eight words from this personal letter from Jefferson. xlvi
They did not even consider the letter in its full context. xlvii
Then, in 1962, the Court used the phrase to completely remove God from all governmental institutions. xlviii
It is amazing how the court can ignore history and rewrite it to fulfill their particular agenda and purpose.

We’ve Got the Wrong Guy

Perhaps even worse than misapplying Jefferson’s words is the fact that Jefferson’s words were used in the first place
as a means for discovering the intent of the First Amendment.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson and his words “separation of church and state” are irrelevant when it comes to interpreting the intended meaning of the First Amendment
because Jefferson did not give us the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.


When a biographer wrote to Thomas Jefferson, to congratulate him for his influence on the Constitution, his response was,
One passage of the paper you enclosed must be corrected.
It is the following.
‘I will say it was yourself more than any other individual that planned and established the Constitution.’
xlix


Jefferson pointed out to the biographer that
he “was in Europe when the Constitution was planned,
and never saw it
until after it had been established.”l


Nor was Thomas Jefferson one of the Congressmen that passed the Bill of Rights, which contains the First Amendment.

So, arguing what the framers’ intent was by using Thomas Jefferson as an expert witness on the First Amendment
is the same as
having a murder trial where the judge allows those who were not at the scene of the murder
to come forth and tell us what happened.
It is intellectually dishonest
and a piece of cleverly crafted creative history at best, to say that Thomas Jefferson’s words provide the intent for the First Amendment.
To understand the original intent of the First Amendment, you must scrutinize the thoughts of those who took part in the debate,
the ones who actually gave us the First Amendment.
That debate emphasized the need to avoid another Church of England being established in America.
In other words, they were trying to prevent a national denomination from being forced upon the citizens.
None of their comments reflected intent to separate religious principles from government or from the public square.
Just the opposite:
they wanted to foster free expression, not political oppression.

For those who still want to rely on Jefferson as their expert regarding the First Amendment, it should not go unnoticed that
exactly two days after writing his letter to the Danbury Baptists, he attended the weekly church service being held AT the U.S. Capitol.
These were religious services that he had helped to start and faithfully attended throughout the remainder of his presidency.li

It appears that Jefferson’s views were far removed from the interpretation of them by our modern courts today.
Would Jefferson,
a man who himself established and attended religious services on federal property while holding the office of the President,
really think that it was against the good of our nation or our citizens
for children to pray for their teachers, parents, and country at the beginning of each school day?
You decide.



Notes:
xliv. Compiled By Friends, Works of Fisher Ames 134 (Boston: T. B. Wait & Co., 1809).

xlv. Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802), in Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings 510 (Merril D. Peterson et al. eds., 1984) (1781).

xlvi. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

xlvii. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, in Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings 510 (Merrill D. Peterson et al. eds., 1984)
(1802): Believing with you
that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God,
that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship,
that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared
that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”
thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.


l. Engle v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).

lii. Letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly (Washington ed., 441). < http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/foley-page?id=JCE1686>.

l. Id.

li. William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, 119,
letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802.
Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President.
Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.

[highball]

Copy-and-paste all you like. It only weakens your argument.

The Constitution does not give us any special rights above other faiths. So anything you’re willing to let Christian government officials do, Muslims and Jews and Hare Krishnas can do as well. Do you think it’s a good idea for a Muslim to pick and choose which parts of his government job he will do?

You also failed to answer my questions- surely Obama has his reasons for ignoring parts of his job, or for refusing to enforce certain laws. Is that okay? Or do we demand accountability from all agents of the state?

This isn’t a private industry. This is the government, which can’t play favorites. If you’re willing to let it, then get ready for a time when the Muslim clerks can deny you.

[highball]

“I would say that the Executive Branch leads by example in not following laws, why should a clerk be any different?”

Because we rightly condemn the Executive Branch for it. Shall we now become hypocrites and applaud?

[Yosemitest]

" any special rights above other faiths"

Special Rights ???
What are you talking about?
The Constitution and its FOUNDERS CLEARLY PROTECT "the rights of conscience and private judgment".
And Christian clerk Kim Davis is CLEARLY within her RIGHTS to do EXACTLY WHAT SHE's DOING.
Case CLOSED !

[highball]

I think I liked the copy-and-pasting better than random capitals and holding. ;)

“Case closed”, eh? So you have no problem with Barry deciding which laws he’s going to enforce and which he’s going to ignore?

[rollo tomasi]

Who condemns and what is done about it? Lol.

Ignoring/breaking/creating out of thin air (Laws) is a perpetual "feature" of our government as administrative law/loose interpretation of Judicial Review has progressed since the late 19th century.

Civil disobedience when their is a break in the contract.

Shall libertarians (Small l, large L, and all those in between) that claim natural rights, which reason illuminates, become hypocrites and applaud a government that is at war with reason itself?

[highball]

So we know you’re okay with Obama ignoring the law. Thank you.

Look, I feel for her. It stinks when your job title changes. It’s happened to me a couple times in my life, and the choice was always go along with it or resign. We can’t have civil servants refusing to follow the law, from the President down to each local clerk.

Civil disobedience means going to jail for it. Even MLK was willing to do that. If she is, then I applaud her conviction.

[Yosemitest]

You just can't say "ON TOPIC", can you ?

When given FACTS, you divert to what you call "special rights", which is what HOMOSEXUALS and OTHER DEVIANTS are all about.
Then you go to so other distraction about the LAWLESS ONE.
The Constitution and its Framers are VERY CLEAR. So ... I SAY AGAIN:

Christian clerk Kim Davis is CLEARLY within her RIGHTS to do EXACTLY WHAT SHE's DOING !

[highball]

My friend, the Constitution is hardly a “distraction”. And you have ignored every question I’ve put to you in favor of your copy-and-pastes.

Are you comfortable with Muslims deciding that they won’t issue marriage licenses to Jews? Are you comfortable with liberal vegans deciding that they won’t issue hunting licenses?

If you want her to be able to follow her conscience as to what parts of her job she’s not going to do, then you have to allow Obama and the Muslims and the Gaea worshippers the same right. If not, that’s the *special* rights I was talking about. And then somewhere, somebody’s going to give the Muslims or Gaea worshippers privileges that Christians don’t have. And I don’t want to see that.

As I said, I feel for her. And if she’s really opposed to the new dictates of her job, then she should publicly resign in protest.

People who work for the government have to follow the law. They don’t have to like the law, or like how it was decided. But they do have to follow it.

[Yosemitest]

You have ignored the FACTS, as well as the CONSTITUTION ITSELF, that I referenced in Comment #62. Go away, since you can't debate FACTS !
They changed the rules AFTER she started her career.
If I were the Judge, she'd get everything she wants and then some.
She'd be set for LIFE.
The LAW is as I listed in Comment #62, and it IS SUPREME !

[highball]

Copy and paste is no substitute for an actual substantive debate.

Good-bye, and I hope that at least you’ll be intellectually consistent enough to support your local Muslim government official when he decides he’s not going to follow the law either.

[Yosemitest]

And turning to every diversion in the book, and REFUSING to ACKNOWLEDGE FACTS about the United States Constitution, is no way to debate !

[Yosemitest]

And in case you haven't noticed the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF and his IRANIAN SPY ARE MUSLIMS !

[highball]

So you’re okay with Muslim government officials deciding with impunity that they don’t have to follow laws.

I’m not. That’s the difference between us.

[zaxtres]

In the Bible God says to follow the laws of our government. He also says capital punishment is justified (paraphrasing). I don’t think our government is the highest law of the land but we are a nation of laws founded on the laws set forth by god.

That is what some forget.

[zaxtres]

Whether the faux gay marriage law violates the constitution or not, it is not her job to decipher the law but to enact the law. There is a difference. I vehemently disagree with the marriage rights that SCOTUS pulled fro thin air in which it has no authority to do so. We have a legislative body it is called Congress. The Judicial body’s job is to interpret the laws that are written. They are not to write the law nor do they have any constitutional authority to create rights. That is the Legislative body’s authority. In this case I agree with you that violates the Federal Constitution which supersedes the individual states constitution in areas where Federal authority has the mandate to do so.

However, since she is not in a position to make laws or enforce them, her duties are to enact them, that is what she must do or remove herself from doing the job she was elected for. She is a public servant. A public servant’s job is to not pick and choose what they will or will not follow, they must enact upon the laws as they are in the course of their duties even if the laws do get changed while she is in office. A public servant must enact laws without bias or prejudice. In this case she has prejudice because of her faith. She is responsible for all citizens under her jurisdiction.

Again I will defend her rights to believe what she wants, she could believe in and worship purple cows for all I care, it’s when the prejudice of worshipping purple cows prevents her from enacting laws to each and every citizen under her jurisdiction that is at fault in this case. As it is the same for 0bummer when he refuses to enforce the immigration laws.

But you yourself stated “She swore an oath to support and defend the U.S. and the Kentucky Constitutions, and all constitutional laws. Period. THAT is her obligation.” So you made my point right there.

If you disagree with a law that is also your right to change it. I disagree with a great many laws that I feel are unconstitutional. Do I not follow those laws as well because in my sole judgement they are unconstitutional? This is a slippery slope my friend be careful where it takes you because that rabbit whole is deep and wide and fraught with many pratfalls.

We are a nation of laws and we must abide those laws. If we do not like the law then we must do everything in our power to change the law.

[exit82]

Kim Davis is the only one following the laws that exist right now in Kentucky.

She is not writing new law.

The Governor refuses to recall the legislature to deal with the issue.

The Federal judge has no authority to overturn State law and the Constitution of the State of Kentucky over using a Supreme Court ruling that has not been enacted into law by the State of Kentucky.

The Federal judge also is breaking KY law by demanding that the deputy clerks sign the licenses, when the only official in KY who can delegate that authority is the present county clerk.

As you say, the Supreme Court cannot make law.

Kim Davis has exposed that as of right now there is no operative marriage law in all of Kentucky.

So of course, she must be punished.

[EternalVigilance]

Your whole post falls apart in light of the fact that court opinions are not laws.

And that laws which violate the laws of nature and nature’s God are null and void.