Because we are the ones who are supposed to understand the importance of the rule of law.
If we want to complain about a sheriff who won't issue carry permits, or a police chief who won't enforce immingration law, then we need to also complain about a clerk who won't issue marriage licenses.
You can't pick and choose. Either our public servants are supposed to follow the law, or they are all little tyrants enforcing their own religion.
Because we are the ones who are supposed to understand the importance of the rule of law.
Your theory sounds nice but the reality is the left picks & chooses which laws it wants to enforce and the GOP gives them a free pass. The left will happily allow us to fall on our swords for gay marriage in the name of rule of law or whatever. As long as they win, they don’t care how.
Until we brawl like Dems we will lose. We are in a post Constitutional era and must adjust tactics accordingly.
Please identify the law she is breaking. The Kentucky law (which is what she is beholden to).
For your statement to hold true, there must be a law, not just a ruling invalidating law.
The Supreme Court decision did not change Kentucky law, it voided it. The LAW in Kentucky regarding marriage is that in order to get a marriage license the applicant must be two adults of the opposite sex who are not immediately blood related. The Kentucky statute that authorizes the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to anyone does not authorize her to issue a license to same sex couples. If the Supreme Court determined that the Kentucky statute was unconstitutional, then the county clerk cannot issue any marriage license at all. She isn’t. She is currently obeying the law by not issuing licenses because she currently has no authority to do so.
Your position is one that gives the Supreme Court LEGISLATIVE POWER which it does not have. Forcing this clerk to issue marriage licenses is an unconstitutional act. The court has no power to require a county clerk to violate an existing Kentucky Statute and if the statute is void, then it has no power to make up some statute that requires the state to issue marriage licenses in accordance with a void statute.
I get pretty sick and tired of people on this forum saying that this clerk needs to follow the law or quit her job. SHE’S DOING HER JOB!!!! Her job is to follow the statutory law and right now there isn’t one.
Unless and until KENTUCKY passes a law re-authorizing the issuance of marriage licenses, no clerk in Kentucky should be issuing marriage licenses to anyone.
If you disagree, then show me the currently existing statute that authorizes county clerks in Kentucky to issue marriage licenses to anyone.
The problem is not that the clerk is not following the law, THE COURTS ARE MAKING UP THE LAW. THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO!!! If anyone should be quitting their jobs, it is the judges!!!!
You ought to be referring to 5 members of the Supreme Court with that statement.
I would like to know exactly where in the Constitution a Federal Court's power to annul a State Constitution's distinctions between sexes on marriage is enumerated.
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.
Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1
The County clerk swore an oath to uphold that Constitution. Ought she violate her oath because a Federal Judge commands it?
If the Kentucky statute's distinction between sexes on marriage has been nullified, where is the positive written Kentucky Statute that would authorize her to issue a marriage license to two homosexuals?
The U.S. Constitution was drafted and ratified in the form of a civil covenant, one of the elements of which is the consent of the governed:
Not surprisingly, when the time came for consideration of a United States Constitution, it was drafted in the form of a civil covenant patterned after the biblical model. Additionally, many of the covenant principles found expressed in the text of the U.S. Constitution are analogous to a foundational principle of American constitutional law.The authority of the Constitution is founded on “We the people. . ..” Although the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was authorized by the states only to modify the Articles of Confederation, the convention conceived an instrument which rested on an authority apart from the state legislatures. The Constitution could have formed “a more perfect Union” only upon ratification by the source of the various states’ authority – the people.
The analogous principle of constitutional law is the doctrine of enumerated powers. The true basis of authority for instituting governments among men is the people, consequently, the authority of civil government is always delegated, never inherent, being constrained by the enumeration of its powers. What has not been delegated by the people is retained by them, as expressly acknowledged in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Mutuality in the Constitution is expressed in the Preamble: “We the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Mutuality is also indicated in Article VII by the need for ratification by the the people in each state which is to be bound by the Constitution. The analogous principle of constitutional law is government by “the consent of the governed,” as expressed in the Declaration of Independence."
Covenants and Constitutions
If you consent to this present depravity and instrumental abuse of the law and give your support to it as though it were legitimate law that must be obeyed then you are actually jeopardizing your own rights and freedoms. The legitimate authority of magistrates is only derivative and when they begin to act in an arbitrary way and ignore the derivative character of their official powers, they are effectively ignoring the sovereignty of God, the ultimate Source of those just powers. And as William Penn observed, "those people who will not be goverened by God will be governed by tyrants".
Cordially,
Now stop it Dave. You are messing up a well crafted Dump Trump thread.
You would have made an excellent Nazi. They too followed the law. As millions of Jews were "lawfully" sent to death camps.
The difference is that here, because the USSC struck down the marriage law of the state (general ruling not a specific as to sections) there is no law authorizing the clerk to issue marriage licenses in that state. Until the legislative body passes a new law shes IS following the law by issuing no marriage licenses at all.
Then may God destroy this evil country, which it richly deserves.
I CAN pick and choose! Don't ever tell us Christians we don't have a choice! We can choose NOT TO COMPLY and I don't care if you or anyone else things we are "little tyrants enforcing [our] own religion"! This country would be better off if we did!
Except that the 10th Amendment and the rest of the Constitution are actually “The Law.” And that the Supreme Court is not empowered to create “The Law” from whole cloth.
Fag and Dyke marriage is not “The Law” except where it was implemented in accordance with the laws and constitutions of individual states. If the state of, say New York, wants to sanction faggots to marry each other, it is well within its rights to do so under “The Law” (U.S. Constitution).
But when the Supreme Court attempts to violate the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, it isn’t creating “The Law” it is VIOLATING “The Law.”
Hank