Here are the Presidential Candidate's Stance on the Jailing of Kim Davis

Various Sites | VANITY

[ballearthout]

So I guess a Muslim or Jew working at Burger King has the right to refuse me bacon on my double cheeseburger?

[bolobaby]

Maybe they do. And maybe they get fired for it.

But jailed? Is that where we are?

[Monterrosa-24]

Faggot marriage is just insanity taking hold of the land. It is time for the militia to march.

FTC! ... Free the Clerk!

[basil]

I don’t think you will find a law that covers those rights—LOL!

[Oak Grove]

The Nazi’s at Nuremberg said they were following the law.

Our Nazi’s say that Kim Davis should follow the law.

I will not vote for anyone who does not support religious freedom.

That means Trump.

The Kim Davis case has exposed Trump as just another Establishment Republican.

[Robert DeLong]

John Kasich is wrong. The Constitution is the law of the land. The Supreme Court just s interprets the Constitution. The Supreme Court ignored the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, as well as, the 10th Amendment.

[Charles Henrickson]

Bush, Christie, Fiorina, Graham, Kasich, and Trump all get an “F” on this one. (Pataki probably also, although he is not quoted here.)

[ameribbean expat]

I’ve wondered about this: a marriage license is issued by a county clerk, but it’s valid throughout the state, right? So why wouldn’t the homos drive over to the next county and get a marriage license?

[ballearthout]

I don’t think she should have been jailed. I also think she should have resigned if that’s what it took to keep her conscience clear. Its what I would have done. Its a bad situation all around and that’s exactly how the Left wanted it.

[Yosemitest]

Americans will not stand with SODOMITES !

Radical Islamist" dictates from the Oval Office's ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF and his IRANIAN SPY ?

Let us remember WHERE we came from.

Footnote: U.S. Constitution
Article I, Section 8: Uniform Immigration
Leviticus 19:34
Article II, Section 1: President Natural-Born
Deuteronomy 17:15
Article III, Section3: Witnesses
Deuteronomy 17:6
Article III, Section 3: Attainer
Ezekiel 18:20
Separation of Powers
Jeremiah 17:9
Three Branches of Government
Isaiah 33:22
Tax-Exemption for Churches
Ezra 7:24
Republicanism
Exodus 18:21

And let us NOT FORGET THESE GREAT MEN and WHAT they SAID !

“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.

[Mister Da]

The “law of the land”.

Is that like the immigration laws that are being ignored? Are sanctuary cities following the rule of law? How about all the unilateral changes Obama made to Obamacare. Was that following the rule of law?

The rule of law apparently only applies to us little people. So, the Democrats & the GOPe can take their rule of law & stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.

[boycott]

Rubio’s political fence riding none answer:

“We should seek a balance between government’s responsibility to abide by the laws of our republic and allowing people to stand by their religious convictions,”

[sakic]

Orthodox Jews and Muslims would not work there and they are not government agencies.

[Colonel_Flagg]

iCarly, Kasich, and Our Churchill fall right in line with Hillary.

Sooprise, sooprise, sooprise.

[jsanders2001]

> So I guess a Muslim or Jew working at Burger King has the right to refuse me bacon on my double cheeseburger?

Well yeah after looking for an employer that forces them to serve bacon against their religious beliefs and finding an attorney to represent them
so they’ll never have to work a day in their life ever again. You’ll help them get rich in the process.

[kabar]

Get a kick out of Graham saying, The Rule of Law is the Rule of Law.” I guess that doesn’t apply to illegal aliens in Graham’s world.

[silverleaf]

Not if Burger King is owed by a branch of government and staffed by government employees

[bereanway]

Don't think the consumption of bacon is a bedrock principle upon which western civilization has rested for millenia. Not to mention the fact that so called homosexual marriage is against Kentucky law.

[Calpublican]

Okay People, Hillary has opined and said, “end of story.”

That settles it; so let’s move on.