SCOTUS has decreed that gay marriage is the law of the land. IF we truly are a nation of laws, Kim Davis has two choices.
1: Issue gay marriage licenses
2: Resign her job.
In today’s American, only the black’s president is allowed to pick and choose the laws to obey.
Maybe someday, Our great grandkids will take it back, but for now the America of the founders is long gone. .
SCOTUS decreed that Dred Scott was property and had t be returned to a slave status from a non slave state, so that’s the value of SCOTUS in many aspects. In that case, the SCOTUS WAS actually upholding the laws of the day, not creating legislation/rights out of thin air and political hack.
The people via elected legislators make the laws, not the judges or administration, they only serve to clarify and implement. These days they seem to neither very well.
And how to propose that they "take it back"?
Ballot Box?
Civil Disobedience?
Storm the Bastille?
Why should we wimp out and dump the problem on "our great grandkids"? If they could change it, why don't we do it now?
After they found that the very plain language of the zerocare law did not mean what it said, all pretense that we are a nation of law vanished.
The law, apparently, is what whoever has the biggest stick says it is.
So no, I wouldn't resign and I dang sure wouldn't pay any fine...this judge is ruling on things not in his purview. Its a state matter and i would push that argument to the hilt: he has no power here.
She might lose that tack but it would expose the very naked hand and jackboot of tyranny.
“In today’s American, only the black’s president is allowed to pick and choose the laws to obey.”
Couldn’t she cite the President’s decrees as precedent? “Hey, if the President can break the law, and the court approves, then there is no reason I cannot do the same thing.”
Tupelo,
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 tire 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!!!!
Actually, she entered the job with the mandate (and an oath, presumably) to faithfully execute KY law. KY law does not espouse homosexual marriage. She is following the dictates of KY law, and doing so without discrimination because her office will not issue any marriage licenses until the dispute is resolved.
There can be no religious test for office. That is plainly written in the constitution.
The government cannot deprive a citizen of their rights (those actually recognized in the constitution) - so sayeth the 14th amendment. The first amendment clearly states that “free exercise” of religion is an enumerated, recognized right of the people.
I applaud this woman’s moral stance, and I hope she can emerge relatively unscathed, although I know the judicial kakistocracy will bend all effort to not just punish her, but to eviscerate her in the court of public opinion.
Your choices are surrender. The hope you express for future generations to “take it back” means that they will have a much, much longer climb out of the abyss.
SCOTUS does not make laws by decree.
SCOTUS has decreed that gay marriage is the law of the land.
___
SCOTUS can “decree” all they want but they still don’t have the power to make/change/void laws. DOMA is still the law of the land. Kim Davis needs to simply ask the judge to name the law he’s accusing her of violating.
No, disobeying unconstitutional law is right. It has no validity.