The OP will not be responding...
Posted on 09/04/2015 7:37:31 AM PDT by formerRepublicant
What's in an oath?
That fascinating question arose as part of a crusade by Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis to seek a religious exemption from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Before the U.S. Supreme Court put the kibosh on her claim, Davis in her legal brief argued that she understood her oath of office "to mean that, in upholding the federal and state constitutions and laws, she would not act in contradiction to the moral law of God."
Why? Because her oath included the words, "So help me God." Of course, the oath of office prescribed by the U.S. Constitution doesn't include those words. George Washington famously added them after taking the oath of office as president, and tradition has maintained them. Davis's claim, however, is nevertheless intriguing. It implies that obedience to divine law is somehow baked in to one's constitutional duties and obligations.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Someone is doing some real good research for Kim Davis. I hope her lawyers are up to the task of defeating a just about totally corrupt Judiciary making decisions in favor of the bad guys.
The author of this piece has no idea what he is talking about.
A TN Judge made a ruling recently denying a divorce because of the USSC Gaystapo ruling.
In essence it goes like this: Since only the legislative body can make law and courts can only strike law not create it, and the USSC was not specific on striking sections of existing state laws, their ruling in effect struck all marriage laws in all states that had a prohibition on Fictional Marriages.
Arguably, until the legislators of those states create new laws and get them passed, there are no laws authorizing marriage in those states. Thus the Clerk was obeying the law as the Gov cannot make law and his order had no effect.
When she took that oath, it was BEFORE this “against God’s word” “law” went into affect.
So let’s slip down this slope further.
Let’s say a law went into affect that you could “marry” as many people or objects or animals as you wanted. Would she be obligated to do that, too?
The point is, this new “law” has now defined “marriage” as from the courts, not as defied by “God”; in a sense, the black robes have said that God does not exist. One cannot look at the bible and say some stuff happened and some stuff did not; it is either all TRUE or all NOT TRUE.
A Nebraska trucking company fired a Muslim for refusing to drive a truck with a load of Alcohol. The DOJ sued the company for 200,000 and won, saying in part that they violated his religious beliefs.
This is really just an attack on Christianity (which was the intent of gay marriage in the first place (my opinion).)
A clerk the media has a much different opinion of:
http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/county-clerk-who-made-history/
“Meet the Clerk Who Started the Same-Sex Marriage Revolution”
Maybe Obama's bosom buddy Jeremiah Wright was correct: maybe God will damn America. He sure has plenty of cause.
This is a good place and time to take a stand not only for marriage but against and evil corrupt federal government.
Hands down, in the whole, THIS federal government is the biggest threat to the life, liberty and property that Americans have ever faced. The people running the federal government today are the sons of Satan.
They almost always try (in Alinskyite fashion) to hold us to what they believe should be our beliefs, while never having the faintest understanding of those beliefs.
The issue goes to the heart of constitutional law.
Question 1: Did Kentucky pass a law legalizing same-sex marriage?
The answer is ‘No’
Question 2: When Kim Davis swore to uphold the law, which law is she referring to?
I believe it has to be the law of her state first and then of course the constitution.
But the law of her state does not legalize gay marriage. In what sense then is she not upholding Kentucky law?
As for the Constitution, where in that document does it say that just because 5 justices say so, something is now law?
Justices are not there to legislate.
Therefore, Kim Davis DID NOT VIOLATE ANY LAW and should be freed.
The OP will not be responding...
The problem is that we have a legal system that will arbitrarily ignored what it doesn’t like while elevating the art of word twisting and argument to arrive at the outcome it desires. The Supreme Court is a reflection of a judicial branch gone rotten. It should be like any tree not bearing good fruit cast into the fire.
First of all, it was Illinois. In that case there were two employees in question and in the words of the EEOC argument, “Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don’t get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so.” That’s the law, and Star Transportation made no effort at accommodation and simply fired the drivers.
In this case the subject is not an employee, but an elected official - one who despite a number of court rulings and direct orders refused to obey the law. Should the state go through the expense of holding a special session just to impeach her? Yesterday she said, “And if I left, resigned or chose to retire, I would have no voice for God’s word.” The people of Kentucky don’t pay her (three times the county median income) to preach, they pay her to be a county clerk.
There are lots of state laws on the books that are invalid and unenforceable. Federal law trumps state law.
There are a few others here that have been popping up lately that should be meeting the same fate...hopefully soon.
So why is Pot legal in Colorado?
Old Sarge, Darksheare and a few others of us have a “watch list” you might say.
THey all slip up sooner or later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.