Posted on 09/05/2015 6:54:04 PM PDT by NoLibZone
Full Title:
Why Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses is legally different from a ‘sanctuary city’s’ refusal to cooperate with federal immigration law
Many commentators have sought to draw an equivalence between Rowan County, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses, in defiance of a federal court order, and the decision of so-called “sanctuary cities” to refuse to enforce federal immigration laws. Yet as a legal matter, the questions presented by the two scenarios are quite distinct. Put directly, Kim Davis is acting in defiance of applicable federal law; sanctuary cities are not — and we can again cite Justice Scalia to explain the difference.
So-called sanctuary cities are jurisdictions in which local officials have decided that they will not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Put another way, they are jurisdictions in which local officials are refusing to implement a federal program. The decision to become a sanctuary city may be regrettable, unwise, or worse, but it is perfectly legal and entirely consistent with our constitutional structure.
The Constitution establishes that federal law is supreme. But it is also well-established that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local governments to implement federal law. What this means is that the federal government is free to enforce federal law, including immigration law, whether state or local officials like it or not. At the same time the federal government cannot dictate that state and local officials enforce that law on the federal government’s behalf.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Full Title:
Why Kim Davis’s refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses is legally different from a ‘sanctuary city’s’ refusal to cooperate with federal immigration law
The author is wrong. At no time has any court upheld the right of nullification by a state or local government. Now you may try to use weasel words and say not enforcing is different than nullification, but the end result is the same. If we extend this logic further we could have a city or state that allows for fully automatic weapons in direct defiance to the AYF. I wonder how long the left would defend that legal “right”
Correct: the existence of “sanctuary cities” results in the MURDER of American citizens.
Kim Davis’ activity does not.
And which federal law is that?
The only difference IF what he says is correct is that Kim Davis gets thrown in jail and the rogues of sanctuary cities get way with breaking federal laws they disagree with without punishment. Some difference. Jail the little person.
Can someone give me a list of all elected officials who have ever been jailed for simply not doing part or all of their job?
I’m still waiting to hear the precedent for this ruling.
Many cities/states DO allow for full-auto [post-1986] firearms. Federal jurisdiction would, however, result in serious consequences for those acting thereon.
Were SCOTUS to declare full-auto post-1986 firearms legal under the 2nd Amendment, those cities/states _banning_ such weapons would find their attempts at prohibition thwarted by the feds. (Only difference may be the vigor with which the Court’s ruling would be enforced.)
Basically, the author is correct: the cities/states are not obligated to enforce federal immigration laws. Encouraged, yes, but cannot be punished for not facilitating enforcement.
> “the Supremacy Clause provides that state laws must yield when they conflict with federal law.”
What federal law?
There is no federal marriage law, marriage laws have always been within the purview of the States. The people of Kentucky have decided that marriage is between man & woman.
The USSC has no authority to commandeer the legislative process of the States, Kentucky can not be forced to issue marriage licenses contrary to its laws or to have it’s laws written for them by the federal Supreme Court.
So how come when Jan Brewer decides to enforce the border and require identification in Arizona do the feds file a lawsuit over civil rights violations and creating a patchwork of immigration laws.
Holder said there can only be one law of the land when it comes to immigration, and it’s the federal govt that overrides state law.
Am wondering too.
Depriving a citizen of PERSONAL freedom due to failing to exercise administrative paperwork obligations of elected office is bad - moreso when the obligation in question has been presumably vacated by the Supreme Court, and no replacement has been legislated or adjudicated. (I’ve read the KY law in question: take out the overturned bits and there’s nothing meaningful left to “enforce”.)
That Tennessee judge said Tennessee currently has no marriage law; if that was the effect of the Supreme Court ruling, that is , to strike down as unconstitutional any existing state laws written defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, then Kentucky has no marriage law either.
Here’s what the guy is caiming:
County clerks like Kim Davis, on the other hand, are not being asked to administer or implement a federal program. To the contrary, issuing marriage licenses is a function of state and local government governed by state law.
Rather, Davis and other county clerks are being ordered to administer their own state and local programs in conformance with the Constitution, as interpreted by federal courts, and the Supremacy Clause provides that state laws must yield when they conflict with federal law.
“Kim Davis’s gay marriage issue is legally different than sanctuary city refusal of fed immigration”
Yes it is different, Conservative vs liberal, it appears that liberal always trumps Conservative.
She is defying a Court, which is something else. The Court says that she is denying the rights of individuals as determined by the Supreme Court. Actually, it is the State sod Kentucky that is not in compliance. They have not changed the duties of the County Clerk to reflect the Court’s decision. They have left it up to the Clerks to handle the matter and she is being punished for exercising her discretion. A reasonable person, would say, contrary to Justice Kennedy’s thinking, that a marriage involves human reproduction; that what Kennedy calls a marriage is in fact a civil union. But reasonable persons are today either silent or punished by the government.
You identified the difference precisely. The rest is just empty words.
She’s upholding Kentucky’s constitution which contains a ban on same-sex marriages. The Federal government has no jurisdiction in marriage licensing since that is a power held only by each state. If a state has the power to ban marriage between siblings based on health risks, it has the power to ban any other type of health-risky union. The Federal government has no such power and yet it forces states to authorize marriage to an unequally protected group.
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.