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 ...
Bump!
And which federal law is that?
The law written, passed, and signed by SCOTUS of course. All by their lonesomes.
While the article is well written, the title should be changed to "Describing the contours of a Pretzel".
I know of no previous case law or instance where this has happened before.What a tangled web this is. We are in Orwellian times. Sometimes paying strict adherence to the intent of the constitution is inconvenient but worthy.I would rather the state stay out of marriage altogether but I think I know, like everything else, what the true intent is: power and money. I think this has gone passed the social issue hurdle already.
At the same time the federal government cannot dictate that state and local officials enforce that law on the federal government’s behalf.
Doesn't that exactly describe Kim Davis' situation? In fact, she isn't even opposing a lawn per se. She's opposing one ruling from SCOTUS that government is implementing as a wide-ranging law.
More importantly, she is standing up as someone who supports the Word of God, and Jesus as Lord.
It’s the law that says that if it’s leftist/progressive it’s constitutional, if conservative it’s illegal.
The 14th amendment calls for equal protection under the law, so that means that leftist/ progressive initiatives are more equal than others.
This issue is more important than sodomite marriage. It really is about equal protection under the law which purportedly undergirded the USSC decision.
The hypocrisy is truly astounding.
There is no law, simply an opinion by five justices who do not make law.
Is it legally different from our Attorney General refusing to defend our duly passed propositions? It was their sworn duty to defend our illegal aliens prop, and our no homo marriage prop, and they refused.
No one seemed to mind.
What Federal law is Kim defying? Certainly not any federal marriage law passed by congress. She’s in jail for contempt of court. Judges can jail you for contempt if they don’t like your tie.
There is no federal marriage law. We are a nation of laws not a nation of court orders.
Once again. These libtards have to go. Two cultures can not occupy the same space. They have to leave.
Ya, it is different.
Nothing Kim Davis has done has gotten people brutalized, raped and/or killed.
Moron.
Amusing reasoning, especially when the black-robed thug is trying to commandeer the local County Clerk to implement a federal demand that jurisdictions pretend gay "marriage" has something to do with real marriage. These people don't even care about sounding objective; they just demand absolute obedience to Big Government. Liberals and their journalists disgust me.
“But it is also well-established that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local governments to implement federal law.”
That statement is correct. Elected state and county officials may not be drafted by the federal government to enforce federal dictates. If the federal government wants homosexual marriages, it must supply federal bureaucrats to carry out the federal dictate.
The USSC has ruled numerous times that state elected officials are sovereigns. The latest USSC decision is in Printz v US.
"No, it's not! It's THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said. And no, I shan't offer any proof."
In 2012, Adler headed a screening committee appointed by Ohio governor John Kasich to assist him in selecting an appointee to fill an open seat on the Ohio Supreme Court.
Jonathan H. Adler
“Though my political leanings are most definitely right-of-center, and it would be convenient to believe otherwise, I believe there is sufficient evidence that global warming is a serious environmental concern. I have worked on this issue for twenty years, including a decade at the Competitive Enterprise Institute where I edited this book. I believe human activities have contributed to increases in greenhouse concentrations, and these increases can be expected to produce a gradual increase in global mean temperatures. While substantial uncertainties remain as to the precise consequences of this increase and consequent temperature rise, there is reason to believe many of the effects will be quite negative. Even if some parts of the world were to benefit from a modest temperature increase — due to, say, a lengthened growing season — others will almost certainly lose”
Sounds like the judge should have called into court the person responsible for not following Kim Davis’ request to change who signs those homosexual mirage papers. He should’ve sentenced that person to jail.
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.