Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Jailed for Contempt

US News ^ | even Nelson | even Nelson

[Cheerio]

The Kentucky county clerk who made herself a national celebrity by refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses was jailed Thursday for contempt of court.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis was taken into custody by U.S. marshals, according to reporters on the scene.

In sending her to jail, U.S. District Judge David Bunning ignored the American Civil Liberties Union's request that Davis be fined to compel compliance with orders that she issue marriage licenses.

ACLU attorney Heather Weaver, who is working on the case, said there was testimony about fundraising efforts on Davis' behalf, apparently a factor in the judge's decision not to impose financial penalties.

[ForAmerica]

They would given her a raise if she were a Muslim!

[Responsibility2nd]

Redundant. This has already been posted several times this morning from various sources. Anyone that knows how to use the [Page Down] key has already seen this information. Enough already.

_____________________________________________________

Only several times?

lololol

Its not redundant until it’s been posted some 10-15 times.

[tuffydoodle]

This is the first time I saw it since I haven’t been on FR much today.

[treetopsandroofs]

“This is our first political prisoner since what, Martin Luther King?”

Dinesh D’Souza and his “DISGUSTING” video?

[cripplecreek]

Where the hell are America’s pastors ?

Ted Cruz has been calling on them to stand and be counted over this issue, abortion and many others.

[treetopsandroofs]

“Who enforces the punishment?”

The leftists’ god and all his worshippers.

[Utilizer]

*laugh* It sure seems that way sometimes, doesn’t it. Still, scrolling down the page I see at least five identical threads with the same title. Gets annoying rather quickly.

[Utilizer]

Scroll down the page to read several similar threads.

[Responsibility2nd]

If my job description changed tomorrow I would change with it or I'd have to quit. Before I got fired.

 

And if your job description required you to denounce all "hate-group" (religous) affiliations, then what?

This "what if" is just a few steps removed from what Kim Davis is facing today. Do you really think the Homo-Nazi's won't pursue this scenario next?

[Las Vegas Ron]

Trump need to get on this like white on rice....^10 points immediately.

[DoodleDawg]

What’s the punishment if you are officially held in CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS?

If convicted it's not less than one month and not more than 12 months in jail, plus a fine of up to $1000.

Who enforces the punishment?

Congress has to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for D.C. They are then obligated to take it to a grand jury.

[Responsibility2nd]

I blame the moderators.

I always blame the mods. Either they moderate too much. Or not enough. They can’t win. But I blame them all the same.

(Hi guys!)

[Responsibility2nd]

Unfortunately Trump CAN’T get on this like white on rice.

Unless he wants to - once again - flip flop on a key issue.

https://www.google.com/search?num=100&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=608&tbm=nws&q=donald+trump+time+to+move+on+same+sex+marriage&oq=donald+trump+time+to+move+on+same+sex+marriage&gs_l=serp.3...6964567.6980543.0.6980894.50.38.2.10.10.0.149.2985.33j5.38.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..29.21.1062.p1smoT9Ys6s

[Yosemitest]

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.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: If convicted it’s not less than one month and not more than 12 months in jail, plus a fine of up to $1000. Congress has to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for D.C. They are then obligated to take it to a grand jury.

______________________

So, what is Congress waiting for in the case of Lerner and Holder?

Why is enforcement for Kim Davis done so quickly but enforcement for Lerner and Holder being delayed ( and even forgotten )?

Where’s the justice there?

[Utilizer]

Sorry, I meant the Index Page on FR.

[Las Vegas Ron]

If this was a Muslim standing up for their beliefs and jailed there would be riots this wouldn't be happening...period.

Heads would be rolling and bombs would be exploding, Christians will meekly bow down.

Note, I am not advocating violence in any way......

[reg45]

Roger Taney had a long and distinguished legal career and yet all he is remembered for is the Dred Scott decision. I think that the same will be true for Anthony Kennedy.

[tumblindice]

The federal Democrats and their RINO allies move like molasses on some things: the IRS (on another scandal, questioned whether they released taxpayer records to the White House, the IRS replied that releasing that info. was impossible due to taxpayer confidentiality ... hmmmm); Holder (they ignored that long enough so that it’s a dead issue: “Too much time has passed,” say the guys who took too much time); the NSA, EPA, and on and on. Still dragging on. Hotshot T. Gowdy was appointed by Bonehead in May of 2014, apparently to do nothing.

But hold on! On other issues, like this one, the gooberment can move with the speed of lightning and with the power of Thor’s hammer.
The federal war on America continues, here with the ACLU calling the shots.

[Utilizer]

Sorry, I meant the Index Page on FR.