Posted on 09/07/2015 2:44:16 AM PDT by markomalley
(snip)
Will said, “There’s no question that the president’s selective interpretation of the Constitutional provision that the executive shall see that the laws are faithfully execute his selective approach to that perhaps has encouraged a kind of lawlessness. People saying well, I can do whatever I wish. But surely it is a wholesome rule that executives should obey legitimate court orders. That’s true whether your name is Orval Faubus, the Democratic governor of Arkansas in the 1950s or George Wallace, the democratic governor of Alabama in the ’60s. Kim Davis, the Democratic county clerk in Kentucky.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Amen.
Couldn’t have said it better.
This is where it is really important to note that George Will is an atheist. Even though he calls himself an ‘amiable atheist’, he nonetheless thinks believers are rubes.
And thus his evaluation of Kim Davis, a woman who is following her beliefs. Some might not like her apostolic, country, bible-based version of Christian, but it IS a form of religion in American, and as such, it is protected by the Constitution.
Article VI does not say it’s OK to apply a religious test against religions that don’t pass government muster.
:)
That explains a lot! I didn’t know that. I guess I never thought about it. Poor George. He must have been closer to a closet atheist for years, but he has certainly come out now. That does explain so much. Thanks.
As long as Will has been around, the average American citizen has never seen him or heard of him.
Stick with baseball, George.
“gay rights”
Perhaps if we hadn’t let the demonrats force that terminology on us, things wouldn’t have gotten this far.
No one is “gay.” Everyone is straight. Some straight people are afflicted with same-sex attraction disorder. What they demand is special privileges for sodomites.
If we had called it that from the beginning, they wouldn’t have been able to deceive the stupid so easily.
Indeed; it forbids any religious test whatsoever.
Kim Davis is an elected official of the State of Kentucky: She serves at the pleasure of the people who elected her. Thus she cannot be "fired"; I very much doubt she is prepared to resign. So the only other option is to impeach her. But you need a sitting Legislature to do that. And the Legislature is not currently sitting.
Passim, she took an Oath of Office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution — as all federal, state, and local public officials must do, whether elected or appointed — as the primary requirement of eligibility for office. (This requirement is imposed right down to the level of local law enforcement officers, not to mention all military personnel.)
Presumably, persons swearing to such an Oath have at least some passing familiarity with the foundation of our fundamental rule of law. Otherwise, what could their constitutional oath possibly mean?
I think it's fair to say that Kim Davis has some pretty clear notions about what her constitutional Oath of Office requires — and what it does not require.
She rests her case on Article I of the Bill of Rights: Her constitutionally-guaranteed right to the free exercise of her religious conscience: "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.
The question then becomes: In what way does she lose this right, just by assuming public office?
Meanwhile, while the "intelligent public" seems to be dithering over this issue, Kim Davis is in jail, without bail.
It seems to me that she is on very solid ground respecting her First Amendment rights. Only a fool could dispute that, IMHO.
It also seems to me that she may be spot-on WRT her understanding of the very framework of the U.S. Constitution. It vests all national lawmaking power in Article I, Section 8: In Congress, and only with respect to a rather small number of delegated powers. The rest — the bulk — of U.S. political power is retained by the States and the People thereof.
The egregious problem with the Obergefell "gay marriage" decision is that it is indisputably "new Law" binding on the nation emanating from the Supreme Court — which has zero legislative power under the Constitution from the get-go to do such things. There is nothing in their chartering Article III which vests such power in the SCOTUS.
So we might conclude from this situation that SCOTUS "created" new law out of thin air. For they had no constitutional warrant to do so. Especially not, if the entire thrust of the decision was to encroach on, to repeal the constitutional powers of the States. To federalize, consolidate, matters in Washington that in the entire history of the American people were left up to the jurisdiction of the several States and the People thereof.
To me, it is clear this is a federal usurpation of the powers of the several States, as effected by five elite lawyers.
Back to Kim Davis: She is in jail because of "non-compliance" with the "rule of law," as recently (and groundlessly) promulgated by SCOTUS in Obergefell .
But why should she comply with a "non-law" in the first place? Under her constitutional oath, she has no duty to do that. If new law cannot pass constitutional muster, then she, as a public official, should be praised for drawing attention to that fact. And for resisting the unjust law, which doubles as a fundamental assault on the sovereignty of the several States, which after all, have constitutions of their own.
As is definitely the case in Kentucky, regarding religious issues. (The Kentucky Constitution has its own freedom of religion amendment....)
You gotta know that the Obergefell decision was so wrongly conceived, that it created so much unnecessary public strife (that could have been avoided, had the Court remained solidly within its Article III grounds), that there just had to be a public reaction in due course.
Well, that has happened. And the Kim Davis case is now ground-zero of this public dispute....
...Which is a dispute between a thoroughly consolidated Leviathan in Washington, and the constitutionally guaranteed liberties of the States and the People thereof.
In my book, there is no such thing as an "amiable atheist."
To take a shot at God is to take a shot at Man. But only Man has to take the bullet.
I think George Will is frighteningly wrong-headed. And it shows, in his narcissistic behavior....
Very well said, betty boop.
Great post!
I’ve been reading Will for nearly 30 years now.
I can see what he’s doing here: he’s making the pitch that Davis is a Democrat. Just like Wallace and Faubus were. And like Obama is.
He’s wrapping it in a “befriend the audience” style technique designed to 1) appeal to people not inclined to support Davis and 2) shove a stick into the eye of Democrat partisans and Progressives who are claiming that she’s a Conservative Republican.
Given the type of people who predominantly make up Will’s regular audience, he does a servicable job at meeting those two goals.
If you have the time and interest, I would so welcome your thoughts in this matter.
He does seem to meander in his opinions, doesn’t he.
I read an article recently in which it was very clear he was advocating the right to suicide. Sophistry can turn that into a ‘conservative’ cause, but in reality it is not in line with the great principles of our heritage that we wish to CONSERVE.
“gay rights”
Perhaps if we hadn’t let the demonrats force that terminology on us, things wouldn’t have gotten this far.
No one is “gay.” Everyone is straight. Some straight people are afflicted with same-sex attraction disorder. What they demand is special privileges for sodomites.
If we had called it that from the beginning, they wouldn’t have been able to deceive the stupid so easily.
WELL SAID... clearly cogently the truth..
Name the law that Kim Davis violated. What section. What subsection. When did this Law that she allegedly violated get passed by the legislature and when did the governor sign it?
Currently, what is the legal definition of marriage in the State of Kentucky?
Are you an attorney or do you just play one on Free Republic?
Just thought you ought to know.
The clerks or deputies signing licenses have no statutory authority to do so.
He’s probably light in the loafers. Normal men that I know are not be so adamant about changing the meaning of marriage for the homo cause.
Nice of him to compare race and the civil right movement to the struggle to force a pervert’s method of sexual pleasure on society. Blacks just love that. /s/
Its good to remember that Kim was acting in accordance with Kentucky law. When they threw it out, she stopped. With no law to administer, she stopped.
She is not the lawless one. Its the judge who threw out the law, after all. And other judges who imposed law... anyone with a passing familiarity with the constitution knows that judges don’t make law. Everyone except judges and the press.
Since the judge is the one who threw out the law, the deputies ought to have arrested him. Not her.
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.