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.
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....