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.
Very well said, betty boop.
If you have the time and interest, I would so welcome your thoughts in this matter.
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.
The problem with the 10th Amendment is there was no mechanism written into it to rectify federal overreach.
The USSC, specifically Anthony Kennedy, who incidentally had a mentor who was homosexual, based his ruling on the 14th Amendment to which he proceeded to read in his bias and twist to his fashion.
There is no check on Supreme Court Justices in reading what they will into the Constitution. And this lack of check traces all the way back to Marbury v. Madison to which subsequent rulings should have been challenged but were never of such significance in relation to other matters that energy was never expended. But nothing stands in the way of revisiting Marbury v. Madison today.
Counter arguments describing what is needed are to elect conservative presidents who will appoint conservative justices. No!
It was President Reagan that appointed Anthony Kennedy. It is said that Kennedy lied during his vetting process with Reagan's people one of whom was Mark Levin.
Therefore, electing a conservative president is no panacea.
What is needed is a series of amendments that restore and strengthen the States, and that restore the balance between the States and the Federal government.