Posted on 09/08/2015 9:58:13 AM PDT by xzins
Just announced; awaiting article
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
You are absolutely right. Shep Smith went nuts over Davis’ lawyer giving a Christian testimony. It was very clear that he was
Some one needs to bring up the “wisdom” of SCOTUS re the infamous Dred Scott decision! !!
There is not one channel left that will let us hear the news without inferring and giving their own opinions. If Shep can’t handle letting the viewers hear the news when the subject is about Christianity he needs to leave the network. Couldn’t believe FOX kept him around after his behavior in New Orleans while covering Katrina.
Romans 8:37:
“Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.”
Both cases reference the same two Constitutional authorities: Due Process and Equal Protection. The issue of legality within any one state’s laws is a conflict that has happened before.
I wish we'd learn Judo and not always retaliate with Karate. Perfectly performed Judo devastates all other forms of combat.
Did anyone point out that the Police commissioners of Washington DC and NYC ought to be in jail for not immediately approving firearms permits according to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Heller and McDonald? How's that any different from this clerk in Kentucky not giving out marriage licenses?
With all this liberal psychobabble about Davis swearing an oath and claiming to not do her job because she’s a conscientious objector is going to come back to bite the liberals on da butt. Just saw a “lawyer” on FOX say that Davis is a government employee who swore an oath and she should do her job or resign. Aren’t military personnel government employees who swore an oath? IMHO, it’s time to start locking up military conscientious objectors until they either do their job or resign.
"Perhaps the single most important issue in the Kim Davis situation (the County Clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who was jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses) -- an issue about which most observers and commentators have been completely silent -- is the flagrant violation of the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers.
By way of background, Federal Judge David Bunning ruled that Davis was in contempt of court, which a court can legitimately do. But he then ordered federal marshals enforce his decision and take her into custody, which he cannot do. Federal marshals are part of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch; he has absolutely no authority to order any federal marshal to do anything.
Significantly, the Founders -- and thus the Constitution -- did not give power to the Judiciary to enforce any of its decisions -- they deliberately made it powerless in this regards. They made the Executive Branch alone responsible for enforcement.
So while Judge Bunning can (and did) issue his personal opinion regarding Kim Davis, his personal opinion does not have the force of law. (By the way, check any civics book: a law must originate as a measure proposed in the House or Senate, be passed by both, and then signed by the president. Only then and by this means does anything become law.) Bunning must thus ask (not order) the Executive Branch to enforce his opinion, and if it agrees, it can order its marshals to do so, but the Judicial Branch may order no such thing.
Sadly, not only did the Judicial Branch first take on itself the role of the Legislative Branch by issuing its ruling in the homosexual-marriage decision, but now it has assumed the role of the Executive Branch by attempting to enforce its own opinion. The Founding Fathers vehemently objected to this practice. As George Washington warned: "[T]hose entrusted with its [the nation’s] administration [must] confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism."
James Madison similarly charged: "The preservation of a free government requires not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be universally maintained but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves."
Samuel Adams agreed: "In all good governments, the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary powers are confined within the limits of their respective departments. If therefore it should be found that . . . either of the departments aforesaid should interfere with another, it will, if continued, essentially alter the Constitution, and may, in time, . . . be productive of such convulsions as may shake the political ground upon which we now happily stand."
Thomas Jefferson thus admonished that we must "cleave to the salutary distribution of powers which that [i.e., the Constitution] has established" and that if we ever move away from its separation of powers that "we shall be in danger of foundering."
Perhaps political philosopher Charles de Montesquieu -- a favorite of the Founders, and the most-cited human source in the political writings of the Founding Era -- said it best when he declared: "There is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."
So while the Kim Davis travesty continues, perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the entire controversy is that Judge Bunning personally ordered her to jail, thus blatantly violating one of the Constitution's most important provisions for securing the liberty of the entire people".
DB
Looks like a sword swallower to me.
>>And please explain to me why it is merely limited to a couple? At this point, I can think of no rational argument once you’ve tossed out the meaning of the word ‘marriage.’
The Gaystapo says that we are just being silly for asking that question and that we are making a mockery of love with it.
But it is the question to be asked. If marriage is about “loving whomever I choose”, what limits it to 2 people? Biologically, polygamy makes more sense than monogamy. Socially, it makes men clean up their act to find mates because the competition just got a lot more serious. They’ve declared religion to be a non-issue in the argument, so that would include all religions.
The 1967 case RIGHTLY applied the 14A while the current case WRONGLY applied the 14A. The 14A is one of three post-Civil-War Reconstruction amendments LIMITED to the intent of putting ex-slaves on full citizenship. That is the extent of the intent and valid application of the 14A.
The 14A LIMITS federal application of the due process and equal protection clauses to the states ONLY in cases of state laws that segregate ex-slaves as explained by Justice Miller in the Slaughterhouse cases of 1873.
The 14A has nothing to do marriage and, therefore, the feds have NO authority to meddle with marriage, the flawed, refuted, and unconstitutional Incorporation Doctrine notwithstanding.
shep smith is an unwatchable hack.
there is no reason for him to be on news other than some connections or casting couch.
Yep...she needs to stay strong now...and the Christian community and her Lawyer team need to take this to the desired end and not peeter out as so often happens...
I thought she was jailed for contempt by the US DIstrict Court. (?)
who is a pig. Beshear ordered all clerks to abide by Justice Kennedy's opinion. He had no authority to issue that order without first getting the legislature to meet and pass New laws and regulations.
Did you happen to read APPELLANT KIM DAVIS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL?
Absolutely blistering. Exposes the governor and the attorney general for what they really are.
Cordially,
And certain Supreme Court Justices impeached. They have no right to make law.
AS you said: SUPREME COURT HAS NO RIGHT TO MAKE LAW.
ERGO: there is no law for her to break.
Why aren’t the people in power saying this?
Following the Supreme Court decision the governor of Kentucky issued an executive order demanding that all county clerks issue same-sex marriage certificates and licenses despite the fact that Kentucky code prohibits it. It was because Kim Davis refused to obey the order from the governor, that the case moved into the Federal District Court. The Federal District Court quoted the executive order from the governor in his decision to hold the defendant in contempt. Had the governor done his constitutional duty and told the Supreme Court where they could stick their opinion, this would not have worked out the way that it did. I blame governor Beshear because in his rush to be politically correct, he completely ignored the statutory obligations of the clerks and the statutory law in Kentucky.
Is there any way we can get the focus back on the US Supreme Court where this debacle started?
Even before the ruling, had the 2 of the Supremes recused themselves for their obvious bias in performing gay marriages, states/the peoples rights would have been upheld and we would not even be having these conversations.
The focus needs to be on the corrupt Supremes who did not recuse themselves for their obvious bias reasons. There is NO WAY they could have been impartial.
CGato
I’m done with FOX and their little pansy boys like Shep Smith and pushing Bush
Can one elected official (Governor) usurp the power given by an electorate to another elected official (Clerk) merely by issuing a letter? Something seems wrong about that.
Good news!
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.