Kim Davis Broke No Law!

Amp229

For days people have been arguing about Kim Davis’s refusal to hand out gay marriage licenses in Kentucky on social media.  This issue isn’t even about gay marriage.  The Supreme Court unconstitutionally threw out the laws and constitutional amendments of all states which banned gay marriage.  This was a large majority of the states.  These laws were legislated by legislative branches of government or voted on by the people and passed legitimately.  The Supreme Court has no constitutionally enumerated authority to rule on the Constitutionality of a law or to throw out a law. None.  You will not find these powers listed in Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution, as the 10th Amendment requires.

Federal Judge David Bunning found Kim Davis to be in contempt of court when she refused to break Kentucky state law and hand out marriage licenses to homosexual partners.  She based her decision on religious grounds.  Her religious beliefs are protected from the federal government.  The 1st Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This makes it impossible for there to be a federal law that Kim Davis broke.

In 2003, Judge Bunning ordered Boyd County High School to allow a gay club against the will of the school and the parents.  Part of his order was that the school implement a mandatory reeducation program for the school staff and students to learn about diversity and be forced to accept homosexuality.  None of his order was constitutional or legal.  Ordering civilians around is not a constitutionally enumerated judicial power.  Neither is force feeding sinful propaganda to people in violation of their religious core beliefs.  No power is enumerated to the federal government or judiciary to mandate what schools teach or what clubs they allow.  This judge is a verified gay activist, rogue.  He should immediately be impeached.

Liberals and dime store conservatives (a term I am coining right now, to mean people who claim to be or may want to be conservative, but whose knowledge of the Constitution isn’t worth 10 cents), have been jumping on the talking point bandwagon that Kim Davis broke the law.  Not one person has been able to cite the law she is accused of breaking.  There is no law which says that she must hand out gay marriage permits.  The Kentucky State Constitution says the exact opposite and outlaws gay marriage.  There is no federal law, which legalizes gay marriage.  The federal government has no jurisdiction over marriage.  Kim Davis has been falsely arrested.

Liberals and dime store conservatives are also saying that being in contempt of court is why she was arrested.  Really?  What court gave her an order?  What court case had her on the docket?  Are we seriously being told that the Supreme Court has the power to give a blanket order to all Americans at large now?  Can someone please provide the Constitutional Amendment, which grants this power to the Supreme Court?  The Constitution allows courts to decide a case based on the law, not change the law and apply it to the nation.  I would like to see the court order from the Supreme Court directed to Kim Davis, which she violated.  As far as I know, no such order exists.  You can’t be held in contempt of court if you were never party to the trial and courts can’t legislate or give orders to the public.  It’s terrifying that we actually have a populace who is so dumbed down, that they are gleefully surrendering their liberty in favor of judicial tyranny.

Liberals and dime store conservatives are trying to justify the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage with the 14th Amendment.  Let’s set aside the fact that the Constitution does not allow the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution or to determine the constitutionality of laws.  This isn’t even the real topic at hand, but just to get this out of the way, the 14th Amendment does not protect gay marriage.  If it did, gay marriage would have been around since 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified.  It’s amazing how much this election cycle is riding on arguments over an amendment, which was never even legally ratified in the first place.  That is a topic for a different time.

Equal protection of the laws does not mean equal privileges.  Marriage has always been defined as being between opposite genders.  Everyone, straight or gay have always had the same, equal opportunities to get married if they wanted to.  What homos want is a change in the definition of a word.  They don’t want equality, they want extra privileges.  They want same sex partners to be able to marry one another, but only if they are homos.  I asked someone on Twitter, “Why cant a woman marry her mother based on the same fallacy that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause allows it?”  He replied, “Because that’s incest!”  He didn’t even see his own hypocrisy.  So what if it’s incest.  Homosexuality is gay!  Who is he to decide that gayness is better than incest?  If he wants free and open marriage to be defined by the equal protection clause, then he is not allowed to draw any lines in the sand.

Where the left gets really confused is when they think the issue over gay marriage is about equal rights.  There is no constitutional right to get married.  The federal government has no authority over marriage.  This issue is not even about marriage, especially for a constitutional conservative.  This is about usurpation of power by the judiciary and a populous who is too stupid to understand it.  This is about federal encroachment in state issues.  This is about 5 people in black robes, abusing power they don’t legally have, to thwart the will of the vast majority of 320,000,000 people.

I have just shown how easy it is to get off course and start talking about gay marriage, when that isn’t the real issue regarding Kim Davis.  The action of Federal Judge David Bunning is what we should be discussing.  It doesn’t matter what the issue is, Judge Bunning had no authority to make his ruling and the fact that the Kentucky law enforcement are blindly going along with it is a sad day for Kentucky.  Shame on you Kentucky for capitulating to unlawful orders.  Read your own constitution, Kentucky!

A message to all of you liberals and dime store conservatives out there.  If you jump in on this debate and all you have for your side of the argument is a claim that Kim Davis broke a law, was held in contempt of court, or that the 14th Amendment protects homosexual marriage, then you have already lost the debate.  Kim Davis broke no law.  Courts can’t hold you in contempt for disobeying the ruling of a court case you weren’t involved in. Whether the 14th Amendment protects homo marriage is not part of this issue and it’s a diversion.  The 14th Amendment grants equal protection of the laws, not equal legislation of the laws or equal privileges.  We can argue about marriage until the cows come home, but this isn’t about gay marriage, it’s about judicial tyranny.  The subject of the 14th Amendment is moot.  If you are so eager to allow the Supreme Court to usurp power they don’t have in order to give dictatorial decrees to America, then God help you when your turn comes to have the hammer brought down on something you cherish.  You shouldn’t be so hasty to give up your liberties to 9 rogue justices in black robes.

One last nugget to chew on.  If Kim Davis can be held in contempt of court for not obeying the Supreme Court decision over a case she took no part in, doesn’t that mean that every school in Federal Judge David Bunning’s jurisdiction is in contempt of court if they don’t also have a mandated gay propaganda class and a school sanctioned gay club?  This is why people not involved in a case can not be held in contempt.  Where would it end?  Judicial tyranny has to stop.  The only way we have a chance to stop it is to wake America up.  Educate your friends and family.  Don’t let them be victims of federally influenced public education.

AMP (Anna Maria Perez)

If you enjoyed this blog post, please share on Facebook, Twitter or one of the other choices below!  Thank you!

Advertisements

111 comments

  1. Simple. If you can’t do your job because of your personal beliefs, find a different line of work. She was found in contempt of court because after going to court and being ordered to issue the marriage licenses, she still didn’t. That is defying a court order. Everyone is free to practice their beliefs no matter how ludicrous they might be, but that doesn’t give anyone right to determine how others are allowed to live their lives. Nobody is allowed to make that decision for anyone else except the actual parties involved. I don’t care if it’s not specifically in the Constitution either. The Constitution also doesn’t say that you have a right to breathe does it? Some things are just a given. If people want to get married let em and stop worrying about what other people are doing. If that hurts your little feelings so bad you can’t stand it, quit your job and work somewhere else. Problem solved. Now maybe we can focus on something that actually matters, like the now 19 TRILLION dollar debt problem that nobody is paying any attention to.

    Like

    • Courts have no constitutional power to throw out laws or hold anyone in contempt of court for following the law. Gay marriage is a violation of the Kentucky State Constitution. It’s very telling that you gays can’t get your sickness passed into law legitimately, you have to find rogue courts to illegally legislate for you.

      Like

  2. I like the fact that you concentrated on the legal rather than the emotional aspects of this case, but I had to laugh. You “coined” the phrase “dime store conservatives” ? I LOVE it.

    Like

    • Illegal. Wasn’t even in the case, was only part of Marshall’s opinion. Usurpation of power isn’t something the Constitution allows. Saying “Marbury v. Madison” proves nothing if you don’t know the Constitution or what the case was even about. It just proves that you have heard a talking point here and there. I sure hope that you aren’t suggesting that violating the Constitution is ok as long as you do it for a long time.

      Like

  3. So I guess you support elected official purposefully failing to do their duty and putting themselves above the population who elected them. By her refusing to issue marriage licenses she did break the law which says that as an elected official she would do her sworn duty. She was sued in a court of law which she lost the law suit and was obligated to fulfill her sworn duty which she continued to fail to do which then put her in contempt of court. So all of your premises of this blog post are in error. I know you don’t agree with this outcome and you disagree with the Judge, but these are the facts of the case as they stand. We might commend her for taking a moral stand, but what she did was illegal. you might even question why she was sued in Federal Court instead of State Court, but as far as the FACTS go, the fact is she intentionally failed in her duty and violated the court order, if we are going to be a land of law and order we cannot have this going on. She must obey the law as she understands them. If she has moral obligations to the law then there are work around, she could step down, she could allow someone else to fulfill that clerk duty. You can call me all the names you want, but that will not change the FACTS of this case.

    My only question to you would be: what legal reasons is there against gay marriage?

    The first step would be to define what marriage is in the eyes of the State. A contract? An agreement? What is the legal definition of marriage and is there something in that definition which precludes same sex partners? If there is nothing in the legal definition of marriage that precludes same sex couples then we must move on to the second step.

    The second step would be looking for societal reasons why marriage should be withheld from same sex partners. If there are valid societal reasons then we must take them into consideration one by one to see if they actually apply or not.

    If there are no legal or compelling societal reasons to deny marriage to same sex couples, then we must ask why is (was) it being denied.

    This is an exercise in “thinking” so take your time.

    Like

  4. I’ll just leave you with this, since this has been hilariously funny and now that I’m at my computer, copy and paste will work.

    “Section 2.

    The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

    In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

    The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.”

    That is the entirety of Section 2 of Article 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law (meaning everything that pretains to law) and equity, arising under the Constitution (meaning every thing that is law and equity that comes into question of the Constitution). This allows them to make a decision on anything pretaining to law, not laws as an individual laws, but law as in everything law indcluding the laws themselves that are made. That fall under questioning or interpreting the Constitution, they have the final say. The Constitution of the United Stats of America has given the Supreme Court Judicial Power were all cases involving law or equity shall be decided by them. It then goes on to explain who falls under that. Which it explains pretty much everyone is.

    The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution and the power to change laws that they deem are against it. It literally states it in the constitution. They key note is that when someone sues that a law is unconstitutional, and a court makes a decision, then it is final. They don’t pass laws, they rule on cases that go to court on laws. Power to change laws is another way of saying they have the power to change laws in the sense that when it goes to court they change the law then. Someone first has to have a problem with the law to begin with. They can not out right change a law at their whim. Which I believe is what you keep thinking and it’s right, they can’t out right change a law, but if one person believes a law is unconstitutional it works it’s way up through the courts and if the Supreme Court feels that an inferior court made the wrong deicision they can weigh it on the case and make a final say and no other court and disagree with them, thus a law is changed in this way, but you can take anyone to court on anything so it gives them the power to weigh in on every single case that goes to court. This is how they change laws and how every law is at their mercy.

    —————————————–

    Now the real issue is can they force her against her religious beliefs? No they can’t, but religious freedom does not give her the right to force her religious beliefs on others. This pretains to all religion, so if some other religion allows gay marriages, she can not deny them a marriage license, because that would be infringing on their religous beliefs. Freedom of religion does not protect people to allow them to impose their beliefs on others. It allows them to practice their religion as an individual. Just because her religion says gay marriage is bad, does not mean she can go around and force people not to marry.

    On the topic of being forced as I have stated numerous times and you blatantly ignored which I saw a lot of. I don’t support her being jailed, but she acted as a gate keeper refusing anyone to let them get a marriage license. She did that to herself when they said look, you don’t have to, just let your deputies do so and she did nothing about that.

    “Bunning then called on Davis’s deputy clerks, assigning them each a public defender. One by one, he asked whether they would be willing to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples. All but one agreed; Bunning did not level the question at Davis’s son.

    Bunning then ordered Davis to return to the courtroom. He told her attorney that if she agreed to permit her deputies to sign marriage certificates for all comers then she may be “purged” of her contempt and allowed to go home.

    But Davis did not come back.” – Washington Post

    She has refused to issue a marriage certificate with her name on it, forcing her to do this imo is against her religious beliefs. None of this is the fault of the Supreme Court, it falls on Kentuckys Government to allow this, but they are slow and stupid imo but not allowing a religious exemption under their RFRA law that would allow this to happen.

    Like

    • You just wasted your time typing a bunch of poppycock I won’t read. “Judicial Power shall extend to all cases…” Not Interpretive or legislative power. Judicial power means something. It doesn’t mean interpret law, create law, or throw out law. Our founders purposefully left judicial review out of the enumerated powers of the courts. They said it, not me. Take it up with them.

      Like

          • You say ” a legal law does” I am not exactly sure what you are referring to in that sentence, no context. But it raises a good question. What makes a law legal? If a law is passed which one feels is unconstitutional and there is no judicial review available, what then? If the police enforce the law and the judges accept the law, what recourse do you have? The Constitution does not give you recourse, perhaps it would fall under the 1st amendment with “the rights of the people… to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” But who are you going to petition? The Supreme Court and ask them to play the role of judicial review, the congress and ask them to overturn a law they already passed, the President and ask for an executive order supporting the petition? Where in the Constitution is the “teeth” to prevent unconstitutional laws being passed if the Supreme Court does not take the role of judicial review? What makes a law, legal?

            Like

          • Most domestic federal laws are not constitutional and as such not even legally passed in the first place. Take the entire war on drugs. Under what enumerated power did Congress outlaw drugs? They couldn’t outlaw booze. That took the 18th Amendment. The entire war on drugs is illegal. But the public is stupid and easily puts what they feel is a “good idea” above the Constitution. Then it becomes institutionalized and no one bothers to wonder if it’s constitutional anymore. Judicial review never stopped that, now did it? Nor did it stop the establishment of almost every federal agency that is unconstitutional. How is the TSA constitutional? They violate my 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, & 10th amendment rights on a recurring basis. The Constitution grants no authority for agencies to legislate via regulation, nor does it grant authority to Congress to relinquish any of its power to such agencies. It’s all a load of bull that we’ve been fed in small doses until we no longer know it’s wrong. The teeth of the Constitution are you and I. We’re gumming it right now.

            Like

          • You say “you and I are the teeth.” Where specifically does it say that? What are you referring to in the Constitution that say the People are the teeth of the Constitution and have the final say in what is and is not Constitutional? Can you point me to a place where it says that?

            And what if half the population sides with the law and the other half does not? Do we have a civil war every time someone can muster enough support against a law they feel violates the constitution?

            (And again you failed to answer my question but divert to a different topic, makes me wonder…)

            Like

          • “We the People” what? We the People shall vote out of office elected officials who do not accurately represent us? We the People shall stone all sinners and those who make unconstitutional laws? We the People shall sharpen our knives and load our muskets? What are the “teeth”? What can we do, according to the Constitution, about unconstitutional laws? Point to the exact wording which allows the “People” to take action and what exactly that action is? You can’t point to anything, because it is not there. So either we can continue doing what we have been doing or what we do is not sanctioned by the Constitution and we support it with precedent, such as the Deceleration of Independence. If we take that later course of action then “We the People” are acting against the Constitution and the rightfully elected officials of the government. How is that any better or different then elected and appointed officials working from precedent?

            Like

          • Constructive to you equals agreeing with your liberal dogma. You sir, are a moron. You really are. I have given you every opportunity to learn, but you have no interest in learning or in any facts whatsoever. You are a rube. I think you like it that way. It’s easy.

            Like

        • If what he is saying is horsehockey or not really does not matter. What he says is how history has played out. You cannot deny the history. You may not like the fact that the Supreme Court acts the way it does, but it will only continue to act that way because it is how it acts. I know that sounds like circular logic because it is. Nothing you say will change the fact that the Supreme Court will continue to act as the judicial review for what is considered Law in this land. You can call it Unconstitutional, but it wont change what they are doing. So the question is, “what are you going to do about it?” Writing a blog is nice, but that will not change the way things are being run, especially when the political system backs itself and not your ideas. I don’t see a Senate or a President, or a House of Representatives being elected that is going to undue 200+ years of Law making, precedent setting, and procedural refining to try to return to some golden age of the Constitution of how the founders “really” wanted it (which is a case of interpretation since none of the founders are with us today to tell us what they really meant and referring people to their written works only goes so far. Even the written works of the founders can be interpreted different ways.). So what are you going to do?

          Like

          • I know the history. I don’t justify unconstitutional actions of the court just because they have done it for a long time. History schmistory. The Constitution has not been amended to grant SCOTUS interpretive judicial review.

            Like

          • I would be interested to hear what you think the Supreme Courts role is. Exactly what is the Supreme Court supposed to do all day? I have read the Constitution so I know what powers they have, that is not the question. The question is, how are they to use their powers on a day to day bases?

            Like

          • Like any court, since the Constitution grants SCOTUS no special powers other than being the final court, they determine if you broke the law. They have no constitutional authority to determine if the law is constitutional. As much as it might make you sad, that power is simply not enumerated.

            Like

          • So the newer law replaces the older law? So gun laws, since they are newer, replace the 2nd amendment? Are you sure you are understanding how this works? Laws can be rewritten to update and replace older laws, but just the passing of a new law does not automatically invalidate an older law. What about conflicting laws? The Patriot Act allows many intrusions on privacy which with older laws about protecting Privacy, does it replace the Fourth amendment just because it is newer?

            Like

          • “Shall not be infringed” makes all gun laws unconstitutional. I don’t need SCOTUS to tell me that. Look, if you truly are interested, go out and learn about the Constitution. Start fresh without any public school or media bias. Start with reading the Constitution itself. Begin with the 10th Amendment. Fully grasp the 10th Amendment, then move on. You may find a whole new world of enlightenment ahead of you.

            Like

          • so then you agree, a newer law by default does not replace an old law unless the law itself is written to replace the law. So your point is moot, not mine. My point holds, SCOTUS is the final say in the Law and when two laws conflict they don’t automatically assume the new law supersedes the older law. They take both laws into consideration and make a reasoned argument about the outcome, some take a majority view and some dissent. If ever case was crystal clear we would never have a dissenting opinion, would we?

            Here is a case: A couple is married in Washington State, the man’s employer transfers him to Kentucky. He and his partner move to Kentucky but the State of Kentucky refuses to validate their marriage and all the rights and privileges of their Union. The man’s partner is male. They sue the State of Kentucky. The Circuit judge rules in their favor, his reasoning, under the 14th amendment, laws need to be applied equally. If the State of Kentucky is going to have reciprocity with Washington State on some marriages then they need to have reciprocity with all marriages. The 14th amendment supersedes the State law. Therefore by default the State law becomes invalid and the State of Kentucky must honor all marriages from Washington.

            Maybe you should go read the actual Supreme Court document. You might find out they are not all fools and many of your arguments are answered. Tell you what, I will go read the Constitution for the eight time this week, if you will read the Supreme Court case.

            http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

            Like

          • A legal law does. This isn’t difficult. also, I don’t think you know what states are. If they all have to have the same exact laws, why have states at all? You simply aren’t able to grasp how our country was founded. Not as a single state like other countries. 50 states, each autonomous, but joined for a few specific reasons, which don’t include ruling over the entire people. There simply is no getting through to someone who doesn’t want to know.

            Like

  5. 1st amendment states congress can not pass a law respecting establishment of religion. The supreme court is the highest court and supercedes every foorm of court as they are inferior. Meaning if a state ruled gay marriage is illegal and the supreme court say not it isnt, no one can establish a law contradicting that since every court made is in support of the supreme court and is considered inferior to only help them with their work load. However they should make it possible that she could remove her name from the certificate and allow another in place, but since there is nothing that allows this amd she has refused to leave her position and has told no one is allowed to give the certificate in her place, because her name still shows on it. She is breaking the law. The bible also preaches obeying the law of the land and by not doing so is disrespectful and an act of disobeying god. However that would imply the supreme court are all following under god and with the sepration of church and state this would imply that removal of gay marriage ban would be against the bible. Regardless America which i defend is a place of ALL religions and all ethnic backgrounds and all people. So we have no choice to take a nuetral stance. The constitution forbid the unitied states from establishing a religion. This is not a united states of christians. Its United states of america and americans are feeling to entitled imo that their view should reign supreme over every single person and that it would be wrong if their religion or view doesnt reign over everyone. The supreme courts purpose is to interpet the constituion and make laws fair for everyone. We are the land of free, not the land of opressing others because of our religious belief. I do not believe she should have been jailed. I believe the best resolution would have established someone willing to have their name on it instead so she could continue her beliefs. Freedom of religion does not allow you to impose or force your views on others. She is in a public service position that serves the people and swore and oath to obey all laws under god which she is no longer doing. If a law makes her uncomfortable she needs to understand it isnt her choice to dictate what is right or wrong our founding fathers and the hundreds of thousand of people that died making this constitution made this so.

    Liked by 1 person

    • You couldn’t be more wrong. Yes, 1A says Congress shall make no law. States can. States have had state religions. There is NOTHING the federal government can do about it. LAnd of the free? As you support the jailing of Kim Davis for sticking up for her religious convictions, which the federal government can make no law to infringe on? You sir, know nothing of the founding fathers.

      Like

    • “Bunning then called on Davis’s deputy clerks, assigning them each a public defender. One by one, he asked whether they would be willing to sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples. All but one agreed; Bunning did not level the question at Davis’s son.

      Bunning then ordered Davis to return to the courtroom. He told her attorney that if she agreed to permit her deputies to sign marriage certificates for all comers then she may be “purged” of her contempt and allowed to go home.

      But Davis did not come back.” -Washington Post

      She was given an out and refused it. She is not a gatekeeper or marriage licenses.

      Like

          • It’s actually nauseating how willing you are to give your liberty away in favor of tyranny. Quite sickening. If that is not your intention, if you are at all curious, then you really need to start learning.

            Like

          • She was being sued by four couples who were denied marriage licenses. She was not arrested. Wow, you really need to connect with some facts on this case. Please go read the court documents. It might shed some light in your darkness. Now you want her to sue the court for doing their job but you defend her when she does not do her job. I guess you really don’t believe in the Laws of this land.

            Like

          • So what? Being sued means you’re guilty of breaking a law? Heck, if you’re already guilty just by virtue of being sued, what do we need courts for? Who cares what the court documents say? There is no law that she broke. None. You can’t gloss over that point just because you rabidly want something so bad that the Constitution and rule of law don’t matter to you, you’ll take it however you can get it, by hook or by crook!

            Like

          • You obviously have no respect for our court systems. That is unfortunate. She can be compelled by the court to do her job, and she was. That is a FACT. Saying it is not a fact does not change it from being a fact. You need a better understanding of the court system. You really need to stop trying to twist the facts to fit your agenda, it is making you look silly. You don’t like what the judge did, that is fine you don’t have to. The loosing side never likes what the judge does. But that does not change the FACTS of the case. If there were different FACTS then I am sure her lawyers would have used them to justify her innocence and the judge would have ruled in her favor. GO read the court case them maybe you will understand what actually happened instead of what you think happened because you saw a few media posts about it. Do some primary source research.

            Like

          • Oh! If I want our court to stay within their bounds and not run rough shod over the American people, you call it a lack of respect. That is our problem in America. You think you owe allegiance to your rulers.

            Like

          • I am not seeing the courts running rough shod over any one, not is this case. I see a public servant refusing to do her job and a court holding her to doing her sworn job. The court did not want to get involved but a civil dispute was presented in that court which then dragged the court into the affair. Now the court has to do its job and weigh the case to the best of his ability. If the defendant does not like the result she can appeal to a higher court, but the highest court in the Land refused to hear the case, which means the ruling stand. As a county clerk she has to do her duty, if she has a moral or religious objection then she could easily have provided a work around, which she refused. This is a very simple case. I do not understand how you cannot grasp the FACTS of the case.

            I do not support the courts running rough shod over anyone, nor do I bow down to the “authorities” but I understand we live in a land of laws and those laws need to be applied equally to everyone for society to function. You can try to misconstrue who you think I am and what you think I represent, but you are only looking foolish flogging a dead horse.

            Like

          • Then you are willfully wearing blinders. I can’t help the willfully ignorant among us. The court had no business being involved in a case that is not within federal jurisdiction. Every lib wants to claim that anything can be shoved into a 14th Amendment issue. That is simply not the case and I can’t wait to get the support needed to repeal that monstrosity of a mess.

            Like

          • And I do wonder why it went to a Federal judge and not a state judge. I would think her lawyers would have thought of that as well and challenged the jurisdiction of the lawsuit. I guess they are not as smart as us.

            Like

          • Good point, because the federal government has no purview over marriage issues. None. Now if this were an issue about coining money or a post office, then it would be federal government business. Their authority on those things is enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

            Like

  6. You lost me when you stated the Supreme Court has no authority to decide the constitutionality of US law. That is their most important job and the reason they exist

    Uonality

    Like

    • Really? Their most important job? You know that the Constitution lists their jobs in Article 3, right? I challenge you to find “deciding the constitutionality of law” in there. No, that is called judicial review and the founders purposefully withheld that power from the courts. They wrote all about it. The Supreme Court usurped that power and a continued dumbing down of America has convinced the people that it is their most important job now. It’s not.

      Like

      • “Deciding the Constitutionality” of a law is just shorthand speech for resolving conflicts between two different laws (“judicial review”, as you say), with one of them being the Constitution. Your argument that those exact words aren’t there is nothing more than fishing for ignorance, and it’s obvious that your words are just *begging* for some poor individual to make this argument against you so you can demonstrate your exceptional legal prowess. Except… if you were that good and intellectually honest, you would know that this role of the courts has been established since the early 1800’s and no one except those who are intentionally stirring up controversy for controversy’s sake (e.g., you) argue against it. In your world, who would you have decide “the Constitutionality” of laws? The states? Oh really? What if two states come to conflicting decisions on the same issue? OH yes – states’ rights must mean that a law can be constitutional in one state but not in another, so there’s no problem… except it would call into question the Constitution itself as a result of the Supremacy Clause. Or maybe the circuit courts? Same argument, same result. There has to be a pinnacle, and that is the Supreme Court.

        Like

        • Exact words have to be there. That’s what the 10th Amendment is for. The founders discussed judicial review and left it out of the enumerated powers of the courts on purpose, calling it oligarchy. The role was established for the courts BY THE COURTS, which is not constitutional. That is called usurpation of power. I am afraid that your constitutional knowledge falls far short anything I’d call significant. State laws conflict all the time. So what? Some states have dry counties where alcohol is illegal, others don’t. If you don’t like your laws, move to a state with laws you like. Easy Peasy. Nothing in the Constitution says that if state laws aren’t all the same they are unconstitutional. States are just like separate countries, except that they have agreed to give a very limited amount of power to the federal government to manage things such as international relations. Over 99% of all domestic federal laws are unconstitutional, as are most federal agencies. I think that if you truly are curious, you should apply yourself to learning a lot more.

          Like

          • It literally states in article 3 that the supreme court has the final say on every single law in the united states of america. Laws created below the supreme court are created by an inferior court meaning if the supreme court rules a law in adequate they have the right to null and void it. You cant have a united states of america without people coming together and being united. There is also a thing called seperation of church and state. She was controlling all marriage licences and forcing her views on everyone. She had the option to let her deputies issue the licencse that were willing to do so and she refused to let them do so. She essentially acted like a gatekeeper judging others at her own discretion which is not in her power to do so.

            Like

          • It literally does not say that. If it literally says that, I challenge you to quote it. No, laws created are never created by any court, inferior or not. They are created by legislatures and signed by executives. No, there isn’t a thing called separation of church and state. Quote that in the Constitution too, which you are quoting things I have asked you to quote. You picked the wrong blog to lie about the Constitution on. That’s probably why you’re keeping anonymous. Since nothing you have said is verifiable in the Constitution itself, you are either ignorant or a liar. Which are you? You decide.

            Like

          • Read section 2 of article 3 it states exact wording judicial power extends to all laws. Section 1 states all courts are inferior

            Like

          • So what? Not to interpret them or legislate them. Key words: JUDICAL POWER. Read the whole sentence. The Judicial power shall extend to all cases. Not interpretive power. Not Legislative Power. Nothing about erasing laws. I honestly don’t understand your willingness to throw away your rights.

            Like

          • Amendment 1 states no governmemt is allowed an establishment of religion. So governments cant have laws imposing religious beliefs

            Like

          • Misqouted it states congress cant establish the law. Also the supreme court has the power to settle any disupte between a state and a civilian that conflicts with the constitution or scope. Which would be establishment of religion. If she is imposing her religious views on others by denying them a certificate she is saying as a fedral employee her job has a religious stance.

            Like

          • If legislative power enacts a law or interpitive power enacts a law then the supreme court by the constitution can weigh in and void it. Judicial power allows the supreme court to have the final say on all laws. ALL laws as stated by the constitution. I know my rights very well thank you as i serve and defend this country. I give up plenty to defend others rights. Im willing to give up privacy to an extent and other rights so my wife doesnt die from another 9/11 or boston marathon.

            Like

          • Until the Constitution is amended, the Supreme Court can not constitutionally weigh in and void anything, because Article 3 does not allow it. Your willingness to give up rights doesn’t mean you can force others to give up theirs. Never in our history has it been proven that giving up liberty has resulted in more safety and security. Only more control over us. The TSA strips me of my 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, & 10th Amendment rights every time I fly. That is unconstitutional. Period.

            Like

          • That read the whole sentence btw was not you reading the whole sentence.

            Section 2.

            “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law( key part right there, states law not powers, laws so when a power passes a law it falls under judicial power) and equity, arising under the constituion”

            This goes on and on as section 2 is an entire sentence of commas and semi colons etc. Judicial power also gives the supreme court the ability to interpet the constitution in order to enacts laws. So to rephrase that for you it states judicial power extends to laws arising under the constitution, which means they dictate wether a law is constitutional or not.

            Like

          • You say that judicial power gives the Supreme Court ability to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t say it. Our founding fathers said, no.

            Like

          • Regardless of what the supreme court can. And can not do. Having a law banning gay marriage since marriage is on as a religious thing and governments can not establish a religious establishment and that law is purely a religious only enactment which makes it unconstitutional. I still however agree they cant force her for her religious beliefs, but she swore an oath to obey all laws even when they change. If laws change to go against her religious beliefs that is on her and she should have understood this would come about and created a plan like…allowing someone elses name in this instance so she wouldnt have to.

            Like

          • Yes, governments can establish a religious establishment. Only Congress can’t. This case has nothing to do with the establishment of religion, it has to do with judicial tyranny. 34 states outlawed same sex marriage. Those were the laws. The federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction over marriage in any way. Marriage is not enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, therefore the feds can’t touch it. That’s how the Constitution works.

            Like

  7. Every time gays and lebsians comes up with something that they feel that they are all entitled to the law is there to defend them even though their lifestyle does not allow them to produce children they want to adopt children and teach them that two males/females are mommies and daddies all this is to say what law did Kim Davis break my exercising her religious rights/freedom.

    Like

    • She hasnt done anything wrong the laws that the people should be living by is the only law that we need the rest of laws are all man made hell man has done ruined this world so people need to wake the hell up

      Like

  8. You want to know where you lost on this debate?

    When you called intelligent, conservative, Christian Americans “dime store Republicans” for understanding you cannot cite “God’s authority” as a defense of not carrying out duties of an Government position you are elected to.

    The very amendment you were citing in defense of Kim Davis is the one she broke. She was creating a “state religion” within her Clerk’s office. “God’s authority” was what was guiding her decisions as the Clerk. A person in a government position establishing that religion was the decision maker for state law. That is completely wrong.

    I understand people’s reservations to accept gay marriage, I’m a Christian that has had a hard time coming to terms with that.

    All this article says to me, is you have an underlying disapproval of gay marriage and a homophobia in which you use the weak arguments of a “radical Supreme Court” to hide behind.

    Sincerely,
    Intelligent, conservative, Christian “dime store Republican”

    Like

    • “Dime Store Conservatives.” At least learn to read. I never cited an amendment in defense of Kim Davis. You are just making things up. You are truly a moron. I am allowing your comment to be posted as an example of idiocy.

      Like

      • I think he is referring to when you say : “Federal Judge David Bunning found Kim Davis to be in contempt of court when she refused to break Kentucky state law and hand out marriage licenses to homosexual partners. She based her decision on religious grounds. Her religious beliefs are protected from the federal government. The 1st Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This makes it impossible for there to be a federal law that Kim Davis broke.

        Like

    • Here’s the problem Dime Store; Cases have to Originate in court, basically in the form of “Person/GroupA V. Person/GroupB,” or “State V. Person/Group” and the inverse. The reasoning is, anything outside that initiation process suspends “Habeas Corpus.” In fact, it is an unlegislated “Bill of Attainder.” Think about this, if Legislators, Judges, Presidents, and LEOs could just drag you into court every time they disagree with your stance, we would eventually all end up behind bars. Am suggesting everyone studies the “Intolerable Acts.” AKA “Coercive Acts.” Understand where the due process clauses and rights are derived. We have strayed a far my friend…..

      Like

  9. Isn’t she in contempt of court because Judge Bunning ordered her to issue marriage license and she still refused? Do we have to follow an order of a Federal judge if we feel the order is wrong? If we refuse to follow the order than don’t we have to accept the consequences?

    Like

      • August 12th 2015 she was in front of that judge after the ACLU filed a suit against her on behave of four couples to do her job and issue licenses. Here is a quote from the article and link to the news article. She is in violation of the court order as of August 12th. She had refused to issue license since June when the Supreme Court ruled. Eventually she refused to issue any marriage licenses at all. Part of her job is to issue marriage license and she was not doing that part of her job and she was actively preventing others from doing their jobs although others were willing to issue licenses. She was obstructing. The judge warned her what the consequences would be if she failed to comply with his court order.

        “The injunction came from a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of four Rowan Co. same-sex couples to whom Davis would not issue licenses.”

        http://www.whas11.com/story/news/2015/08/12/rowan-co-clerk-ordered-issue-marriage-licenses/31564941/

        Like

        • Here is a link to the actual court case she is violating.

          Like

        • It turns out that I was correct. This morning her lawyer explained what happened. Yes, those couples sought to file, however, before their full filing was turned in, the judge hauled her into court. Very improper. I’m not privy to the proceedings, but nearest I can tell he mitigated it himself. No jury, just a decision. That’s according to her lawyer, and it explains why that document you sent via a “News Outlet,” may not tell the whole story…..

          Something’s amiss here. Pretty sure of it!

          Like

      • She wasn’t in court as a private citizen but as an elected government official. She’s refusing to do her legally assigned job. Contempt of court is just that and she has the ability to halt her legal punishment by doing the job she is paid to do by the 23,000 taxpayers of her county. God neither hired her nor signs her paycheck.

        Like

        • You mean we can throw people in jail if they don’t do their job and we elect them? Does that include Obama who has never passed a budget in 7 years and is passing a treaty with Iran without 2/3 consent of the Senate as required? Obama is actually in contempt of court himself. Can we throw him in jail without bail too? Her job isn’t handing out gay marriage licenses by the way. Show me that in her job description. The Kentucky Constitution outlaws gay marriage. You really have an agenda and you don’t care how you meet it or what crimes are committed by government to get you there.

          Like

          • Congress passes the budget not Obama. Congress literally has been voting on the budget….congress also has to pass the iran treaty…which they are moving to vote on.

            Like

          • True. To be more clear, Obama has been a constant thorn in the side of getting a budget passed. He keeps submitting ridiculous budgets to Congress. The Senate, not all of Congress, needs to pass the Iran treaty, with 2/3 consent.

            Like

          • Yes, you can bring a lawsuit against them to force them to do their job. Her job is to hand out marriage licenses which she refused to do, all marriage licenses. She was being sued by both straight and gay couples. GO read the lawsuit!

            Like

          • Gay Marriage is the law of the land. Period. Issuing marriage licenses is part of her job description and that’s a fact. Straight or gay is irrelevant.

            Like

          • Really? What law of the land is gay marriage? When did this vote come up in Congress? When did marriage appear in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution? I don’t think you know what “law” means.

            Like

        • Can we also throw every state elected official in jail who refuses to give out gun permits? We shouldn’t even need permits. They are violating our 2nd Amendment rights all across the country. It’s their job to hand out those permits. Bearing arms is a RIGHT. Marriage is not.

          Like

        • Mis qouted obama does have a big say in budget but so does congress. They both submit budgets and are supposed to work together i would say both sides are at fault. Whole lot of finger pointing and not enough action.

          Like

    • The problem is that an activist judge hauled her into court about a month ago to force his beliefs on her. She has been denied due process, especially “trial by Jury,” and Habeas Corpus.

      Liked by 1 person

        • Interesting. I went to the court site, and can’t seem to get that document. Will try later. You may be right. Let me ask you this; The original Supreme Court ruling made provision for “Right of Conscience” for Priests. In other words they held that it is OK for gay to marry, but due to conscientious objection priests were not forced into a participatory role. Would that hold for a “Justice of the Peace?” Just so we’re clear, I don’t care if Gays get married. The Constitution does not forbid it. Personally, I believe the Government shouldn’t be in the bedroom, period…….
          Most people don’t know that marriage licenses originated as a discriminatory act. Most specifically towards Whites marrying Blacks, something for which the 14th Amendment was written in the first place. Maybe we need to just remove the Marriage License Statutes all together????

          Like

          • I don’t think States should be in a marriage business either. It is a religious rite and should be up to the religion to define it and administer it.

            A justice of the peace is an elected official with the responsibilities to carry out the duties of the office. And they have to administer their role equally to all. It is not comparable with a Priest or Minister who can be more discerning. A State Official is held to the Law of the State, a Priest is not. If the State Official cannot carry out the requirements and duties of the office then they should probably step down, not run or allow someone else to take over those duties.

            In the court case the Governor of Kansas is quoted on how the State of Kansas is responding to the SCOTUS ruling effected marriage in that state and how the clerks were to adjust and abide by the law. If they were not able to do so, then they were asked to step down. Hopefully that link will work and you will be able to read the court case yourself. It is very informative.

            Like

        • Just tried searching that court website with your document case numbers. Won’t produce any renderings. Are you sure that filing is legit? It came from ABC news or something. Would love to see the actual ruling and procedure documents. Such as; “Was she allowed a Jury Trial or was it mitigated?”

          Like

          • Where did you get the notion that a judge can order her around? That is the core of this issue. You seem to be willing to relinquish your liberty to the whim of a judge. I’m not. More and more people are growing tired of this judicial tyranny. We’ve had it.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s