CDZ Kim Davis And The Rule Of Law

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This is the Clean Debate Zone. Stop calling each other names.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is so simple.

The US-Constitution is THE law of the land, not Kim Davis. Not Mike Huckabee. Not Calgary Cruz.

The SCOTUS is charged with interpreting the law and passing judgement in cases that make it all the way to the SCOTUS.

That's how it works.

If you don't like it, there are banana republics all over the place willing to take in people who cannot understand how a consitutional Republic based on indirect Democracy works.

Thanks, and have a nice day.

Correct.

The Supreme Court is authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI to determine what the Constitution means, to determine the constitutionality of Federal, state, and local measures, where rulings of the Supreme Court become the law of the land – binding on state and local governments, and state officials, such as Kim Davis.

Davis consequently violated the rule of law when she refused to comply with a just, proper, and Constitutional court order instructing her to fulfill her oath to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

People have a right to their religious conscience.

They do not have a right to impose their conscience upon other people.

Especially agents of the government.

No... A "religious conscience" is totally meaningless to grant me as a right. It's akin to saying I have "free speech" as long as I don't vocalize, write or otherwise express it.

Kim Davis is not imposing her conscience on anyone, she is not saying anyone has to follow her conscience or abide by her religion. She is not saying Kentucky can't change it's law. She is not saying the SCOTUS must change it's ruling. She's not standing in the way of gay people getting married anywhere else. She's not even standing in the way of them getting married in her jurisdiction, she just can't sign the authorization for it or authorize others to do so on her behalf.

She did deny people - same sex as well as straight couples - marriage licenses. She did not allow her deputies to sign, as she could have.

She *did* impose her religious view on those taxpayers who pay her salary.

In doing so, she was brought to court and found in contempt.

The judge offered her an accommodation - let the deputies sign.

That's not good enough for her. Her name is *not* on the certificate, and she's still moaning.

And you know what - the judge told her to not interfere with people being granted licenses - but you can bet yer sweet ass, she's going to.

Watch.

She did not "deny" anyone anything.

She did not "impose" anything on anyone.

She is not obligated to accommodate anything in her name.

You can bet your sweet ass that people aren't going to accept violation of their religious freedom.

Incorrect.

Davis attempted to follow a state measure invalidated by the Supreme Court, a measure, like all other similar invalid measures, determined to be un-Constitutional because it denied same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law.

When Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, she in fact denied gay Americans their right to access state marriage law, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Boss]

She did not "deny" anyone anything.

Why are you blatantly lying about something the entire world knows just happened?

Why don't you decide whether you'd like to be a debater or hide behind your moderator title?

If "Gay Marriage" is all of a sudden some "right" that cannot be denied, then it shouldn't require Ms. Davis to sign her name to authorize it. She shouldn't be obligated to authorize anything she doesn't condone or approve of. If you don't like it, petition to have her removed from office, run against her in the next election or change your stupid law so that she isn't compromised with regard to her Constitutional rights.

 

[Boss]

attempted to follow a state measure invalidated by the Supreme Court

Which they have NO Constitutional power to do. See the 10th Amendment.

 

[Boss]

...she is infringing on the Legal Right to a Marriage license...

You have no legal right to a marriage license, if you did, someone wouldn't need to issue one.

Then let's get rid of marriage licenses altogether. I'd be fine with that. I've never understood why you need permission from the government to get married in the first place.

I agree. I've always supported this position on the issue. The government has no business defining marriage gay or traditional. But the SCOTUS thinks they do and so they have now ruled and their ruling conflicts with someone's Constitutional right to freedom of religion. Now we have a real problem and one that isn't easily resolved. You cannot compel Ms. Davis to sign her name to something she doesn't religiously condone or approve of. It's against her Constitutional rights.

 

[Boss]

Davis consequently violated the rule of law when she refused to comply with a just, proper, and Constitutional court order instructing her to fulfill her oath to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Sorry, but the law is bad if it requires Ms. Davis to sign her name authorizing something she doesn't religiously condone. Change the law. You will not demand she abandon her religious beliefs to conform to your law.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You cannot compel Ms. Davis to sign her name to something she doesn't religiously condone or approve of. It's against her Constitutional rights.

You can because she is the government and the government cannot discriminate.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Davis consequently violated the rule of law when she refused to comply with a just, proper, and Constitutional court order instructing her to fulfill her oath to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Sorry, but the law is bad if it requires Ms. Davis to sign her name authorizing something she doesn't religiously condone. Change the law. You will not demand she abandon her religious beliefs to conform to your law.

Her religious beliefs are irrelevant in her capacity as an agent of the government. The government cannot discriminate

 

[paperview]

You cannot compel Ms. Davis to sign her name to something she doesn't religiously condone or approve of. It's against her Constitutional rights.

You can because she is the government and the government cannot discriminate.

Or she can do the honorable thing and resign.

 

[paperview]

When asked about his faith, and doing the duties of a public officer:

"But if the time should ever come ...when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same." - John F. Kennedy

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

BOSS SAID:

"You cannot compel Ms. Davis to sign her name to something she doesn't religiously condone or approve of. It's against her Constitutional rights."

Incorrect.

Again, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play.

As the US District Court held yesterday:

“The Court therefore has the ability to grant Davis’ Motion, but only to the extent that she seeks to compel enforcement of her free exercise and free speech rights under the First Amendment. However, Davis has failed to convince the Court that such relief is appropriate.”

http://files.eqcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/103-ORDER-denying-injunction-pending-appeal.pdf

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...she is infringing on the Legal Right to a Marriage license...

You have no legal right to a marriage license, if you did, someone wouldn't need to issue one.

Then let's get rid of marriage licenses altogether. I'd be fine with that. I've never understood why you need permission from the government to get married in the first place.

No one needs permission from the government to get married.

They need it to get civilly(government) married.

and that is what everyone is referring to

 

[Boss]

Davis consequently violated the rule of law when she refused to comply with a just, proper, and Constitutional court order instructing her to fulfill her oath to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Sorry, but the law is bad if it requires Ms. Davis to sign her name authorizing something she doesn't religiously condone. Change the law. You will not demand she abandon her religious beliefs to conform to your law.

Her religious beliefs are irrelevant in her capacity as an agent of the government. The government cannot discriminate

The government can also not violate her Constitutional rights.

So there is a problem. Fix it!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Davis consequently violated the rule of law when she refused to comply with a just, proper, and Constitutional court order instructing her to fulfill her oath to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Sorry, but the law is bad if it requires Ms. Davis to sign her name authorizing something she doesn't religiously condone. Change the law. You will not demand she abandon her religious beliefs to conform to your law.

Her religious beliefs are irrelevant in her capacity as an agent of the government. The government cannot discriminate

The government can also not violate her Constitutional rights.

So there is a problem. Fix it!

Her rights are not being violated. She is violating the law

 

[Boss]

BOSS SAID:

"You cannot compel Ms. Davis to sign her name to something she doesn't religiously condone or approve of. It's against her Constitutional rights."

Incorrect.

Again, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play.

As the US District Court held yesterday:

“The Court therefore has the ability to grant Davis’ Motion, but only to the extent that she seeks to compel enforcement of her free exercise and free speech rights under the First Amendment. However, Davis has failed to convince the Court that such relief is appropriate.”

http://files.eqcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/103-ORDER-denying-injunction-pending-appeal.pdf

I don't care what your court rules. Ms. Davis can't be compelled to abandon her religion in order to comply with government OR courts. I don't know what you people think "religious freedom" is, or means, but I have a feeling you are about to find out with a Constitutional schooling.

 

[Boss]

Davis consequently violated the rule of law when she refused to comply with a just, proper, and Constitutional court order instructing her to fulfill her oath to obey and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Sorry, but the law is bad if it requires Ms. Davis to sign her name authorizing something she doesn't religiously condone. Change the law. You will not demand she abandon her religious beliefs to conform to your law.

Her religious beliefs are irrelevant in her capacity as an agent of the government. The government cannot discriminate

The government can also not violate her Constitutional rights.

So there is a problem. Fix it!

Her rights are not being violated. She is violating the law

The only reason her rights have not been violated is because she refused to let them be.

Rosa Parks and MLK also "violated the law" ....not impressed.

 

[Boss]

When asked about his faith, and doing the duties of a public officer:

"But if the time should ever come ...when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same." - John F. Kennedy

Problem is, the nation agrees with Ms. Davis. But this isn't really about polls. I hardly doubt JFK would have resigned over the Civil Rights movement instead of supporting MLKs right to protest through civil disobedience.

You have an unjust law... thanks to a lawless SCOTUS ruling. This cannot stand.

 

[Boss]

You cannot compel Ms. Davis to sign her name to something she doesn't religiously condone or approve of. It's against her Constitutional rights.

You can because she is the government and the government cannot discriminate.

Or she can do the honorable thing and resign.

Nope. She shouldn't have to make the choice to either abandon her religion or resign. We don't live in 1940s Russia. Anthony Kennedy created this problem, maybe Anthony Kennedy should resign?

 

[G.T.]

Lololol "this cannot stand!"

Mod Edit --- XXXXXX