... Other GOP presidential candidates also panned the decision.More (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/3/cruz-rips-jailing-kim-davis-this-is-not-america/)
“I think it is absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberty,” Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky told CNN.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, in a statement, said that putting Ms. Davis in federal custody “removes all doubt of the criminalization of Christianity in our country.”
“This is a reckless, appalling, out-of-control decision that undermines the Constitution of the United States and our fundamental right to religious liberty,” he said.
I stand with Ted Cruz. :patriot:
I do, but not here. Cruz is a lawyer, a Constitutional lawyer at that. As such, he's sworn to uphold the law. He just gave the opposition an issue.
So tell me exactly what LAW this County clerk has violated! I don't think there is one but I'm open to being corrected.
BigUn, I believe the issue is contempt of court. The judge ordered her to issue the marriage licenses, she refused to comply.
I don't intend to hijack a thread but Matt Walsh has written a thoughtful piece today in support of Kim. I won't quote it but it's worth a read.
"Kim Davis Broke an Illegitimate, Evil Law, and God Bless Her for It"
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/kim-davis-broke-an-illegitimate-evil-law-and-god-bless-her-for-it/
BigUn, I believe the issue is contempt of court. The judge ordered her to issue the marriage licenses, she refused to comply.
I don't intend to hijack a thread but Matt Walsh has written a thoughtful piece today in support of Kim. I won't quote it but it's worth a read.
"Kim Davis Broke an Illegitimate, Evil Law, and God Bless Her for It"
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/kim-davis-broke-an-illegitimate-evil-law-and-god-bless-her-for-it/
Before judging this woman too harshly I hope people will stop and recall that Martin Luther King Jr defied Jim Crow laws.
First amendment was written to protect religious liberties. An assistant or other clerk could have issued a license and preserved Kim Davis' right to religious conscience. But, the left needs their scapegoat.
Before judging this woman too harshly I hope people will stop and recall that Martin Luther King Jr defied Jim Crow laws.
First amendment was written to protect religious liberties. An assistant or other clerk could have issued a license and preserved Kim Davis' right to religious conscience. But, the left needs their scapegoat.
Interesting. We have conservatives supporting a woman who is defying a Supreme Court ruling, which is, effectively, law.
The same conservatives who squeal about Obama's defiance of the law.
The law is the law. We either uphold the laws until we can overturn them, or we're as corrupt as Obama.
One of her subordinates is now granting those licenses. So, what has she gained? Other than a nod from an opportunist like Ted Cruz?
Interesting. We have conservatives supporting a woman who is defying a Supreme Court ruling, which is, effectively, law.
The same conservatives who squeal about Obama's defiance of the law.
The law is the law. We either uphold the laws until we can overturn them, or we're as corrupt as Obama.
One of her subordinates is now granting those licenses. So, what has she gained? Other than a nod from an opportunist like Ted Cruz?
The word "before" qualified the word "judging." In other words, stop to consider (my point) prior to judging.
Oy vey.
The law goes against her RELIGIOUS BELIEFS which is (supposed to be) protected under the 1st amendment.
Interesting. We have conservatives supporting a woman who is defying a Supreme Court ruling, which is, effectively, law.
The same conservatives who squeal about Obama's defiance of the law.
The law is the law. We either uphold the laws until we can overturn them, or we're as corrupt as Obama.
One of her subordinates is now granting those licenses. So, what has she gained? Other than a nod from an opportunist like Ted Cruz?
If this was about religious liberty, Davis would have resigned. But, instead, she acts as if she is above the law. She forbade any of her people to issue licenses, until she was carted off to the hoosegow. Now one of her subordinates is issuing the licenses.
It's no surprise to see a Democrat imitate the lawbreaker-in-chief.
The law goes against her RELIGIOUS BELIEFS which is (supposed to be) protected under the 1st amendment.
If we are going to defend this lady's right to "follow her beliefs", can I see an equally spirited defense being made in this thread (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,179381.0.html) please?
Marco Rubio stands by Kentucky clerk who won’t issue gay marriage licenses (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/09/03/marco-rubio-stands-by-kentucky-clerk-who-wont-issue-gay-marriage-licenses/).
Shocking?
I, for one, am not arguing about her religious beliefs one way or the other. What I AM arguing about is the LAW that this woman swore to follow and I see no law on the books in the state of Kentucky that says she is authorized to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple!
Federal law takes precedence over state law, and, you know very well Bigun, that SC decisions are effectively law.
This woman should have stood aside and let her associates issue the licenses. But she put the weight of her office behind her decision, which was a huge mistake.
NO I do not know that! Show me the federal LAW - passed by congress and signed by the president - that trumps Kentucky state law!
Marco Rubio stands by Kentucky clerk who won’t issue gay marriage licenses (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/09/03/marco-rubio-stands-by-kentucky-clerk-who-wont-issue-gay-marriage-licenses/).
Shocking?
No. Pandering.Yes. And it's more ammunition for those who claim that the Republican party has been taken over by religious zealots.
It's what politicians do.
Interesting. We have conservatives supporting a woman who is defying a Supreme Court ruling, which is, effectively, law.
The same conservatives who squeal about Obama's defiance of the law.
The law is the law. We either uphold the laws until we can overturn them, or we're as corrupt as Obama.
One of her subordinates is now granting those licenses. So, what has she gained? Other than a nod from an opportunist like Ted Cruz?
SC overturns laws all the time. When it does, those laws are null. You know that, Bigun. Or you should.
Other presidential hopefuls who have, so far, hopped on this Pandrama Express include Huckabee, Paul, and Jindal.
Machiavelli, would you also explain how asking for equal application of the law for all is an example of religious zealotry?
The law goes against her RELIGIOUS BELIEFS which is (supposed to be) protected under the 1st amendment.
If we are going to defend this lady's right to "follow her beliefs", can I see an equally spirited defense being made in this thread (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,179381.0.html) please?
One's religious beliefs end where another's begin. That is what is missing here. Those that seek a marriage certificate also have religious beliefs that say it is allowable. Why should their religious beliefs be infringed?
No one is forcing Kim Davis to work at a job her conscience clearly keeps her from doing. Any more than a clerk at Hobby Lobby is forced to continue working at a place that might violate their conscience.
I don't see that "same sex marriage" is a religious belief; it is purely sexual preference.
And that's your belief. Gays will probably disagree with you.
I've heard of the Catholic, Episcopal, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Budhist, Lutheran, Muslim, Mormon etc., etc., religion but I have never heard of the "Gay" religion.
NO I do not know that! Show me the federal LAW - passed by congress and signed by the president - that trumps Kentucky state law!
NO I do not know that! Show me the federal LAW - passed by congress and signed by the president - that trumps Kentucky state law!
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America
(emphasis mine)
I have to side with the court on this one. If this lady has a religious conviction against issuing marriage licenses to gays then she should resign her post. As a public official she is duty-bound to uphold the law, and gay marriage is the legitimate law whether she likes it or not. Jesus himself admonished us to "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." (Mark 12:17) If she was a minister of a church and refused to marry gays under the freedom of religion clause, I'd have a completely different view of the matter. But she works for Caesar and therefore is duty-bound to Caesar, whether Caesar be right or wrong.
I do think putting her in jail was a mistake as it will only serve to make her a martyr and stir things up unnecessarily. But she is in contempt and there are consequences for that. Now if only the people in the federal system would enforce the immigration laws as vigorously as they enforce stuff like this.
I have to agree Victor...she needs to look for another job imho cause she isn't gonna change the law all by herself.
I love it when we agree. Let's hug!
If we are going to defend this lady's right to "follow her beliefs", can I see an equally spirited defense being made in this thread (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,179381.0.html) please?
I've heard of the Catholic, Episcopal, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Budhist, Lutheran, Muslim, Mormon etc., etc., religion but I have never heard of the "Gay" religion.
Still nothing.
I guess it really is more "My ox got gored" here than actual 1st Amendment support. **nononono*
Are you serious?
Put this in your pipe and smoke it:
What part of "shall be the supreme law of the land" do you not understand?
I have to agree Victor...she needs to look for another job imho cause she isn't gonna change the law all by herself.That's the bottom line. To take her stand, she'll probably have to give up the job. Or she can call it civil disobedience (MLK, anyone?) and sit in the pokey.
So show me the law! The one passed by Congress and signed into law by the president! That's all I'm asking here.
As you well know SCOTUS nor any other court does NOT get to write law! Judges are not Kings!
/snicker
Funny how you respect the Constitution only when it tickles your fancy. The Constitution does not permit states to refuse to recognize same-sex couples. That's the only law that's needed, and the Constitution is most definitely the supreme law of the land. Or does that only apply to Obama?
But she works for Caesar and therefore is duty-bound to Caesar, whether Caesar be right or wrong.
So elements of the Old Testament shall be our guides, like polygamy, very young wives, etc.?
Utterly shocking that such an intelligent man would make such a statement without qualification. Nuremberg, anyone?
Btw, one of the major issues connected with this case is whether or not marriage belongs to Caesar or to God. Theist such as myself would argue He established it at the beginning of humankind (Genesis 2:24 & Mark 10:6-8) and the state's role, even if it has one, is to legally recognize the union and support it in public policy.
So elements of the Old Testament shall be our guides, like polygamy, very young wives, etc.?
I'm not sure what you mean about "very young wives", though perhaps you can explain that or document it. As to polygamy, strikes me that the statement, "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." shows multiple wives was not God's plan even if the patriarchs practiced it.I think the prevailing opinion at the time of our Founding was separation of church and state, to the extent there would NOT be a particular denomination or church which would dominate.
You might try reading Scripture. You will find out quickly the patriarchs, from Abraham through to his greatgrandsons, were not perfect. Just like you and me.
Besides which you completely missed my point (purposefully?). What I was questioning is whether marriage belongs to Caesar or to God. The prevailing opinion today, as illustrated by the Davis case, is Caesar. This is actually a modern invention, and is yet another example of how all things are becoming secularized and controlled by the modern god, the state. I reject such a notion.
I think the prevailing opinion at the time of our Founding was separation of church and state, to the extent there would NOT be a particular denomination or church which would dominate.
Certain Christian denomination wish to impose their beliefs, on everybody else as well.
It would be one thing, if they sought only to control the lives of their congregations. But it is quite another to wish to control everybody; their own members and non-members alike.
Certain Christian denomination wish to impose their beliefs, on everybody else as well.Which ones?
Utterly shocking that such an intelligent man would make such a statement without qualification. Nuremberg, anyone?
Btw, one of the major issues connected with this case is whether or not marriage belongs to Caesar or to God. Theist such as myself would argue He established it at the beginning of humankind (Genesis 2:24 & Mark 10:6-8) and the state's role, even if it has one, is to legally recognize the union and support it in public policy.
Cruz is a lawyer, a Constitutional lawyer at that. As such, he's sworn to uphold the law. He just gave the opposition an issue.And they're starting to go after him on it: Ted Cruz indifferent to rule of law in Kim Davis case (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ted-cruz-indifferent-rule-law-kim-davis-case)
And they're starting to go after him on it: Ted Cruz indifferent to rule of law in Kim Davis case (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ted-cruz-indifferent-rule-law-kim-davis-case)
No he isn't! Not at all! But he does understand that 5 unelected lawyers don't get to be King of America!
I think the prevailing opinion at the time of our Founding was separation of church and state, to the extent there would NOT be a particular denomination or church which would dominate.
Certain Christian denomination wish to impose their beliefs, on everybody else as well.
It would be one thing, if they sought only to control the lives of their congregations. But it is quite another to wish to control everybody; their own members and non-members alike.
Gay marriage is against the law in Kentucky. She took an oath to uphold the laws in the state of Kentucky. The Feds are overriding this issue - but I don't see them exercising this same power in regards to states that have legalised marijuana.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."
Gay marriage is against the law in Kentucky. She took an oath to uphold the laws in the state of Kentucky. The Feds are overriding this issue - but I don't see them exercising this same power in regards to states that have legalised marijuana.I understand there's a sheriff who refuses to process carry permit applications because guns are bad, m'kay? Let's wait for the feds go after that sheriff for violating the Second Amendment. :whistle:
Here is the oath of office she swore in black and white:Quote"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."
Hmmm, let's see ...
what was that first bit there, something about, oh ...I will support the Constitution of the United States
Since the Constitution now protects same-sex marriage, she is duty-bound to issue licenses to same-sex couples. And what Kentucky state law has to say about the matter is utterly irrelevant because the Constitution is, to quote the language, "the supreme law of the land."
Show me that part of the Constitution in writhing please!
The due process and equal protection clauses.
You sound just like Barack Obama when he asserted that nothing in the Constitution forbad him from declaring Congress in recess unilaterally because they weren't sitting on a particular day and then claiming that his appointments were valid recess appointments.
I find it utterly fascinating that someone who has for so long decried Obama's violation of the Constitution is so ready and willing to ignore that same Constitution just because he hates homosexuals.
Your beef and that of this judge is then with the State of Kentucky and NOT Kim Davis!
The due process and equal protection clauses.
You sound just like Barack Obama when he asserted that nothing in the Constitution forbad him from declaring Congress in recess unilaterally because they weren't sitting on a particular day and then claiming that his appointments were valid recess appointments.
I find it utterly fascinating that someone who has for so long decried Obama's violation of the Constitution is so ready and willing to ignore that same Constitution just because he hates homosexuals.
Those parts of the constitution have been there for a VERY long time now but marriage between one man and one woman REMAINS the law in the state of Kentucky and many other places! 5 unelected lawyers in black robes do not get to rewrite those laws!
Uh huh.
So you're also saying that you still believe racial segregation is the law of the land because, well, those clauses were in the Constitution for a long time before the Supreme Court "changed the law" by deciding that the Constitution forbade racial segregation.
You can spam every thread you want, but the more spam you post, the more foolish you make yourself appear.
YOU and these rouge courts are what look and are foolish!
I find NOTHING in the Constitution that says anything about a grant of power to the federal government regarding the institution of marriage! Therefore they have no say about it at all! That power remains with the states!
Gee, the Constitution doesn't say anything about having separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks, and yet, reasonable, yea, even barely rational, people agree that the Constitution forbids such segregation.
No but actual LAWS do!
Guys?
(http://mediacom.co.uk/media/3150306/snickers.jpg)
:tongue2:
:laugh:
I agree with both of you.
My brother is right in that she was applying state law and the law which "supercedes" State law is unwritten.
I'm also of the mind that if you take coin to do a job you do all of it - even the bits you personally disagree with.
Bull. My beef is with a government official who is using her office to impose her private religious beliefs on private citizens.
I don't see that in this case, Kim Davis is trying to control anyone's life but her own. She is simply following her Christian beliefs and values based on the teachings of the Bible. She shouldn't be forced to issue a license to a gay couple when the union of same sex is considered an abomination in the Bible. Perhaps most importantly she should have protection of her religious beliefs under the first amendment; instead she was thrown in jail.
The Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law, but they CANNOT make or create new laws, nor can they amend laws or the Constitution.
As for Ted Cruz and reading the many (now famous) Supreme Court cases that he has won and his respect to uphold the Constitution, along with the other justices who dissented against this ruling, this "controversy" was bound to continue and many see it as changing law rather than interpreting the law.
----------
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) claims the recent Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage and Obamacare are the "very definition of tyranny."
The 2016 presidential candidate, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, convened a hearing Wednesday to investigate what he called "abuses" by the highest court in the land.
"If any of us believes in democracy, in the constitutional rule of law, then whether we agree or disagree with a policy ... we should be horrified at the notion that five unelected judges can seize authority from the American people," he said.
"We did not establish philosopher kings in this country," Cruz added, before calling for term limits on Supreme Court justices.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-gay-marriage_55b00157e4b07af29d57677c
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/an-angry-ted-cruz-wants-to-rewrite-the-constitution-to-bring-back-same-sex-marriage-bans/
Just made the same comment on another thread so please forgive the redundancy. It seems this may be a case where the media has created a completely different narrative. There were some interesting comments by her lawyer on CNN this morning IF true (emphasis on IF).
Apparently Ms. Davis, a Democrat, does not oppose gay marriage. She also wasn't refusing to issue marriage licenses to just gay people but all marriage licenses. Her argument, the ruling took away the authority of her office and rested it with the State therefore, she wanted her name removed from the certificates and they be issued by the State, not the clerk. That was it. It wasn't opposition to gay marriage. (IF true, we know how some lawyers are).
How did she "impose" anything? She declined to act. How was that imposing anything?
SCALIA IN GAY MARRIAGE RULING DISSENT: WHERE ARE THE PROTESTANTS?
by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D
In all the Sturm und Drang following last Friday’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that discovered a right to same-sex marriage in the American Constitution, a fascinating and disturbing observation by Justice Antonin Scalia was largely overlooked: U.S. Protestants had no say whatsoever in the new social order enacted by the Court.
In his nine-page dissent, Scalia ripped into the majority opinion, calling it a “judicial Putsch” that poses a “threat to American democracy.” He added that a “system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”
The Court’s “naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power” bulldozed the right of the People to self-government, said Scalia, who then turned to the peculiarly unrepresentative composition of the Supreme Court itself.
Scalia noted that “the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America.”
“Take, for example, this Court,” he said, “which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east-and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between.”
Scalia then observed that not “a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination” is to be found on the Court, which currently consists of six Catholics and three Jews.
How can such an elite, homogeneous committee presume to legislate over a constituency that finds itself as wholly unrepresented as do American Protestants? he suggested.
“The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges,” Scalia continued. “But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis.”
To underscore the gravity of the Court’s action, Scalia compared it to England’s treatment of the American colonies before the war of independence. The justice said that in its hubris, Friday’s majority decision had perpetrated a more serious offense than the one that ignited the American Revolution.
Indeed, “to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation,” he said.
“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” Scalia said.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/01/scalia-in-gay-marriage-ruling-dissent-where-are-the-protestants/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/01/scalia-in-gay-marriage-ruling-dissent-where-are-the-protestants/)
Scalia's full dissent for those who might care to read it: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf)
That is actually false.
She initially refused only homosexuals seeking marriage licenses. When the press scrutiny became too great, she changed her vtune to all marriage licenses.
You can bow to judicial tyranny all you please! I will not!
Are you kidding me? You really do not understand how the law, or a court, works, do you. (no, that isn't a question).
Firstly, as far as state courts are concerned, yes, judges do make law. Where do you think the common law came from? That was crafted out of whole cloth by judges, beginning many centuries ago in England. The English common law was carried over in this country at the Revolution (a natural thing to do since the colonies were British). That tradition continues in the various states to this day, and while it varies from state to state, most state courts - usually the highest court - do make new law.
Second, what you're calling "making law" is nothing of the sort. The Supreme Court took already existing written law - the Constitution - and decided how that written law applied to the particular set of facts before it.
Tell me, what does the phrase "due process of law" mean in this first section of the 14th Amendment:Quotenor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The amendment itself doesn't provide even a hint about what "due process of law" is, nor how much is sufficient (i.e., constitutionally mandated).
The only way that abstract clause gets any meaning is when a court has to decide whether, on the facts before it, "due process of law" was granted or denied. That necessarily means that the judge will end up holding that a particular action is, or is not, sufficient due process. If that set of facts has not been the subject of a court case before, or if the judge has been persuaded that the arguments for changing the result of the prior cases are strong enough, then the judge will be issuing an opinion that for the first time declares that "due process of law" requires X, or that it does not require X.
Whether one calls it how the law evolves, or "making law," that is the essential aspect of applying the law to the facts. For example, the first time the Supreme Court decided whether wiretaps violated the Fourth Amendment, it held that they did not. Olmstead v. United States (1928). It was a 5-4 decision and this is what Chief Justice Taft had to say about it:Quote"The amendment itself shows that the search is to be of material things - the person, the house, his papers or his effects. The amendment does not forbid what was done here for there was no seizure. The evidence was secured by the sense of hearing and that only. There was not entry of the houses. T he language of the amendment cannot be extended and expanded. Since the evidence was a conversation and no entry was made into Olmstead's home, there was therefore no violation of his rights against unreasonable search and seizure."
However, the Court ultimately decided that the better arguments favored protecting communications under the Fourth Amendment, although it took until 1967, in the case of Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
So, at what point did the Supreme Court "make law"? The Fourth Amendment itself doesn't expressly cover wiretaps, or even eavesdropping, so was it making law when it said that the Fourth Amendment did not protect telephonic conversations? Or was it making law when it reversed itself 39 years later and said that the Fourth Amendment did protect telephonic conversations?
Why are you listening to an unelected busybody who can only provide opinions (as you state so often)?
Railing against the Supreme court... and then citing them as support for your disregard *OF* them... tends to cancel your argument out.
I tire of this game. Whak-a-mole gets boring quickly. I'll just repost what I already posted elsewhere (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,179666.msg708111.html#msg708111) because it addresses the same point:
The amendment itself doesn't provide even a hint about what "due process of law" is, nor how much is sufficient (i.e., constitutionally mandated).
The only way that abstract clause gets any meaning is when a court has to decide whether, on the facts before it, "due process of law" was granted or denied. That necessarily means that the judge will end up holding that a particular action is, or is not, sufficient due process. If that set of facts has not been the subject of a court case before, or if the judge has been persuaded that the arguments for changing the result of the prior cases are strong enough, then the judge will be issuing an opinion that for the first time declares that "due process of law" requires X, or that it does not require X.
Whether one calls it how the law evolves, or "making law," that is the essential aspect of applying the law to the facts. For example, the first time the Supreme Court decided whether wiretaps violated the Fourth Amendment, it held that they did not. Olmstead v. United States (1928). It was a 5-4 decision and this is what Chief Justice Taft had to say about it:
However, the Court ultimately decided that the better arguments favored protecting communications under the Fourth Amendment, although it took until 1967, in the case of Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
So, at what point did the Supreme Court "make law"? The Fourth Amendment itself doesn't expressly cover wiretaps, or even eavesdropping, so was it making law when it said that the Fourth Amendment did not protect telephonic conversations? Or was it making law when it reversed itself 39 years later and said that the Fourth Amendment did protect telephonic conversations?
Very good point!
:thumbsup:
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have.
So only lawyers, according to you, get to make the law, try the law and judge the law.
James Madison, who had just a little bit to do with the writing of our Constitution, had a little to say about that!
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ― James Madison, Federalist Papers
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law [e.g., the statute or treaty].
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.
It's his OPINION! The Majority had theirs and he has his! OPINIONS only! NOT law!
It's his OPINION! The Majority had theirs and he has his! OPINIONS only! NOT law!
You should seriously consider taking some sort of Law 101 course; I'm sure there are plenty available online that are decent and don't cost much.
A court's (or a judge's) opinion in a case is not the same thing as a private person's opinion on various and sundry matters. A judicial opinion is a term of art; it is the expression of the reasoning behind the judge's decision in a particular state. To those so inclined, a judicial opinion can be parsed into the binding portions, called the ratio decidendi, and the nonbinding portions, called the obiter dicta. The ratio decidendi is that set of arguments necessary to justify the decision. The obiter dicta is everything else and, while not binding, is usually a good indicator of how the judge (or court) might rule in a future case.
To put it simply, when a judge acts in a case, she (a) makes a decision, and (b) if she thinks it necessary, will issue a written document explaining why she made the decision the way she did. That explanation is termed the judge's "opinion" but it is not the same thing as the "opinion" a private individual expresses when he says, for example, "I think same-sex marriage should be illegal." The first - the judge's opinion - has binding legal effect and there are consequences for ignoring or flouting it. The second has no binding legal effect and, at most, has only persuasive value depending on the strength of the arguments expressed.
Perhaps you should have attend law school when they still taught the Constitution in those institutions rather than just case law as the do today!
BTW: Scalia is 100 % right in his dissent and the majority is 100% wrong in theirs!
Perhaps you should have attend law school when they still taught the Constitution in those institutions rather than just case law as the do today!Could you please cite the section of the U.S. Constitution which deals with marriages?
BTW: Scalia is 100 % right in his dissent and the majority is 100% wrong in theirs!
I learned under G. Robert Blakey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Robert_Blakey) at Notre Dame Law School, not some two-bit adjunct wannabe community organizer at a left-wing trade school. I am quite well-versed in the Constitution.
And just how do you think one learns about the Constitution other than by reading case law? Tell me - you're no wet-behind-the-ears fool - what does the phrase "due process of law" in the Fourteenth Amendment mean? How is it to be applied to any given case? What is "process of law"? What is the minimum amount that is "due" under the Constitution?
I am very mixed on this one.
First of all, she should NOT be jailed. However, she was elected to do a specific job and her job is to represent the office, not personal beliefs. She should have resigned as being unable to fulfill her job due to her beliefs when the job description changed. If she was unwilling to do that, like any employee or official, that would result in disciplinary action up to removal of office. The legal punishment against her through contempt and jailing has a big Constitutional problem due to Ex Post Facto restrictions. She came into office and agreed to the position, swearing to it, when it aligned with her beliefs. The requirements of the position changed after she came into office and those requirements conflicted with her beliefs. She shouldn't be held in any legal jeopardy because the requirements changed.
A good analogy would be a nurse being hired to care for elderly patients, when the law is changed requiring euthanasia of the terminally ill. If that conflicts with her beliefs, she should quit or leave the position. However, there is no legal justification to force her to continue the job under threat of imprisonment.
Could you please cite the section of the U.S. Constitution which deals with marriages?
Since you weighed in on Oceander's legal education in such a derogatory manner, what is yours?
Could you please cite the section of the U.S. Constitution which deals with marriages?
Her superiors repeated informed her of the changes pursuant to the issuance of marriage licenses. She had multiple chances to terminate her employment with the organization.
Then she should have been fired, impeached, or reassigned; not jailed.
SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that the Constitution requires that same-sex couples be allowed to marry no matter where they live and that states may no longer reserve the right only for heterosexual couples. However, in doing so they redefined what marriage is.
NOTHING in the Constitution justified that redefinition of marriage. The court imposed it's judgement on "policy" ( policy which has existed since the beginning of our history) which should have remained up to the people and their elected officials in their respective states.
Have to agree with that. Lost in all this, I think, is the real fount of all the disagreements: judicial imperiousness. This latest by the SC, and its broad acceptance, is just one more example of how we are ruled by an oligarchy. That is a far greater problem than the story of Kim Davis, even though her situation derives from it.
http://youtu.be/TadIXFpk3bw