Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes, she did. The laws were ruled un-Constitutional

Yes, but a SCOTUS ruling does not change the law. They only interpret constitutionality.

Do you honestly think if she did not 'break any laws' that she would not be in the slam as we speak?

She is in jail for civil contempt, not for breaking a law.

originally posted by: introvert
From the way I understand this, it is not law. The SCOTUS has ruled on the issue, but that does not change the law of the state she resides. State lawmakers have to change the law to fit the SCOTUS ruling. If they don't, people like this woman are not breaking the law by refusing to issue a licence, but are open to lawsuits that will have the SCOTUS ruling as precedence.

The Supreme Court's ruling (Obergefell v Hodges) invoked the 14th amendment and invalidated state's bans on same sex marriage. So, that part of the Kentucky law is invalid, as it violates the 14th amendment of the Constitution, which IS law.

The LAW being spoken about here is the 14th amendment, which prohibits states making laws that apply to some citizens, and not others. Marriage is a state law, so one that bans marriages to a gay people or black people, for example, is in violation of the Constitution.

Does that make sense?

Shouldn't they put her on a 24 hour watch?


Somebody may get in their and crucify her!...
imagine they go in there and she's nailed a cross!

a reply to: Kryties

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the US Constitution considered law? Or is this "14th Amendment" just a bit that can be ignored?

Yes. The state law needs to be changed to reflect that.

I want to make it clear that I do not support what this woman did, but I want to point these things out because we may hear it from her and her attorneys in the near future.

originally posted by: beezzer
We now live in a society where government and government entities make decisions of what we eat, drink, smoke, and marry.

The government doesn't make choices on what I eat or drink, OR whom I marry. I make those choices. They have some work to do on the smoking thing, but that will come in time, I'm sure.

originally posted by: introvert

Yes. The state law needs to be changed to reflect that.

I want to make it clear that I do not support what this woman did, but I want to point these things out because we may hear it from her and her attorneys in the near future.

Im not having a go at you or anything, just to be clear

OK, so if the 14th Amendment says that the Kentucky state law is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court upheld that, does that not automatically invalidate the state law?

Genuine question, Im Aussie so I am not an expert on American law in this case.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Does that make sense?

Yes ma'am, it does. I understand that the law i unconstitutional, but the laws still have to be changed by the state to reflect that, correct?

You cannot fire an elected official. The state legislature has to convene and vote for their dismissal.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Did they convene and do that? I would think there should be an immediate meeting with legislatures at least within a week of any elected official who blatantly refuses to apply a law. Hasn't this been going on for awhile now?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

She's done nothing except become another martyr for the persecution-complex of the Christian Right. Hopefully they will put someone in the position that will actually do their job.

It's funny that to left wingers, everyone's persecutions are real, except for the people that left wingers hate. Then suddenly its a "persecution complex".

a reply to: Kryties

OK, so if the 14th Amendment says that the Kentucky state law is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court upheld that, does that not automatically invalidate the state law?

No. It makes the law unconstitutional and demands it be changed, but the Supreme court can only interpret law, not make or change it. That is what legislatures do.

My understanding is that the Supreme Court ruled that the laws stating, "Marriage is only between one woman and one man" is unconstitutional. That nullifies the law immediately. No new law is needed to make same sex marriage legal, because once those laws are nullified, it automatically makes it legal.

Am I correct on this?

She can't be in line with the constitution and be adhering to Kentucky law at the same time. To say that she is just following the law in her state is saying that she is following an unconstitutional law, and according to
Constitution of these United States, Article VI, Section 2, she needs to follow the constitution, notwithstanding, or in spite of, any state law that states the contrary.

originally posted by: aethertek
Outstanding! The country needs to start pushing back against these religulous nutters attempting to implement their desire for theocracy.

Unless of course they are Muslims trying to kill people over cartoons. Then it's time to push back against free speech!

originally posted by: introvert
Yes, but a SCOTUS ruling does not change the law. They only interpret constitutionality.

They Supreme Court reaffirmed two clauses in the 14th Amendment.

Last time I checked the Constitution was the law.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

She's done nothing except become another martyr for the persecution-complex of the Christian Right. Hopefully they will put someone in the position that will actually do their job.

It's funny that to left wingers, everyone's persecutions are real, except for the people that left wingers hate. Then suddenly its a "persecution complex".

Christians are not being persecuted. They like to act like there is a "war on Jesus" in the US, but there isn't anything of the sort. They like to play the victim when individual liberty trumps their desire to force their beliefs down our throats.

originally posted by: introvert
I understand that the law i unconstitutional, but the laws still have to be changed by the state to reflect that, correct?

I think so. But that part is invalid, so shouldn't be followed. I imagine the law will change at the next meeting of the legislature (in January). But the fact that it's still "on the books" doesn't mean it can be used as an excuse to disobey the constitution and the orders off the governor of the state.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

She's done nothing except become another martyr for the persecution-complex of the Christian Right. Hopefully they will put someone in the position that will actually do their job.

It's funny that to left wingers, everyone's persecutions are real, except for the people that left wingers hate. Then suddenly its a "persecution complex".

Christians are not being persecuted. They like to act like there is a "war on Jesus" in the US, but there isn't anything of the sort. They like to play the victim when individual liberty trumps their desire to force their beliefs down our throats.

As someone who doesn't believe in religion, it sure looks like left wingers have made hatred against Christians main stream. You've rationalized it and convinced yourselves its anything but.

Your response is also eye rolling because it's left wingers that came out against freedom of speech when Muslims try to kill people over burned Korans and pictures of Mohamud. Then suddenly you see them as the persecuted and individual liberty as something that doesn't matter.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: introvert
Yes, but a SCOTUS ruling does not change the law. They only interpret constitutionality.

They Supreme Court reaffirmed two clauses in the 14th Amendment.

Last time I checked the Constitution was the law.

When the supreme court rules on an issue, does that automatically change the applicable laws in every state that does not currently have laws on the books that comply?

No, it does not. Laws have to reflect those rulings and abide by the constitution. But the SCOTUS rulings do not change or make laws. The legislature has to do that to comply.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
Did they convene and do that? I would think there should be an immediate meeting with legislatures at least within a week of any elected official who blatantly refuses to apply a law. Hasn't this been going on for awhile now?

Nope. They meet in January of 2016 and aren't willing to call a special session for this. I suspect the GOP legislature supports Davis and want to push the issue, but I don't know that.

Yes, you missed something. She is an elected official and it would be a long and drawn out process to remove her.

a reply to: DelMarvel

That doesn't seem right. So any elected official like her can hold the government hostage just because they refuse to apply a law? Seems like the law on elected officials needs to be changed. It's kind of like the law is protecting dictators.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: introvert
I understand that the law i unconstitutional, but the laws still have to be changed by the state to reflect that, correct?

I think so. But that part is invalid, so shouldn't be followed. I imagine the law will change at the next meeting of the legislature (in January). But the fact that it's still "on the books" doesn't mean it can be used as an excuse to disobey the constitution and the orders off the governor of the state.

Completely agree. That's why she is in jail for civil contempt, and not for violating the state's law.