LAWYER question: Ky clerk case

I haven't looked at the complaint or any written rulings in the case, but I would guess that the plaintiffs are alleging that the clerk is denying federally guaranteed civil rights under color of state law in violation of section 1983 of the federal civil rights act, 42 U.S.C. 1983. The federal court has jurisdiction over the federal civil rights claims.

While saying she won't do any marriage licenses would sound like she'd not discriminating, she's made it clear that she'd doing because she can't do it because of gay marriage, which according to the Supreme Court is the law of the land. She's openly defying federal law and courts, and you'd have to do some pretty elaborate mental gymnastics to come up with a reason besides gay marriage.

Civil rights is a constitutional issue and thus federal, and she's violated a federal statue, and also has defied multiple federal courts which is why she's being held in contempt.

Just did.

supremacy clause

Constitution > Fed Statute/Treaty> State Law

also she is in contempt too bad for her

Also Due Process Clause protects marriage as a fundamental right (held in 14 cases)

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

She shouldn't be denying people the right to marriage, and especially shouldn't be doing it when it violates the Constitution.

So they are relying on intent to give them jurisdiction.

Thanks for the imput.

asdfasfsdafsdfdasjlkf wrote:

Also Due Process Clause protects marriage as a fundamental right (held in 14 cases)

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

She shouldn't be denying people the right to marriage, and especially shouldn't be doing it when it violates the Constitution.

I don't think that's it. There are thousands of counties that theses individuals could have gone to get a marriage license.

Is Obama going to be arrested for ignoring immigration laws?

NonLawyer wrote:

asdfasfsdafsdfdasjlkf wrote:

Also Due Process Clause protects marriage as a fundamental right (held in 14 cases)

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

She shouldn't be denying people the right to marriage, and especially shouldn't be doing it when it violates the Constitution.

I don't think that's it. There are thousands of counties that theses individuals could have gone to get a marriage license.

So what if there are thousands of other counties?

If there are thousands of other counties which allow me to vote, does that mean my county can deny me the right to vote?

It is a fundamental right. I'm not 100% sure of the underlying law, but I wouldn't discount it as easily as you.

NonLawyer wrote:

asdfasfsdafsdfdasjlkf wrote:

Also Due Process Clause protects marriage as a fundamental right (held in 14 cases)

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

She shouldn't be denying people the right to marriage, and especially shouldn't be doing it when it violates the Constitution.

I don't think that's it. There are thousands of counties that theses individuals could have gone to get a marriage license.

But that is exactly it. People have the right to be married anywhere in the United States. They do not have to go to another county to do so. If the public school system in that county didn't want to accept blacks, would you say they have plenty of other counties they can go to school in? I hope not, but this is Lets Run...

Is he? wrote:

Is Obama going to be arrested for ignoring immigration laws?

The situation's a bit more complicated. Congress consistently does not give the executive enough money to go after all violators..This forces the executive to choose which parts of the law it will and which parts it won't enforce.

All recent Presidents have had to decide which parts of the immigration laws to enforce, and which to ignore.

Seriously, this is not simply liberal hooey. It's a sad fact that Congress tolerates a large undocumented/illegal immigrant population by refusing to spend enough money to do the job.

The Obama position is that this is effectively deciding to let these people stay. In that case, we should treat them more regularly.

Is he? wrote:

Is Obama going to be arrested for ignoring immigration laws?

No.

The POTUS has immunity from civil claims or prosecution for any acts in performance of or for particular functions of his office. This would include advising his AG on whether to enforce certain laws.

But it is wrote:

NonLawyer wrote:

I don't think that's it. There are thousands of counties that theses individuals could have gone to get a marriage license.

But that is exactly it. People have the right to be married anywhere in the United States. They do not have to go to another county to do so. If the public school system in that county didn't want to accept blacks, would you say they have plenty of other counties they can go to school in? I hope not, but this is Lets Run...

Ok, both of your examples are cases where people don't have the right to do something in other counties. You can only vote in the county you live in, except in Chicago. And you only legally have the right to go to public school in the school district you live in, or else you typically have to pay.

Marriage licenses can be obtained anywhere (except this county :) ). So its not like they where denied the right to get married if that is what they wanted, but of course its not what they really wanted, they really wanted to file a lawsuit and attract attention.

It is called the Constitution. It protects you everywhere in the US.

Can't you see the slippery slope in your argument? What is one county refuses. Then two, then ten, then . . . . if a county doesn't have abide by the Constitution then it may turn out no county does.

Marriage is a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and will not be denied to you simply because of your geography within this nation.

OP you asked your question multiple times and it has been answered by at least two lawyers, myself and Avacado - who is supremely qualified.So just do some more research based on our answers if you really want to know.

Avocado's Number wrote:

I haven't looked at the complaint or any written rulings in the case, but I would guess that the plaintiffs are alleging that the clerk is denying federally guaranteed civil rights under color of state law in violation of section 1983 of the federal civil rights act, 42 U.S.C. 1983. The federal court has jurisdiction over the federal civil rights claims.

She would have taken an "Oath of Office" to upholding the federal and state constitutions and laws She took the oath. She failed on her end of the deal.

askdfaslk;dfjlkas;fja wrote:

It is called the Constitution. It protects you everywhere in the US.

It doesn't protect me anywhere.

DiscoGary wrote:

askdfaslk;dfjlkas;fja wrote:

It is called the Constitution. It protects you everywhere in the US.

It doesn't protect me anywhere.

Yes because you understand the concept of the Constitution.

You make stuff up.

DiscoGary wrote:

askdfaslk;dfjlkas;fja wrote:

It is called the Constitution. It protects you everywhere in the US.

It doesn't protect me anywhere.

Ridiculous.

aslkdfjaslkdjflkasdjfk;ldjf wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

It doesn't protect me anywhere.

Yes because you don't understand the concept of the Constitution.

You make stuff up.

Corrected for accuracy.