LAWYER question: Ky clerk case

Some posters have given the correct answer, generally, but some clarification might help.

The clerk is not being criminally prosecuted. The judge, using something called his "inherent power," has put her in jail for disobeying a court order (otherwise known as an injunction).

I don't know the specifics of the case, but from the current posture, the following is readily inferable: the plaintiffs in this case sued the county and its officials for denying them a marriage license, and sought an order from the federal court that the county clerk issue them a license. Federal law, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment, as capably noted by others, includes among many other rights a right to marry whomever one chooses, and recently was read to also a right to marry someone of the same sex. When you sue someone alleging a violation of your federal rights you get to go to federal court, again as noted, under laws called sections 1331 and 1983. The defendant, likely sued in her official and individual capacities, likely raised as a defense her First Amendment right (or a comparable statutory right) to be free from compelled religious exercise or association. She lost at the district court level, lost at the appellate court level, and lost in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court, which then held a contempt hearing. The clerk remained steadfast in her refusal, the judge did not like that, and he tossed her in jail for ignoring his order.

She would not have been able to claim qualified immunity as a defense, because the suit likely only sought injunctive relief, among other reasons.

She also took an oath of office. She no ground to stand on to defend herself for denying marriage licenses. She needs to quit and find a job she can do that meets her special needs. County Clerk is not that job.

She is derelickting her dooty.

Thank you. Finally the correct answer. The plaintiffs are claiming infringement of their rights under the 14th Amendment, and federal court jurisdiction applies for federal questions under USC 1331 and 1343. I know "Nonlawyer" is a right-wing troll, but even the right-wing nut-job law foundation that is defending her isn't asserting a lack of federal jurisdiction. They're trying to win on freedom-of-religion grounds. Sorry to all right-wing nut jobs, but this is a losing case. 1st amendment protections are essentially about the government not infringing citizen rights, and she has a government job to issue marriage licenses. It's beyond implausible that a government official has a constitutionally-protected religious right to refuse to serve people that she objects to. You'll note that your legal heroes like the "brilliant" Scalia and the quietly "brilliant" Thomas (hiding his brilliance underneath his reticence, I'm sure), along with their hacks-in-arms Alito and Roberts, didn't come to her rescue. As politically-driven as those justices are, even they have limits it appears.

lawyer guy wrote:

federal question (fundamental due process right) is alleged on the face of the complaint, which is probably sufficient for federal court jurisdiction under 28 usc 1331

look at the context as to why marriage licenses are being denied as well as the factual posture of the case. it's a little absurd to raise the defense that the fact that all licenses are denied = non-discrimination under the circumstances surrounding this case.

if i recall correctly, kim davis started out discriminating, but then took a stronger stance and started denying all licenses

This.

Also-- please bear in mind that in almost all cases the freedom to practice your religion doesn't excuse you from complying with the law, no matter how old or well established that religion is.

For example, to this day, there are Mormons sects who believe that their religion encourages polygamy and Indian tribes whose religious practices include licking narcotics off of toads. Even though-- at least in the toad case-- those practices date to before the country was even founded, it is still a crime.

Can someone please explain to me why federal courts have the authority to enforce federal laws? Does this apply even to states' rights advocates in the confederacy?

Question: Is she still being paid while in jail?

I have no doubt that Kim Davis will garner the support of many Republican political and financial leaders and will actually come out of this financially ahead.

I can see donations starting to pour in for Kim. Possibly future speaking oo career opportunities.

This bigoted law breaker will be (mistakenly) celebrated by many as standing up for religious rights.

Sad.

NonThinker wrote:

Can someone please explain to me why federal courts have the authority to enforce federal laws? Does this apply even to states' rights advocates in the confederacy?

Not sure that you are phrasing your question correctly.

To answer your question as you wrote it-- of course federal courts have the authority to interpret federal laws. Although there are exceptions for certain subjects that have exclusive federal jurisdiction, state courts generally also have authority to interpret federal laws-- even the federal consitution itself. The courts are granted the authority to interpret the law by the constitution.

It's that whole executive/legislature/judiciary bit...

That said, I think you are asking why state laws can't be inconsistent with the federal constitution. If so-- that is in the Constitution itself. It's called the Supremacy Clause. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

4runner wrote:

Also-- please bear in mind that in almost all cases the freedom to practice your religion doesn't excuse you from complying with the law, no matter how old or well established that religion is.

Actually, there have been cases where religious beliefs have allowed people to disregard laws. People have been allowed to avoid the draft as "conscientious objectors" based on deeply held beliefs, and some religious groups were allowed to avoid Social Security taxes based on their religious affiliation.

In fact, to avoid paying Soc Sec there were two requirements:

1. That your religious organization had in place some system of caring for your own.

2. That your religion had to be in place for at least 20 years before the Soc Sec law was passed.

It's great that I am surrounded by Constitutional experts that know more than I do. I love learning new things.

Will one of you experts please tell me why these three elements of the Constitution don't protect me from Soc Sec, Medicare, ObamaCare, etc.

1. Article 1, Section 8 which lists the responsibilities delegated to the Federal government.

2. 10th Amendment which says all other responsibilities fall to the States or the People.

3. The oath that the President and all members of Congress take to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Since we are using the strictest interpretation of the Constitution to throw people in jail, I think it's important to know exactly what the rules are.

NonLawyer wrote:

So they are relying on intent to give them jurisdiction.

Thanks for the imput.

No. If she started refusing to grant marriage licenses last year before gay marriage was the law of the land, she still would've been held in contempt.

And one more thing. I don't know of any other case where an elected official was thrown in jail for refusing to do their job. Has that ever happened before?

If not, why not? A lot of elected officials take oaths. Is this the first time one of them refused to uphold a law?

Shouldn't the mayors of sanctuary cities be thrown in jail for refusing to uphold immigration laws?

DiscoGary wrote:

It's great that I am surrounded by Constitutional experts that know more than I do. I love learning new things.

Will one of you experts please tell me why these three elements of the Constitution don't protect me from Soc Sec, Medicare, ObamaCare, etc.

1. Article 1, Section 8 which lists the responsibilities delegated to the Federal government.

2. 10th Amendment which says all other responsibilities fall to the States or the People.

3. The oath that the President and all members of Congress take to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Since we are using the strictest interpretation of the Constitution to throw people in jail, I think it's important to know exactly what the rules are.

So you think she the laws shouldn't be enforce because they don't suit you.

That is the same argument liberals use.

You can't rise above partisan politics.

No surprise.

nsmsmsmsmmsmsmsms wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

It's great that I am surrounded by Constitutional experts that know more than I do. I love learning new things.

Will one of you experts please tell me why these three elements of the Constitution don't protect me from Soc Sec, Medicare, ObamaCare, etc.

1. Article 1, Section 8 which lists the responsibilities delegated to the Federal government.

2. 10th Amendment which says all other responsibilities fall to the States or the People.

3. The oath that the President and all members of Congress take to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Since we are using the strictest interpretation of the Constitution to throw people in jail, I think it's important to know exactly what the rules are.

So you think she the laws shouldn't be enforce because they don't suit you.

That is the same argument liberals use.

You can't rise above partisan politics.

No surprise.

So there's one person who doesn't know more than I do about the Constitution. I am disappointed but not discouraged. There are a lot more of you who seem to know everything about the law. Can any of you answer my question?

Remember, we're using the strictest interpretation of the Constitution now. We're putting people in jail based on it. This stuff matters.

DiscoGary wrote:

4runner wrote:

Also-- please bear in mind that in almost all cases the freedom to practice your religion doesn't excuse you from complying with the law, no matter how old or well established that religion is.

Actually, there have been cases where religious beliefs have allowed people to disregard laws. People have been allowed to avoid the draft as "conscientious objectors" based on deeply held beliefs, and some religious groups were allowed to avoid Social Security taxes based on their religious affiliation.

In fact, to avoid paying Soc Sec there were two requirements:

1. That your religious organization had in place some system of caring for your own.

2. That your religion had to be in place for at least 20 years before the Soc Sec law was passed.

Hey Gary thanks for supporting a member of the government denying people's constitutional rights because of her Christian believes despite having been divorced 3 times.

If she was a liberal I'm sure you'd have no problem with this.

Why can the government be allowed to force their religious believes on others?

Isn't it a DERILICKTION OF DOOTY?

Rowan County, Kentucky, has about 23000 people. The whole incident was precipitated by activists who wanted to make a point. I'll bet this is the last same-sex marriage certificate in the county this year, or maybe ever. The lady can get out of jail now and go on issuing marriage certificates to straight people.

DiscoGary wrote:

The solution is always the same:

Limit your government to protecting the individual's rights to

life,

liberty,

and property.

Anything less is a dereliction of duty.

Anything more is an abuse of power.

If that sounds radical then take it up with the founding fathers, because that just happens to be the law of the land as codified in the Constitution.

You want a solution?

Make the Federal Government obey it's own damn laws!

Unless they don't suit conservatives of course.