tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post198492863469097972..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: Standing up to the Obergefellers (2) -- Responding to a CommentA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-90890164668995142962015-09-08T18:15:20.768-07:002015-09-08T18:15:20.768-07:00Lisa, thank you for being so thorough, and for bac...Lisa, thank you for being so thorough, and for backing up your points with case law. While I appreciate your argument that "what is the definition of a marriage" is now a question of federal law, and no longer one where the States are free to act as they always had previously, I think that you and those who argue as you do still are evading some key questions, for which you can have no answer.<br /><br />The first question: "Where is the federal 'law' that defines what a 'marriage' is? Can you quote it to me? Can you cite to it anywhere in the United States Code or regulations? When did Congress -- which is the only body authorized by our Constitution to pass laws [see the first sentence after the Preamble] -- enact it?"<br /><br />The second question: "If there is no such law enacted by Congress, then how can there be anything that the fifty States are required to treat like a federal law, and obey? In particular, where is <i>Kentucky's</i> law, which Kim Davis took an oath to enforce? Who changed from one day to the next what it says, and with what words did they change it? Where is the text of the change you are holding Kim Davis liable to enforce, at her peril?" <br /><br />Your alcohol example provides no response to those questions, because you hypothesize a federal <b>statute</b>, not a Supreme Court decision. And that leads to my third question:<br /><br />"Even if it wanted to, could the Supreme Court -- or five justices of that Court -- lay down a 'law' that all businesses must close down on, say, Wednesdays? What if it claimed to do so in order to protect the health of workers, pursuant to the welfare clause of the Constitution? Who would have to obey such a 'law', and why?"<br /><br />In short what makes a "law" a law? Until you come to grips with that question in the context of defining what marriage is for everyone in the country, you have not provided me with an answer to my points in my post.<br /><br />And please, Lisa, I beg you to lay off the "theocracy" bits. They add nothing to, and in fact detract seriously from, your argument. You have not done the real job of reading the over 1000 posts on this blog in order to come anywhere near to being able to make such a judgment -- and even if you had, you could never in fairness say any such thing. A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-33674375568053533922015-09-08T13:16:06.002-07:002015-09-08T13:16:06.002-07:00Then, the Pickering case is cited:
School teacher...Then, the Pickering case is cited:<br /><br />School teacher, Marvin Pickering was dismissed from his job after he wrote a letter to a local newspaper, criticizing the Board of Education for the way they handled proposals to raise revenue. <br /><br />Pickering said his letter was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendment. At the lower state appellant courts, the dismissal was upheld, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision and said the letter was protected by the First Amendment. <br /><br />“The question becomes whether the relevant government<br />entity had an adequate justification for treating<br />the employee differently from any other member of the<br />general public. See Pickering, 391 U. S., at 568. This<br />consideration reflects the importance of the relationship<br />between the speaker’s expressions and employment. A<br />government entity has broader discretion to restrict<br />speech when it acts in its role as employer, but the restrictions<br />it imposes must be directed at speech that has some<br />potential to affect the entity’s operations.” <br /><br />Kim Davis’ ‘speech’ definitely affected the operations of the County Clerk’s office, indeed. It affected the operation of issuing marriage licenses, according to Federal law.<br /><br />The opinion continues:<br /><br />“Pickering and the cases decided in its wake identify two<br />inquiries to guide interpretation of the constitutional<br />protections accorded to public employee speech. The first<br />requires determining whether the employee spoke as a<br />citizen on a matter of public concern. See id., at 568. If<br />the answer is no, the employee has no First Amendment<br />cause of action based on his or her employer’s reaction to<br />the speech. See Connick, supra, at 147.”<br /><br />Kim Davis was not speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern. She was speaking as County Clerk, as she made the comments while engaged in her job of issuing licenses.<br /><br />Therefore, in agreement with Justice Kennedy:<br /><br />"When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom," Page 6.<br /><br />I think, based on the above, the Kim Davis case-- though a First Amendment issue concerning free expression--also relates to the freedom of religion of public employees in the operation of their job.<br /><br />Kim Davis is promoting her own religious convictions at the expense of others, while carrying out the role of her government job. When she took her oath, after being elected, she waived her right to object to same-sex marriage licenses.<br /><br />She can disagree with the law all day long, but she cannot disobey the law. She is denying other people their ‘Constitutional rights,’ and then claiming that she’s some sort of new Martin Luther King, by risking jail for not doing her job. Martin Luther King and others were not denying other people their rights, by the way. She is no martyr.<br /><br />It’s you, A.S. Haley that seem to conflate the issue, because you want a theocracy based on your religion, period. Therefore, Davis is a ‘martyr’ for refusing her oath of office, when you know, or you should know, Constitutionally, I believe she doesn’t stand a chance, as I have explained and cited. <br /><br />Her freedom to express herself has not been squelched. Her freedom to practice her religion has not been squelched. When she took her oath, she relinquished her right to disobey her job duties based on her religion.<br />Dix Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14016295381007388502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-5174760924109074612015-09-08T13:15:34.538-07:002015-09-08T13:15:34.538-07:00I quote from the opinion:
“The question presented...I quote from the opinion:<br /><br />“The question presented by the instant case is whether the<br />First Amendment protects a government employee from<br />discipline based on speech made pursuant to the employee’s<br />official duties.”<br /><br />Further, in the opinion, the complexity of the issue is discussed:<br /><br />“As the Court’s decisions have noted, for many years “the<br />unchallenged dogma was that a public employee had no<br />right to object to conditions placed upon the terms of<br />employment—including those which restricted the exercise<br />of constitutional rights.” Connick, 461 U. S…”<br /><br />Does Kim Davis’ rights as a public citizen trump her rights when she makes public comments and declarations during the commission of her duties as County Clerk?<br /><br />“The Court has made clear that public employees do not surrender all their First Amendment rights by reason of their employment. Rather, the First Amendment protects a public employee’s right, in certain circumstances, to speak as a citizen addressing matters of public concern. See, e.g., Pickering, supra, at 568; Connick,supra, at 147; Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U. S. 378, 384 (1987); United States v. Treasury Employees, 513 U. S.<br />454, 466 (1995).<br /><br />Dix Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14016295381007388502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-27516836764928346042015-09-08T13:13:39.473-07:002015-09-08T13:13:39.473-07:00Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, but I have...Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, but I have been busy.<br /><br />Looks like Ms. Davis was released!!! With that noted, I am actually glad she was released, but that does not mean she and her attorneys ‘won.’ It means the judge lifted the contempt order, because the judge believes that when Ms. Davis returns to her job, she will not interfere with federal law. <br /><br />But, I have a feeling she will be back in jail soon. So, Mr. Haley, here is my response to your lengthy response to me. I will have to break it up into two comments, as it is as long as your post. <br /><br />I also had to look up a few things. So, Kim Davis has a right to her religious freedom, including her view that same sex marriage is a sin, abomination and goes against the law of God. She is free to worship how she sees fit, and that includes religious beliefs that she may hold. <br /><br />She also has First Amendment rights as an individual. But when she speaks out, not as Kim Davis ‘public citizen’ but Kim Davis Government Worker/County Clerk, carrying out her specific duties including issuing marriage licenses, what are her First Amendment rights?<br /><br />This is not a state issue and you know it. For argument’s sake, since you brought up the fact that Kim Davis is following Kentucky law, not federal law, does that mean the following:<br /><br />Let’s say that the Federal Government instituted a federal law that no alcohol was to be served on Sundays, either in restaurants or package stores, etc. on Sunday, across the US, yet my state has a law allowing alcohol sales on Sunday. If a local police officer catches me with alcohol on Sunday, can he or she legally arrest me? State law says I can have the alcohol.<br /><br />The Kim Davis affair is a federal issue, based on the ban being lifted by the Supreme Court concerning same-sex marriage in every county, in every state throughout the union. If the Governor allows the Kentucky legislature to pass a law saying that the state—as a governmental body—not Kentucky counties, issue the marriage license, then the problem is solved both for those same sex couples seeking their legal right to the license that allows the ‘contract of marriage’ and Kim Davis/County clerks across Kentucky. That is an idea being passed around right now in Kentucky.<br /><br />Barring that, let’s look at the opinion in Gil Garcetti Et Al, versus Richard Ceballos:<br /><br />In this appellant case that reached the Supreme Court, the question was whether Garcetti, a district attorney in California, was passed over for a promotion because of his critical comments on the legitimacy of a warrant in a case that was to be tried by his office. Ceballos conducted his own investigation about the warrant, and concluded in a two memos, sent to his superiors that the case for which the warrant was at issue, should be dismissed. An angry meeting was held with his superiors, but his superiors pursued the case anyway. The defense, in this case, made motion for dismissal but the motion for dismissal based on the warrant issues was denied. Ceballos was called to testify about the warrant by the defense.<br /><br />After this incident, Ceballos said he was denied a promotion, transferred to another court and other “retaliatory employment actions,” by his employers. He filed suit, saying he was denied First Amendment rights over what he said in the memos and his stance on the warrant issue in the case.<br /><br />In its opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court says that the First Amendment does not protect a government employee from discipline based on free speech made in the carrying out of duties related to the government job. First Amendment rights concerning their jobs are different<br />Dix Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14016295381007388502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-58724016402912476882015-09-06T17:46:13.465-07:002015-09-06T17:46:13.465-07:00"This blog, accordingly, does not exist to be..."This blog, accordingly, does not exist to bend the actual text of Scripture to temporary cultural or human ends"<br /><br />Amen and amen fellow curmudgeon.S.G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09746381491495106590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-5269327890106486552015-09-06T10:26:42.224-07:002015-09-06T10:26:42.224-07:00It should apply, Maxine -- you are right. But the ...It <i>should</i> apply, Maxine -- you are right. But the Court long ago gutted the meaning of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and the modern-day Supreme Court simply ignores them.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-2910690787611517842015-09-05T23:15:37.990-07:002015-09-05T23:15:37.990-07:00Why does the 10th Amrndment not apply?Why does the 10th Amrndment not apply?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10906980382835490734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-13996304957251501542015-09-05T19:12:22.022-07:002015-09-05T19:12:22.022-07:00I truly want to take the time to thoughtfully comm...I truly want to take the time to thoughtfully comment on all that you said, but I found myself falling asleep about half-way through. It's truly given me much to think about. I would like a chance to respond, so I will have to do that tomorrow at some point.<br /><br />Thanks so much!Dix Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14016295381007388502noreply@blogger.com