Posted on 09/03/2015 10:03:37 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Dan Griffin @WSAZDanGriffin 2m2 minutes ago Judge says financial fines not enough. #WSAZ
Dan Griffin @WSAZDanGriffin 4m4 minutes ago BREAKING: Davis held in contempt taken by U.S. Marshals. #WSAZ
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
They can pass a law banning the issuance of state marriage licenses. This is what Oklahoma, and I am told Alabama has done.
Previous posters have claimed that the couples should have accepted a license issued by another clerk. But it appears that she was not allowing the others to issue any licenses.
The constitution is null and void. We would be fools to follow it ourselves at this point in time.
Thats what I meant. Doh!
TYRANNY! RESIST! This **elected** county clerk is **following the law** of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, which **prohibits** the marriage of persons of the same sex! The federal government, including the U.S. Supreme Court, has **no constitutional authority** in this matter!
I guess conservatives in that part of the country are too polite to consider engaging their federal betters?
a third party in the relationship between man and wife. —
OK, in this case, KY law says marriage is between man and woman.
So county clerk hands form to the ‘couple’, and says fill this out.
Blank one: name of man
Blank two: name of woman
????? Then what
You’re right. Western Kentucky is Central, but this county is in Eastern. Thanks.
You should go join up over at DU, they’re having orgasms over there because this lady is in jail.....or perhaps you’re already a member there?
Our founding document declares that governments exist by the consent of the governed. The people of Kentucky voted against this by 75%. THEY ARE THE POWER.
She is doing their will. Everyone else is violating it.
Within her office, yes.
But the could have gone to a different county. Tourist-dependent Louisville is playing itself up as a great wedding destination for same-sex couples for instance.
Good! Hope this sets the faggots’ movement back since We The People apparently are powerless to do so.
Good! Hope this sets the faggots’ movement back since We The People apparently are powerless to do so.
...if he fined her there was no way of stopping others from paying the fines for her. So he ordered her jailed.
Did he assign bail? If not, why not?
Or can a judge do this when the charge is contempt?
Every contempt jailing I’ve ever heard of, has been for a specified time period, usually a couple of days.
To order her held indefinitely, without a jury trial and without bail, could effectively be a life sentence, should she refuse to comply. This is beyond the pale.
The court struck down the existing law, and there is no controlling legal authority except that of petulance and brute force.
See my post #398. (I think it was 398)
This is quickly turning into a fiasco for Democrats. In KY anyways.
I peeked at the end of the book, Jesus wins.
Yes indeed.
Such a day will come.
Federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy). Only those with enough direct stake in an action or law have "standing" to challenge it. A decision that a party does not have sufficient stake to sue will commonly be put in terms of the party's lacking "standing". For Supreme Court decisions focusing on the "standing" issue, see, e.g., County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), Northeastern Fla. Chapter of the Associated Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993) and Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.