Ted Cruz indifferent to rule of law in Kim Davis case (MSNBC)

MSNBC ^ | 09/04/15 | Steve Benen

[Isara]

When Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) condemns President Obama – a frequent occurrence – the far-right national candidate often emphasizes the rule of law. Cruz doesn’t just think the president is wrong; he thinks Obama is a tyrannical dictator who flouts legal norms.

“The pattern we’ve seen under President Obama, disregarding the law, is really one of the most troubling aspects of this presidency,” Cruz said last year. “When he disagrees with the law … he simply refuses to comply with it.” The Republican senator added that the president is “lawless.”

But that was in 2014. In 2015, Cruz sees Kentucky clerk Kim Davis ignoring court orders, ignoring Supreme Court rulings, and ignoring her oath of office – and the GOP presidential candidate sees her as some kind of hero. In a written statement released late yesterday:

“Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.

“I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to choose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion.”

Cruz’s statement went on to argue, “Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in public office, they must disregard their religious faith–or be sent to jail.”

He added that Davis should face no consequences for brazenly defying federal court orders she doesn’t like.

I’m not sure what’s worse: the possibility that Cruz actually believes this nonsense or the fact that Cruz expects Americans to take his arguments seriously.

---

[Isara]

Steve Benen tried to counteract Ted Cruz's argument with really lame reasoning at the link.

[Da Coyote]

Nice try, MSNBC.

However, logic......only use it when you are educated using it.

[ClearCase_guy]

Mayors of sanctuary cities should all be in jail. Does MSNBC agree?

[Dr. Sivana]

The lawlessness comes from the court making up definitions for words like mariage.

[cripplecreek]

Or should Quakers be allowed conscientious objector status?

[GeronL]

Ted is the real enemy of the establishment.

[cripplecreek]

I'm sure Ted Cruz would be more than happy to sit down with Steve Benen and discuss it with him.

[KC_Lion]

LOL! Nice Try MSNLSD.

Of Course the Law is what the Prog's want it to be.

The Rule of Force is the only Law they obey.

[GeronL]

bump

[Riley]

Doesn’t the law also require that the government arrest and deport every single illegal alien in the country?

Is MSNBC in favor of that now?

[cripplecreek]

William Rehnquist almost always deferred to the state powers.

[Logical me]

The lawlessness comes from the court making up definitions for words like mariage.

The Supreme Court in nothing but a fourth arm of making laws.

[usconservative]

Martin Luther King Jr. once said: “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”

He also said:

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

And from the Autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr." he said:

“I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.”

I stand with Kim Davis.

[norwaypinesavage]

I wonder what part of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” Benen doesn’t understand. There is a reason the Founding Fathers made this the FIRST words of the FIRST amendment.

[Charles Henrickson]

It was the Supreme Court that ignored the rule of law--the First Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky's laws prohibiting marriage between members of the same sex--when they issued their unconstitutional 5-4 Obergefell v. Hodges decision.

[Ransomed]

“The lawlessness comes from the court making up definitions for words like mariage.”

For many, the state hasn’t had the right definition for centuries, for many more since no-fault civil divorce and remarriage. ‘Gay marriage’ is simply the most ridiculously wrong definition so far that judges, pols, or the voting majority has made up for the state’s version of marriage. In 50 years it will probably ban actual marriage and mandate gay child clone marriage. Pope Leo XIII warned about the state’s ever changing definition of marriage by whim of the civil authorities 130 years ago.

Freegards

[Robert DeLong]

Ted Cruz is right and the Supreme Court ruling was illegal by virtue of the 1st entry of that pesky Bill of Rights, which are in fact the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Since the Supreme Court Justices swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, those who voted to strike down state bans on same sex marriage should be arrested, tried, and convicted of subversion of the U.S. Constitution.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are required to take two oaths before they may execute the duties of their appointed office.

The Constitutional Oath

As noted below in Article VI, all federal officials must take an oath in support of the Constitution:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The Constitution does not provide the wording for this oath, leaving that to the determination of Congress. From 1789 until 1861, this oath was, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." During the 1860s, this oath was altered several times before Congress settled on the text used today, which is set out at 5 U. S. C. § 3331. This oath is now taken by all federal employees, other than the President:

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

[cripplecreek]

We have a long history of conscience of the individual superseding the "rule of law". Jury nullification is a perfect example.

JOHN ADAMS (1771): It's not only ....(the juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge's instruction...."if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."

U.S. vs. DOUGHERTY (1972) [D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals]: The jury has...."unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge."

In the case of jury nullification you can ignore the law and refuse to convict a "guilty" man for any reason or no reason.

Just this spring our local hanging judge set aside a jury's guilty verdict and freed a man accused of rape because his conscience wouldn't allow him to sentence a man to prison for a crime the judge didn't believe he committed.

[usconservative]

[Georgia Girl 2]

Five lawyers in black robes have no authority to impose gay marriage on 50 sovereign states. Nowhere in the Constitution is any mention made of gay marriage.