http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/04/christian-intimidation-kentucky-judge-does-with-gavel-what-bull-connor-did-with-dogs-and-fire-hoses.html?ref=yfpMr. Huckabee has no idea what he's talking about:
"But what law – what specific law – did Mrs. Davis violate? Where is the law that mandates Mrs. Davis issue a marriage license?
That’s a question Republican presidential candidate former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee raised to his supporters in a recent letter.
“That simple question is giving many in Congress a civics lesson that they never got in grade school,” Huckabee wrote.
“The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law,” he continued. “They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same-sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.”
....
Wow, where to begin. The "specific law" is the United States Constitution, and it is not just a law, but the single highest law in America, before which no other law can exist without or in conflict thereof. The legislature makes "statutes" as a form of law, via legislation, but no legislation can conflict with the Constitution, and the Constitution can't conflict with itself.
More specifically, the Supreme Court found that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated by not allowing gay individuals to marry. In oversimple summation, the ban on gay marriages violated the US constitution, namely the 14th amendment and its sub parts, which is not just a law, but the highest American Law.... The judge can do that, because the judge gets to determine what the law means, or rather the judge makes judgments. It is his job, and it is in the job title. Simple.
Conservatives have until recently touted respecting "the constitution," but now have multiple problems with and desires to change the constitution to better fit their personal views of how stuff should be. Namely, gay marriage and citizenship, aka "anchor babies."
The 14th amendment was part of a comprehensive forced legislation after the civil war. It has been paramount to fighting discrimination in America, from Brown v. Board of Education (making it so black and white kids could go to the same schools, use the same drinking fountains, desegregation, etc), to directly and immediately overruling Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. Dred Scott stands as the single worst travesty in the American Legal System's history and was one of the single greatest direct causes of the American Civil War.
The "Anchor Babies" were absolutely approved by the "founders' intention" insomuch as then President Andrew Jackson and three key senators were for this. Moreover, this was upheld in
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) for legal immigrants, and at the time there was no such thing as an "illegal immigrant," because no distinction at law existed. Everyone was just an "immigrant." The implication that violation of a law by ones' parents or one's self would strip an individual of citizenship appears doubtful.
And all of this, goes to the simple supremacy clause of the US Constitution. Contempt of Court is a thing and it has a long and storied history with a mountain of validity behind it. She was warned and didn't care, so she did it anyhow.
Also Judges absolutely, completely and traditionally DO make law, and it's called "case law" or "precedent." Lawyers cite it every single day and cases turn on it. Brown v. Board of Education, was one such case law precedent case. Congress didn't do that, but rather the Supreme Court of the United States did. Once that happened, President Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne to Arkansas to help out the
"Little Rock 9" who were black kids trying to go to a "white school," and the President enforced the Court's ruling. Congress didn't do anything, and that's ok. Civics? Most people don't get the first thing about it, and they couldn't even tell what a "County Commissioner" does.
TL;DR- You don't spit in the court's eye about constitutional issues and expect anything less. I wish she didn't have to be jailed but she backed the court into a corner by directly challenging its authority.
Author
Topic: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread (Read 1286680 times)