SCOTUS orders thrice-divorced KY county clerk to issue marriage license

[*bfine32*]

(09-08-2015, 11:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not really sure how it's wishy washy to say that any elected official who violates the rights of citizens should face some punishment. 

And I find that the majority of people do not see eye to eye on every issue.

Well let's make it less wishy washy: Is an elected official bound to follow Federal Law? I say yes (not wishy washy); what do you say?

[BmorePat87]

(09-08-2015, 11:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well let's make it less wishy washy: Is an elected official bound to follow Federal Law? I say yes (not wishy washy); what do you say?

Are they bound? Yes.

Would I be supportive of them if they refused to follow a law that was discriminatory or infringed upon the rights of citizens? Possibly. 

I would expect most people to be against any law that infringed upon the rights of citizens. Do you not support individual rights?

[*bfine32*]

(09-08-2015, 11:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Are they bound, yes?

Would I be supportive of them if they refused to follow a law that was discriminatory or infringed upon the rights of citizens? Possibly. 

I would expect most people to be against any law that infringed upon the rights of citizens. Do you not support individual rights?

Of course I support individual rights. It's just the whole "must follow Federal Mandate" gets kind of cloudy dependent on your views. Don't you agree Huckabee?

[Benton]

(09-08-2015, 11:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I absolutely agree Ms Davis should fulfill the duties of her position as mandated by Federal Law. But I am finding out it is kind of a gray line in many folks view. Folks seemed so adamant about it earlier.

Because things are rarely black and white. As a general statement people should follow the law even if they're in opposition to it. They can always protest it and work to change an unjust law.

[*bfine32*]

(09-08-2015, 11:36 PM)Benton Wrote: Because things are rarely black and white.

Agreed, but folks in this thread pretty much made it as so.

[BmorePat87]

(09-08-2015, 11:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I support individual rights. It's just the whole "must follow Federal Mandate" gets kind of cloudy dependent on your views. Don't you agree Huckabee?

It certainly can get cloudy if you truly feel like the law you are being asked to follow is unconstitutional. Fortunately, that's why we have the Supreme Court to reassure us that one must, in Kim's case, give out marriage licenses to gay couples because refusing to do so would be a violation of their rights. 

It's not really cloudy when the Supreme Court first strikes down the gay marriage ban you're trying to uphold and then orders you to do your job. 

[BmorePat87]

It's also not cloudy understanding that the government cannot infringe upon the rights of citizens by citing the religious convictions of the elected officials who are the ones denying the rights.

This is why I asked for context. I don't think elected officials in the North who violated the Fugitive Slaves Act and refused to send runaway slaves back into forced servitude are on the same level as someone who uses their elected position to promote a religion and deny rights to citizens. It would be pretty careless of me to deal in absolutes in this situation.

[Belsnickel]

(09-08-2015, 10:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You seem pretty adamant about this. Do you feel the Mayor of San Francisco should step down?

The mayor should not have disobeyed the law. Had he continued to defy the courts I would have agreed he should step down. If your beliefs are such that you cannot uphold policies you are sworn to uphold then you need to step down. He eventually conceded to those policies, but it was either that or leave the office, IMHO. Work to change it if possible if you don't like a law, but it needs to be followed.

[*bfine32*]

(09-08-2015, 11:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It certainly can get cloudy if you truly feel like the law you are being asked to follow is unconstitutional. Fortunately, that's why we have the Supreme Court to reassure us that one must, in Kim's case, give out marriage licenses to gay couples because refusing to do so would be a violation of their rights. 

It's not really cloudy when the Supreme Court first strikes down the gay marriage ban you're trying to uphold and then orders you to do your job. 

So we're kinda mixing feeling and laws in this response (wishy washy). 45% of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, doesn't believe a Federal Mandate of SSM is constitutional.

So if I'm reading you right, when asked if an elected official must follow Federal Law, your answer is "depends".
 

[BmorePat87]

(09-08-2015, 11:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So we're kinda mixing feeling and laws in this response (wishy washy). 
 

Applying conditions and not dealing in absolutes does not make one wishy washy. It's a convenient way for you to imply that I am making an arbitrary distinction, but I have been clear in all of my posts that the rights of citizens is what's important.

Quote:45% of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice,  doesn't believe a Federal Mandate of SSM is constitutional.

45% of the Supreme Court does not believe that gay marriage bans are a violation of the 14th amendment. There's no federal mandate on same sex marriage.

That aside, 45% of all voters in 2008, including the current President, didn't believe Barack Obama should be President. That doesn't mean he wasn't President once inaugurated. 

Quote:So if I'm reading you right, when asked if an elected official must follow Federal Law, your answer is "depends".

You're not.

(09-08-2015, 11:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Are they bound? Yes.

Bound means you are required to do something.

[*bfine32*]

(09-08-2015, 11:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The mayor should not have disobeyed the law. Had he continued to defy the courts I would have agreed he should step down. If your beliefs are such that you cannot uphold policies you are sworn to uphold then you need to step down. He eventually conceded to those policies, but it was either that or leave the office, IMHO. Work to change it if possible if you don't like a law, but it needs to be followed.

So it's OK to do it for a little bit or if you are not told directly to follow Federal Laws?

[BmorePat87]

I hate teaching off the clock.

[*bfine32*]

(09-09-2015, 12:08 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Applying conditions and not dealing in absolutes does not make one wishy washy. It's a convenient way for you to imply that I am making an arbitrary distinction, but I have been clear in all of my posts that the rights of citizens is what's important.

Yes you have made it clear that if you disagree with the Federal Law then it is OK to question it



45% of the Supreme Court does not believe that gay marriage bans are a violation of the 14th amendment. There's no federal mandate on same sex marriage.

That aside, 45% of all voters in 2008, including the current President, didn't believe Barack Obama should be President. That doesn't mean he wasn't President once inaugurated. 

Of course the requirement to issue License for SSM is Federally mandated. I agree with the second part; once decided case closed.




You're not.
Bound means you are required to do something.

So then yes? An elected office must follow Federal Law. This is kinda like pulling teeth

(09-09-2015, 12:09 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I hate teaching off the clock.

Imagine how your students feel when you are on the clock.

[Rotobeast]

I suppose we could inject the whole legality of marijuana, as it pertains to the Feds, on top of the thinly veiled complaints of failure to follow federal immigration law.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-09-2015, 12:37 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I suppose we could inject the whole legality of marijuana, as it pertains to the Feds, on top of the thinly veiled complaints of failure to follow federal immigration law.

And you'd have a decent argument in both regards.  Bfine has a legitimate point in this instance.

[Benton]

(09-08-2015, 06:30 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: To watch that scene...the highly over-dramatic Davis being led from jail by the hand of the attention mongering Huckabee...while Eye of the Tiger plays in the background...WTF? I'm sorry, but how can anyone take these people even semi-seriously? Even if you agree with their 'views'...Davis and the Huckster are just odd people, although I could envision them as a  damn good comedy duo!

Wow. I hadn't commented on this earlier because I thought the Eye of the Tiger song was just something somebody parodied it with. But apparently they actually played that at her release?



So not only does she not uphold the duties of her office, but she's now guilty of copyright infringement.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/freed-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-mike-huckabee-didnt-get-permission-n423796

[Belsnickel]

(09-09-2015, 12:09 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So it's OK to do it for a little bit or if you are not told directly to follow Federal Laws?

(09-08-2015, 11:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The mayor should not have disobeyed the law.

There is always the opportunity to correct your actions before termination. I would not have called for Davis to resign until she defied SCOTUS order.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-08-2015, 11:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well let's make it less wishy washy: Is an elected official bound to follow Federal Law? I say yes (not wishy washy); what do you say?

Oh boy. Didn't you already try this earlier in the thread?

[BmorePat87]

(09-09-2015, 12:27 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Imagine how your students feel when you are on the clock.

Very fortunate to have someone who is both literate and knowledgeable. 

Your issue is that you are not distinguishing between when I say that they're required to follow the law and when I say I may or may not support them. The fact that I might support someone who violates an unjust law does not detract from the fact that I said they are required follow the law. 

Should Northern states have followed the Fugitive Slave Act? Yes. Do I support the fact that they did not follow it? Yes. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have faced the penalty for failing to uphold the law, it just means I think they did the right thing morally. 

And with regards to this "federal mandate", the Supreme Court never decided whether or not a federal mandate on same sex marriage was constitutional. They decided whether or not the bans were. While you may interpret the decision as a "federal mandate" because it meant that refusal to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples was unconstitutional, they were only deciding whether or not the bans were unconstitutional. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-09-2015, 07:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There is always the opportunity to correct your actions before termination. I would not have called for Davis to resign until she defied SCOTUS order.

Here's a thread from way back in July

http://bengalsboard.net/Thread-This-Same-Sex-Couple-Filmed-Themselves-Getting-Denied-A-Marriage-License

Many were calling for her job back then (you may want to look at post #7)