U.S. Courts Lack Jurisdiction, Violates Constitutionally Reserved Rights!

Another assumption of which you show no merit. First you should that business is a personal matter, not a regulated matter. Commerce is regulated as it is within the sphere of the fiction of government, absolute slavery, incapable of ever being free.

But of course you wouldn't use Mark Passio for anything, that part is very obvious and only you seem to be confused by that declaration. There is no doubt in my mind that you would be at the front of the line for any new license issued.

 

Business or commerce that is open to the public is the very opposite of personal. It is public and thus government has a duty and right to regulate consistent with the interests of the community. If it was obvious that I don't look to Passio to define terms for me, why did you bother quoting him rather than any number of lexicographers working for reputable dictionaries?

 

Another absolute error!!! First business and commerce are very different matters.

Outside of meddling in the results of definition 10, government has no business in other people's business.

And it would seem that outside a limited application of definition 2, government has authority over commerce either. What application they could possibly have would be based on the subject not the activity. So your claim open to the public has nothing to do with it. And the community has even less to do with it outside controlling the fiction they have created. The people are subject to nothing.

Meanwhile you keep on gobbling up all those licenses, they are voluntary after all. Just fill out your form to beg, pay the appropriate bribe money, receive the slave certificate and be subject to all the little prohibitive whims of the public servant slave masters.

Well, let's see. We shall start with the fact is was my response and I happen to like Mark. Second, this is a public forum and not a private discussion so I really care less about defining any terms for you. Lastly, what makes you think a common lexicographer that studies words and compiles dictionaries understands the complex theory in the use of those words much less the legal aspects of those theories. You use what you may and I'll quote Mark Passio, especially where I believe appropriate to my view.

 

There really is no federal law requiring government employees to be atheists at work for which they lost all civil and human rights.

- - - Updated - - -

Keep on cheering the Dread Scott decision that blacks have no rights to even appear in court by the Supreme Court Judges who know more than everyone else.

 

The Constitution doesn't say that. The First Amendment is a protection of the rights of private individuals. Davis was acting in her official capacity - she IS the government when acting in that official capacity. She was not attempting a free exercise of religion as a private individual. She was abusing her office as a means to imposing her personal, moral judgments on a legal process where they don't belong.

So it's your position that anyone can claim a religious belief in order to be exempt from any law they find inconvenient, then? If religion is a "do not enter zone" for government, then anyone can do anything they like and claim it was their religious right to act/not act, and government can't touch them?

In that case, we don't need a Constitution, laws, or the government at all. Which is nonsense.

The free exercise of religion is a protected right, but it's not the only such protected right, and it's not superior to any and all other rights that people may exercise. Moreover, the First Amendment is a prohibition on government actions that make an establishment of religion, just as much as protecting its "free exercise". "Free exercise" is not the same thing as being wholly exempt from the law. Government can't tell you what to believe, how to worship, etc. But it doesn't have to provide you with a venue or office for imposing your beliefs on others, especially in legal matters. What the claims in support of Davis amount to is an entitlement to use elected office to make a de facto establishment of religion. It's clear to me which side of this Davis' case falls on, and it isn't the "free exercise" side; she runs afoul of the amendment by trying to do what it prevents - making an establishment of religion. Her "free exercise" doesn't extend to violating the rights of others.

No, she is expected to fulfill the duties of her office without bias and comply with the orders of the courts. If she wants to exercise her religion, she can do it on her own time and her own dime - not by imposing her religion on those who come to her office to lawfully seek marriage licenses.

I can't speak for the person you responded to, but in my view her election doesn't mean she can't hold religious beliefs and act on them in the aspect of conforming her own life and personal decisions to them. It does, however, mean that she can't use her religious beliefs as an excuse to impose her personal views of morality on the legal process that she interfered with in this matter.

 

However, that does not vaporize her private capacity. All rights originate from the private man or woman and are extended to facilitate ourselves in and among others in the common areas.

The first duty of any person is to themselves and their best interest, to claim that her first duty is to government is patently absurd.

The government made a religious decision and rather than accommodate her religion as required under the constitution attempted to force her to conform with their religion.

She has the full right to protect her religion which in law stands above the gubmints synthetic religion.

Yes anyone can claim a religious belief in order to be exempt from any law that fills 2 requirements, goes against their religion and does not damage another.

ANY incidental damages are the result of the gubmints failure to accommodate davis's reserved constitutional rights and is on the gubmint not davis. Both parties should sue the gubmint.

Hell I dont think the kentucky legislature even adopted it yet to this date.

Well not in the sovereign overlord interloper extortionist sense we are afflicted with now, courts properly set in place would suffice since all the gubmint does is make rules for their agenda and courts ultimately decide is the gubmint can get away with the rules they make. Yeh most gubmint could be abolished.

well 'protected' a nice euphemism but its not law. Its 'reserved' as the no go zone which means its outside their jurisdiction, and was agreed by them to be upheld by the signatories.

You need to brush up on your law if you think the creators of the law (the terms and conditions we the people consent to be governed) are not superior to the mountains of subsequent subordinate codification under created under the agreement, ironically 99.9999% of which we had nothing to do with.

And the gubmint is willfully negligent in both cases.

That is an oxymoron since 'religion' is law, it is the laws of God or for atheists self imposed laws of 'personal governance' guided by their moral compass.

It most certainly can be. take the kliens and the wedding cake. They are totally exempt yet the gubmint wrongfully applied commercial regulation to subvert the kliens right to exercise their religion and destroyed their lives in the process and then chose the gay religion over the christain religion instead of coming up with an amicable and equitable compromise solution. They are main the cause of the disparity and ill content in this country.

The gubmint is self sustaining because it creates more problems than it solves and stomps someones rights simply as a matter of their existence through this constant abuse of power that you seem to exonerate.

Praying and believing together or alone do not qualify or fulfill the required elements of what makes a religion until what is believed is put into action, which comes under your 'how to worship', and the gubmint have been enforcing their religion and methods of worship upon us in violation of our own.

and the problem is that it has imposed the gays religion upon davis in a manner that requires davis to be an accessory to the commission of a sin against her God and soul which is outside their jurisdiction.

You are blaming davis for the ills of the gubmint who created the problem by rejecting gay marriage in the first place and now create another problem by stomping on davis's rights to correct its previous problem by exempting herself from it.

It does fall under job security however.

Thats not true, you should pay better attention to what I am actually saying here. The gubmint had no business interloping in anyones religion and they are the creators of these problems in the first place.

Supreme court decisions are overturned all the time by later supreme courts and often as a result of the crap law it produced or from negative political consequences.

The davis case is clearly what she said it is and easily falls within the venue of religion and the exercise thereof.

Just because the court made a ruling that does not prevent jurys from acquitting cases so its not cast in concrete as you would like to believe.

The requirement that people need state permission to marry in the first place IS the establishment of a religion.

rather than the state simply following along with the parties contracts the disallowed gays to marry.

You dont see the dissonant hypocrisy in that?

She did fulfuill her duties of office up to and until the courts violated her right to exercise her religion as reserved in the constitution.

Again and I repeat; the gubmint is guilty of willfull negligence and they are to blame not davis. The davis question is based on davis's religion vs the gubmints attempt to coerce and force davis to act against her religion to become an 'accessory to the commission of a sin' [a violation of religious law] against her own soul.

It appears that maybe you do not understand how religious laws work?

The argument is one of self defense on the part of davis and wrongfully placed blame by her opponents who exonerate the gubmints continual violation of due process within the rule of law for administrative whim as is demonstrated time and time again.

But running with your arguments results in just that.

Her defense of her religious beliefs are not an excuse, it is a reserved 'RIGHT' stipulated to at the creation of the government.

Her interference never would have happened had the gubmint not interfered with the gays or her in the first place.

I cant stress enough that you are blaming her for acting well with in her rights to correct the wrongful actions of gubmint.

Again the gubmint should never have had their noses in marital matters or the private matters of gays in the first place, both of which are religious matters.

You may want to consider refraining from blaming what amounts to nothing omre than the patsy, and blame the source of the problem.

 

Dred Scott is the perfect example of supreme mystical beings in black robes using their prejudicial personal feelings as opinions of law, in this case the worse or the worse upheld as a core principle supposedly based on the words of Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

It was not until the negotiations for the Constitution, of which Jefferson was in Paris, that accommodations had to be made with the South in order to form as strong a Union as possible against the aggressive intentions of Europe while supposedly repairing the Articles of Confederation. But for those mystical beings to declare another human below them actually questions just whom was the inferior. I vote for those mystical beings in black robes being inferior in every aspect of the word.

But there are still those most uninformed beings that keep screaming that because one becomes an actor and must wear a costume to come on stage (too bad they gave up the white wigs) is to somehow to be taken seriously.

While I do not support the Right to Life group as they are just another group trying to impose their standards on others, I appreciate them getting this controversial issue of Dred Scott shepardized.

 

The constitution doesn't have to specifically outline restrictions because the constitution is a document built on the precepts outlined in the Declaration of Independence that declared this nation a country, a country of free men. The constitution is a written document of enumerated powers granted to the federal government based on that all important declaration:

Those illustrious amendments so affectionately know as the Bill of Rights are but reminders to the government of powers not granted and where they were not to impede. They grant no rights whatsoever, you can't grant that which is inherent and unalienable. The Bill of Rights were the anti-Federalists that mistrusted those of the founders like Hamilton, a royalist lawyer that couldn't wait to usurp this new constitution. But the Bill of Rights started with 12 articles of which only ten passed initially and the eleventh finally received ratification in 1992 as the 27th Amendment. The twelfth amendment was passed as law by the legislature, hey if the founders deemed it worthy of being an amendment, how does congress have the power to pass as a law?

No, Davis was a constitutional officer that was elected. She took an oath of office, which at the time she took the oath did not conflict with her belief. Now it does so she has a right to stand her ground which is her name and signature be removed from the documents. Your assertions are ill-conceived and totally incorrect. No other's rights can trump anothers. She took the only option open to her, she stopped issuing licenses to everyone.

Such an easy thing to correct, new pieces of paper with the states or counties name and not hers and those of her staff without an objection of violating their rights can issue same. But no, that is not the issue. The issue is how far the noisy minority can impede on the rights of the silent majority. Well I am thankful for a person like Kim Davis that stands for her rights.

 

Which isn't the claim being made. Long story short, if her "duty to self" interferes with the duties she voluntarily took on as part of being elected to office, then she should have the decency to resign that office, since she's no longer capable of fulfilling its responsibilities. Government's first duty is to the people it serves who have no obligation to put up with her shenanigans.

Davis absolutely can practice her faith - but what she can't do is use that as an excuse to abuse the power of her elected office by interfering with the processes of government.

Nonsense. The government doesn't have a religion. This is a completely false framing of the issue and empty rhetoric. Davis doesn't want a reasonable accommodation. She wants to play God with other people's legal rights. She seems to think that her signature represents "God's authority", rather than the legal authority her office actually represents. It doesn't matter whether these licenses are valid in her God's eyes.

Religious rights are not "super rights"; they don't make Davis' self-interest superior to the responsibilities of government to those it serves. Religious rights aren't greater than any other rights, nor are Kim Davis' rights superior to the rights of those applying for marriage licenses. Her religion doesn't give her special rights to interfere with them pursuing their lawful rights.

Davis is using hers to inflict damage on others.

Baloney. Davis is the one standing in the way of others' lawful actions. The damages are absolutely the result of her actions/refusal to act. Trying to shift the blame to government isn't going to cut it.

Doesn't matter. The state is enjoined from enforcing laws found to be unconstitutional.

Asinine opinion noted.

The USA is not a theocracy.

I disagree. As you note above, it's a matter of personal governance. You don't get to become a dictator to other people by extending the rules of your 'personal governance' onto their lives, and you most certainly don't get to abuse the power of an elected office to do so, interfering with a legal matter and the civil rights of other people. The God of religious people is not the boss of the rest of us, nor of our shared government.

Ludicrous. 'Gay' is not a religion. Many gay people identify as Christians, whether or not some others also identifying as Christian think it's compatible with Christianity; they aren't in charge of others' religious beliefs, much as some of them would obviously like to be.

It would be a mistake to make such assumptions about me.

It all comes back to some people thinking their religious beliefs make them superior to every one else, that their rights are superior to those of everyone else, that they're above the law, and that they ultimately should be able to use their religion to control everyone else.

I refuse to bow.

Repetition of the previous nonsense. Davis can solve this by resigning her office.

Nope. I'm blaming Davis for abusing the power of her office to force her religion into somewhere it doesn't belong - legal matters that are between the people and their government, not Davis and her God.

Davis is an elected official, not an employee. She's not guaranteed any "job security".

I've read your opinion. I have no obligation to agree with it.

Have fun waiting for a later court to reverse direction and decide that Davis can wield the power of her office as the means to making her religion superior to the law and the rights of everyone else.

That's your opinion. Mine is that it's clearly not. Don't expect me to change my mind if all you've got is nonsense about the 'gubmint' and 'gay religion'.

No idea what you're on about here.

Nope. Marriage is not owned by any religion. It's debatable whether it ever was, and in my opinion, it wasn't.

The requirement that people need state permission to have a legally recognized marriage is the establishment of rules under which the state recognizes what marriages represent valid contracts, and which don't. I will concur that they've overreached in deciding that same-sex marriages weren't valid.

Obviously not.

Nope. She stopped fulfilling her duties because she thinks her signature represents God's approval of a marriage, not that of the state. She's seems very confused about the division between her personal religious beliefs, the function of her office, and the meaning of a state-issued marriage license.

No reptition required. It isn't persuasive in the least.

As a person who has abandoned religion, I have no use for religious laws; they are the burden of the believer, who has no right to make them the burden of others who don't share their beliefs.

I will nonetheless defend the legitimate exercise of rights by those who do hold beliefs. Davis' actions are not such a case, in my view, and therefore don't merit my defense.

More empty rhetoric.

When personal beliefs conflict with the obligations of one's elected office, the solution is not to manipulate those obligations or abuse the power of that office to make them conform with one's personal beliefs; the solution is to recognize that one is not able to fulfill the obligations of that office and do the right thing by stepping down.

The point of disagreement is whether her actions are indeed a legitimate exercise of her rights. You say they are, I say they aren't. You haven't been effective at persuading me to adopt your opinion. I never expected to persuade you to adopt mine.

I don't think we can necessarily say this is true. If not gays, it probably would have been someone else whose marriage she personally disapproves.

Stress it all you like - it won't make you right. She isn't correcting "the wrongful actions of gubmint". She IS the government in this matter.

The private matters of non-religious people is not a religious matter. But thanks for playing.

You may want to consider that I don't much care what you think I should or shouldn't do - just as I don't much care that Davis holds religious beliefs nor the content of those beliefs. What I care about is that she chose a course of action that interfered with people's access to their government, amounting to an abuse of her office.

 

She had another option - resigning her office when she realized she could no longer execute its obligations without violating her conscience.

You saying it's easy doesn't make it so. It would require changing the law. The Court can't do that for her. It would have required the governor calling the legislature back into session to deal with the matter. He apparently decided that the cost to the people would be too great, so he didn't take that action.

It's a legal matter, not merely one of redoing the paperwork because she doesn't want her name on it.

The issue is that Davis' thinks her elected office represents the authority and approval of her God, not that of the people she was elected to serve. The issue is that she put this into action by abusing the power of that office to impose her religious beliefs on people acting lawfully and within their rights to obtain a marriage license.

 

Why should she? She ran on good faith, she was elected on good faith, and she served on good faith. It was not her that changed and the changes not ask her to surrender her rights. It is Kentucky that must change to allow all people to remain within their rights.

You saying otherwise doesn't make it so. Yes, it requires a change in the law, a change only a legislature can make. First to remove from the books any law that is in conflict and then to change the format of the form to protect peoples rights, a concept of which you seem to be unfamiliar.

The only option is for the governor to reconvene the legislature but he will try and pretend he is god as he has with a few other clerks. Davis is a constitutional officer and can only be removed for misbehavior not a railroad job. Standing on her rights is not misbehavior. Apparently, you mean you suppose he meant something because it meets your preconceived notion.

No, it's a lawful matter, legal has nothing to do with it. Rights do not follow under color of law.

Whole bunch of supposition of which you have no clue outside that it needs to meet your little world of preconceived notions that the new trend rights override another's rights. Also, you should never be involved in law without a lawyer. Citizens act LEGALLY with they beg for a license to do what would otherwise be illegal. By law, marriage between a man and a women needs no license nor does the union between monkeys or otherwise.

 

All past tense. She is not serving in good faith by refusing to execute the duties of her elected office.

On the contrary, it's the nature of an elected office such as this to be affected by changes in the law, and to run that office in accordance with such changes in public policy, one's personal feelings having no bearing on that. If she could no longer do the job because of her personal feelings, that isn't the fault of the government that handed down those changes - they aren't responsible for her personal feelings - she is, and she has a duty to resign the office if her personal feelings make her no longer fit to execute its duties.

True. It is the facts that make it so.

Don't make this personal, because you won't like the outcome.

I was quite clear about the fact that it would have required a change in the law by the legislature.

You're welcome to your opinion, but the fact remains that it is indeed up to the governor whether or not to reconvene the legislature. He chose not to do so.

Refusing to comply with a court order is misbehavior, and it landed her in jail. The point of disagreement here is whether or not her claims concerning her rights have legitimacy. In my view, they do not. She isn't shackled to her office. If she wants to take her religious beliefs to this kind of extreme, the people don't have to accommodate her by not applying for a marriage license. They also don't have to go somewhere else. Her office is the one with the duty to provide them with one if they qualify. Since they weren't in a position to force the governor or legislature to act, their only recourse to protect their rights was the courts. They won, Davis lost, she made appeals and lost, the court issued its orders, and she refused to carry them out. Davis is no innocent in this. I am not moved by her quavering voice nor the arguments of her lawyers nor her appeals to her God. Apparently neither was the judge.

No, I'm going by Beshear's own statement that, "The General Assembly will convene in four months and can make statutory changes it deems necessary at that time. I see no need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money calling a special session of the General Assembly".

A distinction without a difference in this context.

Rights don't entitle one to pretend that the laws governing the proper execution of the work of one's elected office don't exist.

Nothing of the sort. Beshear made certain public statements, as shown above. Davis, too. For example, Davis' statement that she can't put her name on a license that doesn't represent what God ordained marriage to be. Pretty clear from that she believes these licenses are subject to her God's approval, and her personal moral approval. She is wrong. They are not.

I would say that you're the one trapped in preconceived notions about me.

I sure wouldn't hire you.

Neither does marriage between two men, or between two women. However, there is no legal recognition without the license. Some people are content to cohabit without their marriage being legally recognized. Many (perhaps the majority) are not. I don't think you have a point.

 

Ah, now you have something, all is past tense. Now why would that be, what changed? Was it the factor you are trying so hard to ignore? Of course it was. But she is still serving in good faith the oath she proclaimed. It was not her that changed and it seems it is her that refuses to compromise her standards and her rights to try and fulfill the demands of those without rights. No one needs to alienate their own rights.

No it is not the nature of an elected office as that would be fraud. You know the fraud of the governor not doing his duty and getti g things corrected so all have equality. But that's right, this is the new age where it is ok to stomp on others rights so long as those without rights get their way. And it is only the mass of idiots that want to compromise a persons moral standards to reflect the total lack of standards they so eloquently worship.

Facts, what facts? Suppositions are not facts! Mystical beings offering opinions in areas they have no jurisdiction are as null and void as if they never happened. But the ignorant masses will dance in the street never realizing what they are dancing about.

Personal, nah just facts as you like to declare. But if you want to take it personal, you a grown person so be it, I care less about that or the outcome. It effects me not in the least, just another post that I can choose to ignore or respond to. But still, you apparently still have a problem with rights, follow the link, there is a definition there that starts to explain or at least will lead you in the proper direction, rights

Actually, you were not quite clear as you keep insisting the governor has some power not to convene but to pretend he is god and dictate the answer as obviously he has no power to legislate. What I would like to know is where did he get that authority? How convenient, it costs money (like they really care) so he'll just dictate the answer to other constitutionally elected individuals not of his administration, actually they work for the judicial. But you go ahead and keep on not thinking so as to declare matters should be as you dictate. Now I'm going to sit here, shaking in fear waiting for your reply.

Good for her, I would do the same and then persecute that illegal BAR associate for the next decade until I leave him lying in the gutter where he belongs. But then we are back into that area of rights where you seem to have so little comprehension. Rights are not based on coercion and cannot be abrogated by force which is exactly what that illegal BAR associate did. No, since the BAR member needs to kiss butt on the governor for a political appointment and he dare not take on the legislature, all his BAR buddies, that leaves but one little target, but it seems one that wont roll over and play dead. But what does the mystical being in a black robe have to worry about, the ignorant masses that cheer them on? Not likely. So what is left, Davis with the assistance of a BAR member as her representative? But that does not abrogate reality except in the minds of those ignorant in all matters of rights so long as those "constitutional rights" are somewhat protected. What a joke!!!!

What hundreds of thousands? Why do the legislatures get all this money to perform and take huge fund raising vacations? And again, why would the governor need to convene the legislature when he can just dictate without them? Let's see, where in the Kentucky constitution is that little jewel?

So your reply is that there is no difference between legal and lawful or just in certain contexts? Wow, this seems to be another area to which you are totally unfamiliar with a basic concept. But then it should be no great mystery as without the concept of rights, lawful has no distinction from legal. One must be understood to understand the other, they are inseparable.

Now you have made a statement using the double confusion factor. First you are confusing law with legal and in legal there are no rights. Law is never in conflict with rights and rights are never in conflict with law. It is only when the legal factors are added that there are conflicts. However as Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) stated, constitution top dog and anything in conflict is null and void on it's face. Don't need to pretend like the ignorant masses, one can stand up and proudly proclaim for all the world to see and hear. Pretending is the governor, pretending he can abrogate the power of the legislature with his proclamation. What's even sadder are the fools that believe him because they don't know any better.

Another preconceived notion of yours. It is her name and her right that she can demand it's removal from anything that compromises her beliefs, especially beliefs that were not compromised when she assumed her duties. Seems you would be wrong again, asserting that her rights do not matter and can be trampled by others. Still have no clue what a right is.

"Steven Lynn "Steve" Beshear (born September 21, 1944) is an American attorney and Democratic Party politician who has been the 61st Governor of Kentucky since 2007." --Wikipedia. Sort of says it all.

Not really, you seem to be pretty clear in that realm, I just need to point them out. You have with extreme consistency ignored all but your preconceived notions on rights and law without a clear view of what either means outside the preconceived notions.

Of course you wouldn't and at last something we can agree upon. But if you ever have to go to court, let me know, I'll bring the popcorn and enjoy the circus.

Of course you don't think...I have a point. How could you when by your statement everything is so confused. But just to point out the most delusional, by legal recognition you actually mean getting government benefits.

 

Rant, rant, blah blah blah, repetition, thinly veiled personal attacks.

We're done.

 

Talking to yourself I see. You should do this more often as you actually have posted the truth.

 

Same for free speech or even of expression.

$400,000 was seized from a bar owner's bank account without a trial or jury because he merely left a polite message to a transvestite (not LGB) to not come on Friday nights as it was driving away his customers, though he did not refuse entry or services.

In terms of private citizens, the Bill Of Rights has essentially be erased. You have no right to trial, no right to a jury, no right to say what you think, no property rights, and the list goes on and on. It is the all powerful government now, a million like czars, tyrants, thugs and dictators - whatever they say, whatever they want, whatever they demand you do or don't do, controlling everything even you may and may not say. Judges, even administrators and inspectors, are now gods that you must worship and obey.

It was notable how the judge in the Kim Davis case wanted her to swear he had more authority over her than God. In the transcript, he required her to answer under oath when he the judge or God was a greater authority over her. Outrageous questions - but most cheer that judge.

Americans are becoming the most regulated people on earth and overwhelmingly are the most imprisoned. But for most people it isn't enough. They want 50,000,,000 more people in jail, a billion more pages of regulations, and government to have absolute power over everything.

 

Why your powers of observation can't really be questioned, your conclusions need to be questioned.

First, the Bill of Rights can be erased, it does not matter in the scheme of rights as it offers none. It is the people, each and every individual that must stand for what is theirs. Government is but a fiction and can do nothing, it is the people that take actions and it is the people that need to be held responsible.

Cheer the judge, you bet all the way to the defendants table to answer for his indiscretions, Title 18 USC 242.