It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kentucky clerk Kim Davis ordered released from jail

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

www.factcheck.org...
federal office yes
state office would depend on the state
(i really dont care enough to check what it is in kentucky though)




posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I find it interesting that she was allowed to keep her job.
How does one keep a job that they're unwilling to do?
This lady has been divorced three times so the hypocrisy in reference
to holding marriage in high regards is completely lost on her.
This animal posing as a righteous woman should have been fired.
Simple as that.

Toy The Bear



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

No sorry I was agreeing with you. Sorry for misunderstanding.

And yeah the power of judges and how your systems rigged is somewhat scary.

Cant say the UK much better, or at least we have our own problems.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: fartlordsupreme
(i really dont care enough to check what it is in kentucky though)


Kentucky prohibits convicted felons from holding elected office however there was a case in 2009 where one was indeed elected.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MysterX
I'd imagine there is a rule that a criminal conviction would be grounds to fire an elected official, regardless of that infringing on the electorate's choice? Ought to be the same thing or at least ball park in this case surely?


In many cases that is not an available recourse. There have been elected officials in prison who still retained their elected office.



You're kidding me?! That is bizarre.

If the elected official is acting in an unconstitutional way, then i would have put money on they could be fired for that...i mean..otherwise you could have a situation where no elected official could be fired or removed from office, even if they lied to get elected, and again, even if that lying was when swearing an oath to uphold the constitution and then not...it's bizarre.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
If the elected official is acting in an unconstitutional way, then i would have put money on they could be fired for that...


Nope, elected officials need to be impeached or recalled.


i mean..otherwise you could have a situation where no elected official could be fired or removed from office, even if they lied to get elected, and again, even if that lying was when swearing an oath to uphold the constitution and then not...it's bizarre.


Fire? No. Removed? Yes.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

ah cool thank you

however there was a case in 2009 where one was indeed elected.




posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Removed..ah, ok.

Then his Woman ought to be removed and not fired for refusing to honour her Oath of office.

eta: On second thoughts, she ought to vacate her position voluntarily, that at least would enable her to practice and act upon her personal beliefs and what that means in a marriage context at her leisure, without impact to the electorate. It would be the decent thing..the righteous thing to do.

edit on 8-9-2015 by MysterX because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Lol cnn is asking if this lady is similar to rosa parks, what an epic fail, man cnn is garbage.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
Then his Woman ought to be removed and not fired for refusing to honour her Oath of office.


I totally agree.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MysterX
Then his Woman ought to be removed and not fired for refusing to honour her Oath of office.


I totally agree.


That is quite rare for most people on this board...thanks for the novelty!



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
That is the interesting point.....she is an elected official appointed as the county clerk. Will she follow the judge's order or her sworn oath?


I would be interested in seeing the verbiage of her sworn oath as if it is similar to other public servant's oaths it specifically mentions supporting the Constitution of the United States.

Which she happened to have a rather big fail doing.


Here it is:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.
Text as Ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

Thank you for posting. Looks like she ate it on the first sentence.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Just watched her press conference... good golly!



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MysterX
Then his Woman ought to be removed and not fired for refusing to honour her Oath of office.


I totally agree.
A different proposal is in a chapter of that Bronze Age book she so adores: "Anyone who shows contempt for the judge ... is to be put to death." Deuteronomy 17:12
.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

O M G.

UNbelievable.

I weep for this country.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

WOOPSIE!



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Lol cnn is asking if this lady is similar to rosa parks, what an epic fail, man cnn is garbage.


That is pretty much the argument that supporters of Ms Davis are using (and what Huckabee said on ABC's The Week last Sunday). It's sickening that these people honestly believe that she's in league with MLK or Rosa Parks for "following her conscience," or even Lincoln when he refused to recognize Dred Scott decision, when the latter all fought AGAINST discrimination, unjust laws, injustice, and fought FOR equal rights, and when Davis is using the platform FOR discrimination and denying equal rights.

That these people actually believe it is an equal comparison is what has me afraid for this country.

SMH



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy
A different proposal is in a chapter of that Bronze Age book she so adores: "Anyone who shows contempt for the judge ... is to be put to death." Deuteronomy 17:12
.


Yah, but you see F4guy, it only looks like you've caught her in yet another double standard. But really what's going on is that since you are not a True Christian and someone who's turned your back on God, it has made you retarded to understanding God's true word.

But if you were someone in God's good graces you would realize that part of scripture means exactly the opposite of how you're reading it. Don't ask me to explain because your sins make you blind to the truth. Too bad for you, sinner. Have fun in hell.

"Praise Lord God and his Mighty Scaryness!!! May His non-accountability only strengthen our worship of him!!!"



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy



Here it is:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.
Text as Ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891.



One has to point out that there is dispute from many corners about whether or not the Federal Government via the SCOTUS has any authority to rule on matters of marriage at all much less for many to claim its magically law of the land via dictate.

A dictate for Davis that clearly conflicts with 1st amendment rights, 10th amendment rights and probably 9th also.

I don't see her making violation of Oath based on U.S. Constitution as written.

As far as the Kentucky specific parts of the Oath she's clearly in accord as its legislature has failed to provide guidance via rewriting its laws and codes.

If one believes totally in Federal Supremacy then Kentucky has no current law as it would be considered nullified by SCOTUS dictate. That being the case she should issue NO marriage licenses until the legislature has written new law.

That is her stance far as I can tell.

Anyway whatever your beliefs, its a conundrum legally that will be fought both sides with what I believe is in the end an unsolvable chasm of an argument that will result in un-needed chaos due the conflicting constitutional rights involved.

I'm thinking Governments, Federal, State and Local might be advised to get out of Marriage Licenses and into the business of contracts which after all is the base issue at hand.

Federal, State and Local law will have to be changed by Congress, Legislatures and County Government to transition to a strictly contractual system.

Marriage on the other hand should be left to the churches as a religious ceremony according to their tenants.








edit on 8-9-2015 by Phoenix because: sp



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join