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

[frigidweirdo]

So does she. If she doesn't like the laws of the government she works for, she can QUIT HER JOB.

So your version of law is if you dont like it STFU and get out. No remedy just fuck you good bye, your way or the hiway.

I disagree. There is no reason someone should give up their religion and life because the gubmint negligently changes the rules without regard to religion and proper accommodation to support the constitution of the united states.

Er... yours seems to be if you don't like a law, ignore it. If you don't like it that gay people can get married, then simply don't give them marriage licenses.

Mine is, there are the laws of the land. There are also laws that affect the US government, specifically the US Constitution. If you can't handle the US constitution, then don't work for the US govt.

I'm a vegetarian, would I work in an abattoir? Hell no I wouldn't. Should I demand my religious right to work in an abattoir but not have to see, touch, smell dead animals?

She could go work in a part of the govt where she doesn't have to issue these licenses. If she wants to do a job that goes against her principles, then that's her problem.

If a judge doesn't like divorce, can he refuse to divorce people? If the US President doesn't like Congress can he simply ignore Congress?

 

[KokomoJojo]

My next question: Did davis exercise her religion, yes or no?

No.

You are incorrect. One exercises their religion by abiding by the law set forth in that religion. she abided by that law.

Which Christian law says "don't give marriage licenses to gay people" exactly?

The problem here is that you dont seem to understand what is being talked about. Do you know what an accessory to a crime is? You people continually go around in circles and all I can figure out is that you must not understand what the legal terms are that I have been using.

 

[danielpalos]

First. Why shouldn't they demand that Davis does her job?

well lets start here:

First Amendment - Religion and Expression. 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.

you could amend the constitution I suppose.

I assume you agree that she does in fact have the right to protect her religion does she not?

.

The "free exercise" of religion doesn't mean an individual can make a sacrificial killing, does it? All rights are LIMITED, aren't they?

She can carry out her religious beliefs all she likes. But she is trying to infringe on the rights of other people. Therefore what she is doing is NOT PROTECTED. Does this make sense?

I can kill anyone in a sacrificial killing, except where it actually takes away someone's rights. Which just happens to be in every case.

She can believe that gay marriage is wrong, she can do whatever she likes in these regards as long as it doesn't go against the Rights of people, say, by stopping them from getting married.

So she has two choices. Either accept the US Constitution and the US government, which she actually works for, or she can quit her job.

You are going to have to come up with a different angle than sacrificial killings because its impossible to discuss this and remain within the boundaries of reason on your terms.

Fine, you can't discuss this. I don't care. You're unwilling to look at it from my point of view. Then don't. You go off and tell everyone how unconstitutional it is. And I'll go off and tell people how so many people don't understand how the Constitution works. That's fine by me.

You post argumentative fallacies.

Davis is not forcing her religion upon anyone, she is rejecting the gubmints religion from being forced upon her.

It cant be reduced more than that.

How does that work this:

Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

 

[danielpalos]

When is the Right going to stop wasting the (other) Peoples' tax monies on frivolous litigation?

Can you post something with a solid point? People pay the courts except in the case of the kliens where agencies made the decisions circumventing due process.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Yes the first amendment bars Religion from the jurisdiction of the both the franchise government and their courts yet the supreme court and judiciary continue to stomp peoples rights without constitutional authorization to do so."

Incorrect.

The courts are authorized by Articles III and VI to determine what the Constitution means and to invalidate Federal, state, and local measures repugnant to the Constitution.

Rulings of the courts do not 'deprive' persons of their rights.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Mine is, there are the laws of the land. There are also laws that affect the US government, specifically the US Constitution. If you can't handle the US constitution, then don't work for the US govt.

So then how do you reconcile this [the part in red]:

First Amendment - Religion and Expression. 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.

since it is part of the US constitution, it would seem like you are now agreeing with me.

 

[frigidweirdo]

My next question: Did davis exercise her religion, yes or no?

No.

You are incorrect. One exercises their religion by abiding by the law set forth in that religion. she abided by that law.

Which Christian law says "don't give marriage licenses to gay people" exactly?

The problem here is that you dont seem to understand what is being talked about. Do you know what an accessory to a crime is? You people continually go around in circles and all I can figure out is that you must not understand what the legal terms are that I have been using.

There's a BIG difference between not understanding, and not agreeing with you.

So, again, WHAT CHRISTIAN LAW SAYS "DON'T GIVE MARRIAGE LICENSES TO GAY PEOPLE"?????

 

[KokomoJojo]

When is the Right going to stop wasting the (other) Peoples' tax monies on frivolous litigation?

Can you post something with a solid point? People pay the courts except in the case of the kliens where agencies made the decisions circumventing due process.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

yes subordinate rules constructed under the organic supreme law of the land, where the freedom to exercise your religion is expressly reserved.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Mine is, there are the laws of the land. There are also laws that affect the US government, specifically the US Constitution. If you can't handle the US constitution, then don't work for the US govt.

So then how do you reconcile this [the part in red]:

First Amendment - Religion and Expression. 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.

since it is part of the US constitution, it would seem like you are now agreeing with me.

Again, ALL RIGHTS are LIMITED.

Do you agree with me on this?

The right to free speech, congress cannot make no law abridge free speech, yet they made laws on libel, treason, and other such stuff. So, clearly they're wrong right? Nope, they're not.

Congress cannot make a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion EXCEPT when that free exercise of religion infringes on other rights. Which is EXACTLY the case here.

 

[KokomoJojo]

WHAT CHRISTIAN LAW SAYS "DON'T GIVE MARRIAGE LICENSES TO GAY PEOPLE"?????

Well we are back to your need for an attorney to help you understand what I am talking about. This is important 'stuff' and you need to educate yourself on various flavors of law and how they are interpreted. Sorry but your question is backwards application of law again, hence another frivolous argument.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Mine is, there are the laws of the land. There are also laws that affect the US government, specifically the US Constitution. If you can't handle the US constitution, then don't work for the US govt.

So then how do you reconcile this [the part in red]:

First Amendment - Religion and Expression. 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.

since it is part of the US constitution, it would seem like you are now agreeing with me.

Again, ALL RIGHTS are LIMITED.

Do you agree with me on this?

The right to free speech, congress cannot make no law abridge free speech, yet they made laws on libel, treason, and other such stuff. So, clearly they're wrong right? Nope, they're not.

Congress cannot make a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion EXCEPT when that free exercise of religion infringes on other rights. Which is EXACTLY the case here.

Libel is a tort, their laws are because its good for their interloper business and highly profitable because people do not know the difference.

Seriously you wont get the outcome you hope for by throwing shit at the wall hoping something will stick.

That and you have not even answered the op which is at the core of the argument to begin with!

"Where does the court get the jurisdiction to adjudicate religion which resides in the "do not enter zone" in the first place?"

 

[frigidweirdo]

WHAT CHRISTIAN LAW SAYS "DON'T GIVE MARRIAGE LICENSES TO GAY PEOPLE"?????

Well we are back to your need for an attorney to help you understand what I am talking about. This is important 'stuff' and you need to educate yourself on various flavors of law and how they are interpreted. Sorry but your question is backwards application of law again, hence another frivolous argument.

Oh, we're back to you pretending that you know everything and I'm just ignorant. Hmm. But you can't answer my question. Fine, there is NO RELIGIOUS LAW that says this woman can't do this. She has her beliefs, they're based on what SHE THINKS and not based on some kind of ruling that her church has handed down.

Not sure what this has to do with an attorney, we're not talking the law of the land, we're talking the laws of a religion here.

Not a frivolous argument, just another case of you avoiding the point. Sigh.

 

[KokomoJojo]

How does that work this:

Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

Sure it can, you can have with very few exceptions any kind of gubmint you want in a republic.

 

[KokomoJojo]

WHAT CHRISTIAN LAW SAYS "DON'T GIVE MARRIAGE LICENSES TO GAY PEOPLE"?????

Well we are back to your need for an attorney to help you understand what I am talking about. This is important 'stuff' and you need to educate yourself on various flavors of law and how they are interpreted. Sorry but your question is backwards application of law again, hence another frivolous argument.

Oh, we're back to you pretending that you know everything and I'm just ignorant. Hmm. But you can't answer my question. Fine, there is NO RELIGIOUS LAW that says this woman can't do this. She has her beliefs, they're based on what SHE THINKS and not based on some kind of ruling that her church has handed down.

Not sure what this has to do with an attorney, we're not talking the law of the land, we're talking the laws of a religion here.

Not a frivolous argument, just another case of you avoiding the point. Sigh.

No its not that you are ignorant, you just miss a boat load of salient but crucial points and I tire of repeating the same thing every time you go full circle when the answers are and have to be the same. I even addressed your incorrect claim that I am pretending and cant answer your questions when I already have but you dont even see it because you dont really understand it and there is a point where I have to draw the line. I normally dont go that far but when people insist on pushing me well there you have it. Miller time!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Mine is, there are the laws of the land. There are also laws that affect the US government, specifically the US Constitution. If you can't handle the US constitution, then don't work for the US govt.

So then how do you reconcile this [the part in red]:

First Amendment - Religion and Expression. 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.

since it is part of the US constitution, it would seem like you are now agreeing with me.

Again, ALL RIGHTS are LIMITED.

Do you agree with me on this?

The right to free speech, congress cannot make no law abridge free speech, yet they made laws on libel, treason, and other such stuff. So, clearly they're wrong right? Nope, they're not.

Congress cannot make a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion EXCEPT when that free exercise of religion infringes on other rights. Which is EXACTLY the case here.

Libel is a tort, their laws are because its good for their interloper business and highly profitable because people do not know the difference.

Seriously you wont get the outcome you hope for by throwing shit at the wall hoping something will stick.

That and you have not even answered the op which is at the core of the argument to begin with!

"Where does the court get the jurisdiction to adjudicate religion which resides in the "do not enter zone" in the first place?"

Libel exists in a system which has freedom of speech right? How exactly are libel and the right to free speech compatible?

This isn't throwing shit, this is all about HUMAN RIGHTS.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No its not that you are ignorant, you just miss a boat load of salient but crucial points and I tire of repeating the same thing every time you go full circle when the answers are and have to be the same. I even addressed your incorrect claim that I am pretending and cant answer your questions when I already have but you dont even see it because you dont really understand it and there is a point where I have to draw the line. I normally dont go that far but when people insist on pushing me well there you have it. Miller time!

Crucial points, like "KokomoJojo is always right no matter what is said"??? Yeah, haven't I heard this one a million times?

The simple points are this.

One, a right is limited. Everything you've said requires the right to religion to be ABOVE all other rights. It's not.
Two, Davis works for the government and has to follow government policy.
Three, the Supreme Court interprets the constitution, it did so in this case, it is perfectly constitutional as set out in article 3.

Anything you have a problem with here?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

First again in the davis case the gubmint was negligent because they did not take into account an alternative means by which these certs could be signed, or inform these people that the county executive 3 doors down had the authority to sign them as well, but instead to demand that davis in the flesh sign them.

Kentucky law provides that the County Clerk OR Deputy County Clerks can sign Civil Marriage licenses. Not only did Ms. Davis refuse to issue the document, she ordered her Deputy Clerks not to issue the document also.

BTW - Ms. Davis's own Civil Marriage license issued in 2009 is not signed by a County Clerk, it is "signed" (actually initialed) by the Deputy Clerk. That clerks name was Pam Logan and it was initialed with "PL".


>>>>

short sweet and simply she can refuse to personally sign the certs however she cannot within the scope of her rights (if she in fact did that, her attorney did not present it that way). She cannot extend her religious beliefs to force the deputies not to sign the certs any more than the gubmint has the authority to extend their religion or choose the gays religion over the kliens religion violating the kliens, worse destroying their lives in the process.

This is meaningless gibberish.

It's also all over the legal map, confusing various doctrines of law, one having nothing to do with the other.

The Kim Davis case has nothing to do with the First Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause, the 14th Amendment, or religious liberty.

Obergefell concerned 14th Amendment jurisprudence, having nothing to do with the First.

And public accommodations laws with regard to sexual orientation concern Commerce Clause jurisprudence and the regulatory policy it authorizes, having nothing to do with the First and 14th Amendments.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

First. Why shouldn't they demand that Davis does her job?

well lets start here:

First Amendment - Religion and Expression. 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.

you could amend the constitution I suppose.

I assume you agree that she does in fact have the right to protect her religion does she not?

.

The "free exercise" of religion doesn't mean an individual can make a sacrificial killing, does it? All rights are LIMITED, aren't they?

She can carry out her religious beliefs all she likes. But she is trying to infringe on the rights of other people. Therefore what she is doing is NOT PROTECTED. Does this make sense?

I can kill anyone in a sacrificial killing, except where it actually takes away someone's rights. Which just happens to be in every case.

She can believe that gay marriage is wrong, she can do whatever she likes in these regards as long as it doesn't go against the Rights of people, say, by stopping them from getting married.

So she has two choices. Either accept the US Constitution and the US government, which she actually works for, or she can quit her job.

You are going to have to come up with a different angle than sacrificial killings because its impossible to discuss this and remain within the boundaries of reason on your terms.

Fine, you can't discuss this. I don't care. You're unwilling to look at it from my point of view. Then don't. You go off and tell everyone how unconstitutional it is. And I'll go off and tell people how so many people don't understand how the Constitution works. That's fine by me.

You post argumentative fallacies.

Davis is not forcing her religion upon anyone, she is rejecting the gubmints religion from being forced upon her.

It cant be reduced more than that.

There is no 'government religion,' and nothing is being 'forced' on Davis.

She's at liberty to resign her position if she's unable to obey the rule of law, as she promised to do when she became an officer of the state, subject to Article VI of the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

She is the government in this case, the ONLY government agent in that capacity. The government used religion to deny citizens their legal rights. That is illegal. She's not a private citizen baking a cake. She is the government. Do Muslims at the DMV get to deny me a drivers license because I'm a woman? No. Do Jewish inspectors get to shut down my restaurant because it is not kosher? No. You see her as Christian Kim Davis. She's the Clerk of Court, the government.

The government used religion as a weapon against nonbelievers. Are you OK with that?

Sorry too vague for me to respond in a meaningful manner.

If you could come up with some religious reason that any of those people would not do their job then we would have something to discuss. On the other hand we could argue that davis took the job under one set of and the courts changed the rules such that the new rules violated her religion. Hence the gubmint changed the job requirements and davis found her self swimming without a lifeboat.

The gubmint should have made accomodations for those with religious objection instead they resort to forcing her to act against her religion, a religion she has the reserved right to protect.

How do you think (in law) that she is wrong?

??? Too vague? I just showed you two ways a government agent could deny my drivers licence or shut down my (nonexistant) restaurant on religious grounds.

"It is against my religion for women to drive; therefore, I refuse to issue drivers licenses to women."

"God says it is unclean to use the same equipment and utensils for both meats and fruits/veggies/grains; therefore, your restaurant is unclean and I cannot renew/issue your permits and you are shut down."

Are you OK with that?

Do either of your examples for the muslim or jew to commit a sin against their God or G-D whichever the case may be? In the davis case that is the issue you know.

No, it is not the issue.

There are no First Amendment issues at stake, Davis is not being 'forced' to 'violate' her religion.

 

[Mad Scientist]

You challenged the courts ability to hear the claim?

Yes.

When a Cop Arrests you he's supposed to haul you in front of a Judge to determine if you broke any applicable law. If not then the Cop has committed False Arrest but that discussion is for a different time. Instead, you sign an agreement to appear before a Judge, usually Municipal Court Judge who determines if the ticket was written Lawfully.

They don't do that anymore.

What they do is make you plead Guilty or not Guilty thus skipping over a large part of your Due Process Rights and violate the very agreement they made you sign in the first place!

So when I go in I say "I make a special Appearance before the Court to challenge it's Subject Matter Jurisdiction". The Judge, if he's smart, will hold a Hearing to determine if the Court has Jurisdiction. That's called Due Process. He does this BEFORE he holds the Trial. If he doesn't, I then have one more thing (and a big thing) to bring up at the Appeal Level. It's good to make it clear during the proceedings that you know of this and are willing to use that process too!