Why Jail for Kim Davis But Not for Sanctuary City Officials?

[NYcarbineer]

Kim Davis gets arrested for refusing to obey a clearly unconstitutional and immoral Supreme Court ruling. However, no action has been taken against the mayors and city council members of the co-called "sanctuary cities," cities that are openly defying federal law and whose refusal to follow the law has led to the murder of innocent Americans. Why the double standard?

Defying federal law?

do you think that sanctuary cities are complying with federal law?

Do you think that persons committing crimes should go free if they can show someone somewhere else wasn't prosecuted properly?

 

[NYcarbineer]

O'Hare stood up against others forcing their religion on her. She was not insisting that schools teach atheism....only that they not force Christian beliefs on her children

It's about the right to follow after ones own conscience. In both instances it comes into question whether a government can force an opposing set of beliefs that is contrary to that individual one's own conscience. Can you be forced to accept or to follow a set of beliefs tha stand contrary to your own. Does a person have he right to follow after ones own conscience without have another's view forced upon them.

No, the question is can a representative of the government force her religious beliefs on the community?

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

Nobody has forced her to believe anything. She is entitled to her own beliefs.....she just can't force her beliefs on others

Sorry, I don't believe you are entitled to get married

OK, great. But the government can force its beliefs on the citizens????????????? WTF is wrong with you?

The only way to settle this would be a national referendum or constitutional amendment, but you libs don't want that because you know you would lose.

You want invalidate all case law produced by the Supreme Court?

 

[Camp]

O'Hare stood up against others forcing their religion on her. She was not insisting that schools teach atheism....only that they not force Christian beliefs on her children

It's about the right to follow after ones own conscience. In both instances it comes into question whether a government can force an opposing set of beliefs that is contrary to that individual one's own conscience. Can you be forced to accept or to follow a set of beliefs tha stand contrary to your own. Does a person have he right to follow after ones own conscience without have another's view forced upon them.

No, the question is can a representative of the government force her religious beliefs on the community?

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

Try to wrap you thinking around this. The first amendment forbids the government from establishing a religion. The county clerk is not just an ordinary citizen. The county clerk is an agent of the government and represents the government in her actions. By refusing to issue a document based on her religious convictions the agent of the government is establishing an endorsed and promoted specific religion via the refusal to issue the document due to religious beliefs. If she were not an agent of the government and representing the government there would be no issue.

I said earlier that she was in violation of the law and subject to the penalties that go with that.

But why is she in jail and denied bail? Is her crime so heinous that she is a danger to humanity?

She is in jail because courts hold someone in civil contempt as the method by which courts enforce compliance with their ruling.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

O'Hare stood up against others forcing their religion on her. She was not insisting that schools teach atheism....only that they not force Christian beliefs on her children

It's about the right to follow after ones own conscience. In both instances it comes into question whether a government can force an opposing set of beliefs that is contrary to that individual one's own conscience. Can you be forced to accept or to follow a set of beliefs tha stand contrary to your own. Does a person have he right to follow after ones own conscience without have another's view forced upon them.

No, the question is can a representative of the government force her religious beliefs on the community?

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

Nobody has forced her to believe anything. She is entitled to her own beliefs.....she just can't force her beliefs on others

Sorry, I don't believe you are entitled to get married

OK, great. But the government can force its beliefs on the citizens????????????? WTF is wrong with you?

The only way to settle this would be a national referendum or constitutional amendment, but you libs don't want that because you know you would lose.

WTF is wrong with you is the proper question! What government cabal got together to force its disembodied opinion upon anyone. Your statement is superfluous on it face.

And where in the Constitution is a provision for a national referendum or plebiscite directly from the people? We are guarded by the Constitution from that sort of mob rule. Where the hell do you get these ideas?

 

[Geaux4it]

Why does San Francisco think we need open borders?

-Geaux

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Nobody has yet to prove sanctuary cities are illegal

If they stand in conflict with Federal Immigration laws which are in higher authority over the states, and as a result sanctuary cities feel they ought to take the issue of immigration into their own hands, then absolutely they are.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Well Mike just brought up a great point, when it comes to following the law. We have judge Kim Davis being put in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses in a state where the people voted in favor of traditional marriage. The Supreme Court made its own ruling against the voters, but the judge still followed what she believed was right in denying same sex couples marriage licenses. She is told she will be in jail until her beliefs are changed.

The San Francisco mayor believes what the city is doing is right,, by standing up to Federal law that supports immigration enforcement. Unlike the situation with Kim Davis, San Francisco's efforts have resulted in the death of American citizens. Still, it doesn't make major headlines with most of the media. There are no repercussions, no jail time for those responsible for violating federal law. Yes, there is an obvious double standard of enforcement and consequences for those violators here.

States also voted against integration. The courts ordered them to do otherwise. Davis does not have to change her beliefs but if her beliefs conflict with doing her job, she has to make a choice

That choice can't be forcing your beliefs on others

Jailing someone in this case, is forcing someone to exchange their beliefs In order to comply with an opposing view of what someone else believes. You can use the system to remove her from office, but to jail her for simply having a different core value of beliefs is wrong - period,

If she is to be jailed for not following the law, then those in office who allowed the illegal immigrant felon to remain in San Francisco deserve the same fate. There is no difference in tolerance

She was not jailed for not following the law. She was jailed for contempt

When religious people feel their religion conflicts with their job, they can always leave their job

She cannot force her religious beliefs on the community

She can be removed from office, but to jail her is wrong and there is nothing to justify jailing someone for their personal beliefs.

She should stand by her personal beliefs and resign....that is what public officials who have religious conflicts are expected to do

Answer me honestly.......Do you really believe public officials should be permitted to have their religious beliefs define how they will do their job?

Those who are atheist like O'Hair are following after the right for their own belief to be recognized, dispite the fact it can have an effect towards others values of beliefs. Our Government during that moment of history, should not have their own belief values forced upon them, and they shouldn't be thrown in jail over them. Kim Davis also has a different set of moral values, that likewise should not be subjected by a government to be forced to follow an opposing set of moral views that is contrary to HER conscience. That is the beauty of the Constitution and the freedom of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. Mrs O'Hair is entitled to her moral religious view and ideals, just as Mrs Davis does.... and they both have an effect on the religious views and moral values of those around them.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It's about the right to follow after ones own conscience. In both instances it comes into question whether a government can force an opposing set of beliefs that is contrary to that individual one's own conscience. Can you be forced to accept or to follow a set of beliefs tha stand contrary to your own. Does a person have he right to follow after ones own conscience without have another's view forced upon them.

No, the question is can a representative of the government force her religious beliefs on the community?

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

Nobody has forced her to believe anything. She is entitled to her own beliefs.....she just can't force her beliefs on others

Sorry, I don't believe you are entitled to get married

OK, great. But the government can force its beliefs on the citizens????????????? WTF is wrong with you?

The only way to settle this would be a national referendum or constitutional amendment, but you libs don't want that because you know you would lose.

WTF is wrong with you is the proper question! What government cabal got together to force its disembodied opinion upon anyone. Your statement is superfluous on it face.

And where in the Constitution is a provision for a national referendum or plebiscite directly from the people? We are guarded by the Constitution from that sort of mob rule. Where the hell do you get these ideas?

Why the U.S. Supreme Court simply can't radify changes to the constitution, or inact a change to the interpretation of the Amendment.


Article V - Amending the Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


No where are the words Supreme Court mentioned, but Congress is the only branch of Government that is capable.
Look at how our system of government "correctly" handled women's rights AFTER the passage of the 14th amendment, if you need an example.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

No, the question is can a representative of the government force her religious beliefs on the community?

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

Nobody has forced her to believe anything. She is entitled to her own beliefs.....she just can't force her beliefs on others

Sorry, I don't believe you are entitled to get married

OK, great. But the government can force its beliefs on the citizens????????????? WTF is wrong with you?

The only way to settle this would be a national referendum or constitutional amendment, but you libs don't want that because you know you would lose.

WTF is wrong with you is the proper question! What government cabal got together to force its disembodied opinion upon anyone. Your statement is superfluous on it face.

And where in the Constitution is a provision for a national referendum or plebiscite directly from the people? We are guarded by the Constitution from that sort of mob rule. Where the hell do you get these ideas?

Why the U.S. Supreme Court simply can't radify changes to the constitution, or inact a change to the interpretation of the Amendment.


Article V - Amending the Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


No where are the words Supreme Court mentioned, but Congress is the only branch of Government that is capable.
Look at how our system of government "correctly" handled women's rights AFTER the passage of the 14th amendment, if you need an example.

I don't think you have a very good grasp of what the Constitution says and what it doesn't say. Here are a few references to clear up your immediate misunderstandings.

First, the Federalist #78 authored by Alexander Hamilton in 1787. In that treatise, he explains the purpose of the Supreme Court and the Article III Courts to be established by Congress upon ratification of the Constitution. He went into the reasons why the Courts would be an independent branch of government, why federal judges would have life appointments and the concept of and necessity for JUDICIAL REVIEW, among other things. The latter, judicial review, is the point about which you seem to have absolutely no understanding. You need to read what Hamilton wrote to understand the powers vested in SCOTUS and the Article III Courts.

Second, you need to review the landmark and precedent setting decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) with concentration on what Chief Justice Marshall wrote about judicial review by the Court and its power to interpret law and set legal precedent to change the law to comport with the Constitution.

Thanks for posting the text of Article V, but that really wasn't necessary. The Courts have the power and authority to interpret the law according to Constitutional standards. To claim, imply or infer that a modification of the Law of the Land can ONLY be accomplished through the Article V amendment process is false and you are in error for that assertion!!!!

BTW Amendment XIV was the second of the three post bellum amendments dealing with the issues of that period dealing primarily with the rights of the newly emancipated in the South and dealing primarily with their rights. Amendment XIX dealt with women's suffrage over 50 years later. You might want to put a little more time into studying the Constitution along with those two I mentioned above.

 

[Redfish]

It's about the right to follow after ones own conscience. In both instances it comes into question whether a government can force an opposing set of beliefs that is contrary to that individual one's own conscience. Can you be forced to accept or to follow a set of beliefs tha stand contrary to your own. Does a person have he right to follow after ones own conscience without have another's view forced upon them.

No, the question is can a representative of the government force her religious beliefs on the community?

No, the question is whether the government can force its religious beliefs on an individual citizen.

Nobody has forced her to believe anything. She is entitled to her own beliefs.....she just can't force her beliefs on others

Sorry, I don't believe you are entitled to get married

OK, great. But the government can force its beliefs on the citizens????????????? WTF is wrong with you?

The only way to settle this would be a national referendum or constitutional amendment, but you libs don't want that because you know you would lose.

You don't get to vote on what rights others are allowed to have

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

Right, and thats exactly the democracy that put obozo in the whitehouse twice. What idiots like you don't get is that you are the sheep.

 

[Redfish]

Kim Davis gets arrested for refusing to obey a clearly unconstitutional and immoral Supreme Court ruling. However, no action has been taken against the mayors and city council members of the co-called "sanctuary cities," cities that are openly defying federal law and whose refusal to follow the law has led to the murder of innocent Americans. Why the double standard?

Defying federal law?

do you think that sanctuary cities are complying with federal law?

Do you think that persons committing crimes should go free if they can show someone somewhere else wasn't prosecuted properly?

of course not, but thats exactly what happens in sanctuary cities. You obviously don't understand legal precedent.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Kim Davis gets arrested for refusing to obey a clearly unconstitutional and immoral Supreme Court ruling. However, no action has been taken against the mayors and city council members of the co-called "sanctuary cities," cities that are openly defying federal law and whose refusal to follow the law has led to the murder of innocent Americans. Why the double standard?

Defying federal law?

do you think that sanctuary cities are complying with federal law?

Do you think that persons committing crimes should go free if they can show someone somewhere else wasn't prosecuted properly?

of course not, but thats exactly what happens in sanctuary cities. You obviously don't understand legal precedent.

I understand irrelevant deflection, which is what you people are engaged in in this thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Kim Davis gets arrested for refusing to obey a clearly unconstitutional and immoral Supreme Court ruling. However, no action has been taken against the mayors and city council members of the co-called "sanctuary cities," cities that are openly defying federal law and whose refusal to follow the law has led to the murder of innocent Americans. Why the double standard?

Defying federal law?

do you think that sanctuary cities are complying with federal law?

Do you think that persons committing crimes should go free if they can show someone somewhere else wasn't prosecuted properly?

of course not, but thats exactly what happens in sanctuary cities. You obviously don't understand legal precedent.

I have no problem whatsoever with the cities being held accountable to the law.

 

[Redfish]

Kim Davis gets arrested for refusing to obey a clearly unconstitutional and immoral Supreme Court ruling. However, no action has been taken against the mayors and city council members of the co-called "sanctuary cities," cities that are openly defying federal law and whose refusal to follow the law has led to the murder of innocent Americans. Why the double standard?

Defying federal law?

do you think that sanctuary cities are complying with federal law?

Do you think that persons committing crimes should go free if they can show someone somewhere else wasn't prosecuted properly?

of course not, but thats exactly what happens in sanctuary cities. You obviously don't understand legal precedent.

I understand irrelevant deflection, which is what you people are engaged in in this thread.

There is no deflection here except coming from you.

Not one of you libs have yet told us why the clerk was jailed and denied bail. Is she a danger to society? Is she a flight risk? What she did is a misdemeaner, she should not have been jailed and she should be allowed bail.

 

[Redfish]

Kim Davis gets arrested for refusing to obey a clearly unconstitutional and immoral Supreme Court ruling. However, no action has been taken against the mayors and city council members of the co-called "sanctuary cities," cities that are openly defying federal law and whose refusal to follow the law has led to the murder of innocent Americans. Why the double standard?

Defying federal law?

do you think that sanctuary cities are complying with federal law?

Do you think that persons committing crimes should go free if they can show someone somewhere else wasn't prosecuted properly?

of course not, but thats exactly what happens in sanctuary cities. You obviously don't understand legal precedent.

I have no problem whatsoever with the cities being held accountable to the law.

Good, how about people who enter this country illegally? should they also be held accountable to the law?

 

[Kondor3]

False equivalency, Mike.

Rosa Davis was denied equal access to public transportation.

Kim Davis was denying equal access to county clerk services.

where did he mention Rosa?

how is ignoring one law ok but ignoring another not?

Because they can hide behind the Protected Class argument, when it comes to Gays vis a vis Illegal Aliens.

Time to remove such Protected Classes at-law.

Maybe work can begin on that project - stripping-away Protected Classes - shortly after January 20, 2017.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Defying federal law?

do you think that sanctuary cities are complying with federal law?

Do you think that persons committing crimes should go free if they can show someone somewhere else wasn't prosecuted properly?

of course not, but thats exactly what happens in sanctuary cities. You obviously don't understand legal precedent.

I have no problem whatsoever with the cities being held accountable to the law.

Good, how about people who enter this country illegally? should they also be held accountable to the law?

I've said before, as a personal view that I fully recognize is outlandish and impractical, I oppose all immigration, period,

until someone proves to me the net value of it. I oppose adding to a labor force that already has problems with employment and just as importantly underemployment.

It actually bothers me more that we import doctors than it does that we import farm workers.

 

[Redfish]

do you think that sanctuary cities are complying with federal law?

Do you think that persons committing crimes should go free if they can show someone somewhere else wasn't prosecuted properly?

of course not, but thats exactly what happens in sanctuary cities. You obviously don't understand legal precedent.

I have no problem whatsoever with the cities being held accountable to the law.

Good, how about people who enter this country illegally? should they also be held accountable to the law?

I've said before, as a personal view that I fully recognize is outlandish and impractical, I oppose all immigration, period,

until someone proves to me the net value of it. I oppose adding to a labor force that already has problems with employment and just as importantly underemployment.

It actually bothers me more that we import doctors than it does that we import farm workers.

Wow, I never thought we would agree on something. Congratulations.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Defying federal law?

do you think that sanctuary cities are complying with federal law?

Do you think that persons committing crimes should go free if they can show someone somewhere else wasn't prosecuted properly?

of course not, but thats exactly what happens in sanctuary cities. You obviously don't understand legal precedent.

I have no problem whatsoever with the cities being held accountable to the law.

Good, how about people who enter this country illegally? should they also be held accountable to the law?

Of course they should, no one argues they shouldn't.

And being held accountable to the law means being afforded due process of the law, where an undocumented immigrant isn't 'illegal' until such time as he has been found guilty in a court of law of entering the country absent authorization.

The problem is most on the right refuse to afford those undocumented their right to due process, in violation of the Constitution – advocating instead 'rounding them up' and 'deporting' them without first determining their status and processing their applications as refugees or asylees, as required by immigration law.

 

[Redfish]

do you think that sanctuary cities are complying with federal law?

Do you think that persons committing crimes should go free if they can show someone somewhere else wasn't prosecuted properly?

of course not, but thats exactly what happens in sanctuary cities. You obviously don't understand legal precedent.

I have no problem whatsoever with the cities being held accountable to the law.

Good, how about people who enter this country illegally? should they also be held accountable to the law?

Of course they should, no one argues they shouldn't.

And being held accountable to the law means being afforded due process of the law, where an undocumented immigrant isn't 'illegal' until such time as he has been found guilty in a court of law of entering the country absent authorization.

The problem is most on the right refuse to afford those undocumented their right to due process, in violation of the Constitution – advocating instead 'rounding them up' and 'deporting' them without first determining their status and processing their applications as refugees or asylees, as required by immigration law.

Your second paragraph is total horseshit. If a person is asked to prove that he or she is a citizen and can't do that then its the duty of ICE or INS to detain them until they either prove citizenship or are deported. There is no court appearence required, no judge, no jury. Either you prove citizenship or you don't. There is no gray area here.

You libs are trying to claim that just because someone here illegally has managed to stay for a number of years that that somehow excuses the act of illegal entry. Its legal mumbo jumbo and has no basis in law.

your third paragraph is talking points and of zero value in this discussion