The marriage licenses are not issued under the federal law or the Constitution. They are issued under state law.
And state law is, in all cases, in all matters, and in every regard, subordinate to the Constitution of the United States, which states that the right to marry may not be denied on the basis of gender.
Is any of this getting through to you?
I trust that you posted before reading my post immediately above yours that cites the Kentucky law that specifically authorizes deputy clerks to sign marriage licenses, and that now having had the opportunity to review the legislation, you acknowledge that the deputy clerk-signed marriage licenses are valid.
And Kentucky state law says that deputy clerks can issue marriage licenses or perform other ministerial functions. Do you have a cite that says a clerk can issue binding orders to her deputies forbidding them from doing so?
What law do you think backs up this assertion?
Not if the clerk (who has authority over deputy clerks) expressly forbids it.
What law do you base that assertion on?
Where does Kentucky law authorize a county clerk to give their deputies a binding order to break the law or disobey a federal court order?
Please cite the relevant statute.
Again, here’s how it works:
-Clerk is elected.
-Clerk gets deputies.
-DEPUTIES ARE IMMEDIATELY BY STATUTE AUTHORIZED TO DO WHATEVER THE CLERK MAY DO.
The statute I cited contains no exceptions. It doesn’t say, “deputies are authorized to do whatever the clerk may do, unless the clerk tells them not to.”
You think that’s absurd. But let’s be clear: you’re just saying you think the current legal setup is absurd. If you think there should be such an exception built into statute, you need to lobby for a change to the law.
Just because you think the law is poorly written doesn’t change the clear language of the law.
So if a state statute gives discretion to an official to do some administrative act, then the official can continue to perform those administrative acts in unconstitutional ways until that person is removed from office. Again, am I misstating your position here in any way?
How about another hypothetical. The UCMJ prohibits torture. If a National Guardman is called to state duty - not Federal duty - to suppress a riot or something, can he order his troops to torture looters? The Guardsman is acting purely in a non-Federal role in this scenario.
Elected DA to Assistant DA: “Don’t prosecute that drunk driver.”
Assistant DA: “I’m going to.” (and does so successfully. There is a valid charging document, a jury trial, a verdict, etc.)
Drunk driver: “I’m not convicted of a crime. The prosecutor wasn’t listening to his boss when he prosecuted me.”
The Court system: “tough shit, drunk driving guy”
The DA can fire the ADA, but the drunk driver is still guilty as established in court. Here, the county issued marriage licenses. Maybe they had authority, maybe they didn’t (hint, they did). Either way, it’s a done deal.
Terr, if a clerk told a deputy to shoot a person who was applying for a marriage license, do you think the clerk would be obliged to break the law? I’m hoping you’d say no because the clerk did not have the authority to command a deputy to commit an illegal act.
Well swap out “shoot a person” for “deny a person” and you logically must come to the same conclusion, that no, the deputy would not be obliged to break the law by refusing to issue a marriage license because the clerk did not have the authority to command the deputy to commit an illegal act.
Where is the text that indicates that the deputy must have express permission from the clerk to issue the licenses?
I think that the fact that the clerk is absent for the express purpose of violating the law has a bearing on the matter.
From a purely textual standpoint, I don’t think it does. If the clerk was shouting, “DON’T ISSUE THAT MARRIAGE LICENSE!” and lunging for the pen, and the deputy managed to issue the license and hand it to the citizen, I see nothing in the language of the law that would invalidate the license.
From a standpoint of being reasonable, of not being “absurd,” as Terr puts it, yeah, you’re absolutely right.
Terr wants to be super-technical in one way, and reasonable in another way, as long as it benefits his claim.
Technically, that’s reasonable.
Of course they have the authority. A deputy acts on the behalf of the primary, such as a deputy sheriff.
deputy
[dep-yuh-tee]
noun, plural deputies.
1.
a person appointed or authorized to act as a substitute for another or others.
2.
deputy sheriff.
3.
a person appointed or elected as assistant to a public official, serving as successor in the event of a vacancy.
Some people only care about the “nation of laws” concept when it helps their political agenda, as in this case.
Not so much in other, even similar, cases.
The political left wasn’t concerned about the “rule of law” when Gavin Newsom instructed his city clerk(s) to issue marriage licenses in violation of California law at the time.
But now Kim Davis ABSOLUTELY MUST follow the law. :dubious:
Again, that makes no sense. If deputies can do whatever the clerk may do, with no regard to the clerk, what’s the point of having a clerk?
There is a difference between telling someone to do something, and telling someone not to do something.
Whether it makes sense to you or not, it is the law.