“Authorized by” can conceivably mean “have been hired”. But “under the direction of” definitely means following the clerk’s instructions.
99% of the time I sign a legal document by hand, my mark is a vague scribble consisting of the cursive for my first and last initial, followed by a series of gestures which could potentially be compared to the letters in my name that follow those initials if one could be bothered to hire a forensic graphologist to examine them.
I’d love to meet the judge who would invalidate my credit card debt because I didn’t properly form the H in my middle name when signing the contract.
Do you continue to assert that a county clerk has the authority to order her subordinates to violate a court order?
The second part is contingent on the first part. If they are not acting under the direction of the circuit clerk, the second part doesn’t apply. Oh and thanks for providing the part of the statute that proves my point.
Does the circuit clerk have the authority, under the laws of the state of Kentucky, to order her deputies to violate a federal court order?
Do you believe that the clerks are required by law to obey illegal instructions from their boss?
In addition, D’Aconia conveniently leaves out what actually happened. Newsom thought that the state law prohibiting SSM was unconstitutional (and he later turned out to be correct about that), so he ordered SF to start issuing SSM licenses. The issue went to court, the CA Supreme Court said “Nope! SF doesn’t get to make that call,” and they nullified the marriage licenses. Then Newsom complied with the ruling. He had his day in court, he lost and he complied with the law.
Davis has had her day in court too, and she’s lost (her appeals have been denied). And she’s still refusing to comply with the “rule of law.” This is the complete opposite of what Newsom did.
Did you just make that contingency up, or do you have a cite for that?
The law, kindly provided by tomndebb, requires them to act under the direction of the clerk. If they think the clerk’s directions are illegal, then they can refuse to act under those directions. But they cannot just act in any kind of official capacity on their own without the direction at all. Which is why them issuing the licenses is invalid.
Well, it’s a good thing then that they were directed by the judge to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Because otherwise we’d be expected to assume that a county bureaucrat could nullify the supreme law of the land by personal fiat.
And that kind of anarchy has no place in a “nation of laws”.
Maybe, maybe not. There’s already been a cite provided in this thread that seems to indicate that clerical errors of this sort aren’t enough to invalidate a marriage. So, unless you or Terr can provided legal authority that clearly indicates that a missing signature invalidates a marriage, then this is all just making stuff up.
Based on my familiarity with the law of other states, this would not be enough to invalidate a license when the married couple is acting in good-faith. So, based on my own legal knowledge, combined with the cite provided earlier in the thread, I’m going to lean towards the conclusion that these marriages will eventually be held to be valid. I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise by an actual legal argument, but nobody has bothered to actually provide a coherent legal argument to invalidate these licenses.
Please. Terr started this thread clearly knowing nothing about Kentucky law. His legal assertions have been shot down one-by-one. And he still refuses to actually make a legal argument. Do you know how I found that court order I linked to? It was in the footnotes on the Wikipedia page. It wasn’t hidden somewhere. Terr can’t be bothered to go read the court order which started this all off, but he wants to pretend he’s a legal expert.
This is not a legal argument either.
I believe that law cited by Tomndebb is for court clerks and not county clerks, but I don’t have time to look it up right now.
They have direction – the direction of state law (and court rulings) that their duty is to (among other things) issue marriage licenses to couples regardless of sexual orientation.
Heh. I remember seeing the same cite last night and didn’t cite it because I wasn’t sure about exactly that reason. That may well be correct.
Except the KY law does not authorize the judge to authorize such licenses to be issued. It is left to the county clerk.
KY law does not authorize the county clerk or deputies to not issue marriage licenses. Refusing to issue such licenses is breaking the law, according to the judge.
…
or deputies. As you well know by this point.
You’d certainly like to add in some additional claim about how if the deputies aren’t acting in accordance with illegal directives from their boss, their actions aren’t binding. But your only citation for this is your gut.
And since the deputy clerk is currently incarcerated, that duty falls to her deputies, who, as per state law which you have already been informed of multiple times in this thread possess full legal authority to authorize such licenses to be issued.
Seriously, at this point you’re just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “LALALALALALALAICANTHEARYOUGAYMARRIAGEISILLEGAL” when confronted with any facts or case law that contradicts what you’ve decided you want to believe is true.
I know, it makes way too much sense to be applicable to the county deputy clerks, doesn’t it? And btw, yes, Kim Davis is a Circuit Court Clerk AFAIU, and that statute does apply to her and her deputies.
Good for you!
Cite?