There are 3,143 counties in the United States.
In each of those counties, a public official is responsible for issuing marriage licenses to those who are legally entitled to them.
As far as I am aware, none of those officials is empowered to deny a marriage license to a couple simply because he or she doesn’t approve of the marriage.
But then there is Kim Davis, the elected Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. Claiming religious objections, Ms. Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She even went to jail for a few days rather than carry out her statutory duty. Suddenly, Ms. Davis is a national celebrity, a martyr, a hero, a criminal or whatever — depending on one’s point of view.
We even watched as presidential candidates literally raced to Kentucky to be the first to join Ms. Davis for a photo op outside the jail when she was released.
It was quite a spectacle, and it isn’t over yet.
Religious freedom is important. It is one of the liberties Our America seeks to protect — and even strengthen. That isn’t the issue, despite what too many politicians would have us believe. Ms. Davis has every right to believe whatever it is she believes. But when she is sitting at her taxpayer-funded desk in her taxpayer-funded office in a taxpayer-funded courthouse — collecting her taxpayer-funded salary, she does not have the luxury of impos ing her beliefs on those she is elected and paid to serve — especially when doing so means denying marriage rights that have been confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
It isn’t complicated, and her “disobedience” frankly isn’t worth the attention it has received. All over the nation, every day, public officials carry out responsibilities with which they may not be entirely comfortable. How many gun permits are issued by officials who are anti-gun? How many liquor licenses are handed out by teetotalers? Hundreds, if not thousands, of officials and public employees deal with such “conflicts” every day – – because we live in a nation that is founded on the idea that religious or personal beliefs, while preciously protected, cannot be imposed on the legally-protected freedoms of others. The alternative is tyranny.
Even in the case of marriage equality, while Ms. Davis is having her 15 minutes of fame, state and local officials across the nation are quietly and respectfully adjusting to a new, if long overdue, reality, including taking steps to make it easier for public employees to reconcile their duties with strongly-held beliefs. If Ms. Davis can’t handle the conflict, then she can find another job. No one’s stopping her, and no one is stopping her beliefs.
It’s that simple.
No, this single County Clerk isn’t the issue. The REAL issue is that politicians, including some who want to be President, are using her behavior to promote an anti-liberty social agenda based on the notion that it is OK for government to impose beliefs at the expense of freedom.
This entire episode has reminded me why we created the Our America Initiative in the first place: To fight back against those who use the force of government to erode liberty — through unnecessary laws, overreaching policies and out-of-control spending and taxes.
The millions of Americans who believe government should exist to protect liberty, not destroy it, deserve a voice. Your financial support of the Our America Initiative makes it possible for us to provide that voice.
I hope you will go to Our America today and make a contribution that will help us restore Liberty as the real American value.
Thank you!
Gov. Gary Johnson
Honorary Chairman
If you didn’t find what is clearly there, which it is, obviously you did not read it long enough, or follow enough of the links, which do make an airtight case disproving your contention. It shouldn’t take reading the whole website to see that you are clearly in error; some people may take longer than others, but for the vast majority of people it should take substantially less than the whole website, which I nevertheless do recommend reading in its entirety as I have.
I read the page you cited, and when I didn’t find any sort of relevant proof (or even argument) I looked for and found what appeared to be the most-relevant link. I then read that.
If you think you can simply say something like, “Read this whole web page until you change your mind”, I say that’s nuts.
You obviously haven’t read the site enough if that’s what you think they do. Keep reading.
Paulie: Having done that, I see little evidence that this website distinguishes between:
1. The modern American welfare state. AND
2. A libertarian, non-welfare state.
It appears that this website is trying to ignore the welfare-state issue: The idea that the presence of welfare-state characteristics might drive the employment situation in the direction of allowing native unemployment while employing illegal aliens.
Why do they ignore this? Apparently, they hope that this effect isn’t noticed by the readers.
The sublink you posted is a good place to start.
How much time? Up to you, but the more the better. The zero-sum view of the economy your analysis above presumes is easily and quickly refuted by perusing the openborders site, and libertarians with any familiarity with economic theory really should know better
And, of course, it should not even have to be repeated that no human being is illegal.
“The links are there for a reason. Follow them. Including, but not only, that one.”
Follow “them”? How much time must I dedicate to this task? If you have a specific page which explains why the “immigrants put natives out of work” argument is ENTIRELY false, post it. Otherwise, just admit that there is an effect, there.
Look at this page: http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/07/16/unemployment-is-low-but-more-workers-are-leaving-the-workforce
“But participation had peaked years prior – hovering at 67.3 percent in the first four months of 2000 before beginning a gradual descent. The labor market managed to temporarily plug the leak in 2005 and 2006, but the country’s participation rate had been in decline long before the U.S. economy hit a rough patch.”
Now it’s down to a bit under 63%.
This page is a bit irritating because it doesn’t give the two numbers it uses to get the “63%” value. And we can argue about how many illegals there are, today. But I strongly suspect that if the (about) 20 million (employed?) illegals were removed, this would open up enough jobs to increase the labor participation rate to far above 2000’s “67.3%”
The links are there for a reason. Follow them. Including, but not only, that one.
Paulie: I read what is apparently the front page of this cite. I saw a few statements, but they don’t directly address (at least, don’t provide evidence, merely assertions) the truth or falsity of the statement I just made: “they put citizens (especially lazy citizens) out of work”.
At least, it makes a cite which addresses the issue: http://openborders.info/native-wages-down/
So, I don’t think you can accurately say, “incorrect” when I said “they put citizens (especially lazy citizens) out of work”. You can claim that it might not be the whole story. But it’s not simply “incorrect”.
Incorrect.
http://openborders.info/benefits-to-immigrant-receiving-countries/
“If you are an anarchist, it’s rather difficult to understand your “immigration” position, though.”
I think it’s simple. We are not yet a libertarian nation, let alone an anarchy. In fact, quite the opposite, America is a welfare-state, where political power is purchased by welfare checks. While illegal aliens aren’t supposed to receive welfare, they put citizens (especially lazy citizens) out of work, gradually bankrupting the country. If we can fix the non-libertarian-ness of the country, the problem with the border will solve itself.
Sorry, my mistake.
If you are an anarchist, it’s rather difficult to understand your “immigration” position, though.
I too am an anarchist who is willing to make incremental changes to existing governments, but the incremental changes I want to make along the road to anarchy are all to reduce the size, scope and intrusiveness of said governments.
I was a few years behind you; minarchist in the early to mid 90s, anarchist since iirc 2000.
If I had to choose some functions a state would preform so long as there still is one I would have to say “make sure contracts are enforced” would be well ahead of “round up and deport millions of people” among my choices.
Paullie: No, I am definitely an anarchist. By that, I mean that I think the proper goal is to completely eliminate governments. Prior to 1995, I was a minarchist. That was true not because I wanted some sort of minimal government, but instead because I could not think of a logically-consistent way of actually forming a stable, government-free society. But in 1995 I thought of my idea, which turned into my “Assassination Politics” essay. http://cryptome.org/ap.htm That would, indeed, create a stable society based on anarchy.
That does not mean, however, that I have no opinions on existing governments, including how to make the existing status quo better than it is today. Frequently, I express them.
Sorry if this confuses you.
Jim, if I recall correctly, you are not an anarchist. Correct me if I am wrong.
If you don’t think government should be responsible for making sure legal contracts such as inheritance and the like are adhered to
A) Who should
B) What should government be responsible for?
jim Sept 18, 2015
Dave Terry and Robert Capozzi: The fact that a government DOES enforce legal contracts does not mean it was or is ever obligated to do so. I’m afraid that neither of you will ever ‘get’ this vital distinction. I give up trying to correct you.
I Already suggested that the ONLY alternative would be “gun fights in the street” or “vigilantes”!
You NEED to ask your self, just exactly IS a “legal contract” The ONLY alternative to a “civil”
(ie. government court) adjudicating a breach of contract is “binding arbitration.
You ALSO need to ask yourself, what would YOU do if another person violated a contract of which you were a party, and you appealed for adjudication, but was flatly refused!!
It is the failure to understand fundamental principles of “LAW” that make anarchy AND anarchists so dangerous!
It certainly attempts to be and asserts that claim.
Paulie: Well, I guess you feel comfortable assuming there is a “monopoly government”.
If monopoly government is to do anything whatsoever it would seem that enforcing contracts and/or being their final arbiter ought to be pretty high up on that list.
Dave Terry and Robert Capozzi: The fact that a government DOES enforce legal contracts does not mean it was or is ever obligated to do so. I’m afraid that neither of you will ever ‘get’ this vital distinction. I give up trying to correct you.
Jim: ” What actually obligates a government to enforce legal contracts?”
raison d’être –
I suppose you would rather have duels in the street……
or perhaps vigilante committees.
Jim, “debate” — in my experience — solves nothing. Discussion can sometimes be helpful.
A1, S10 of the Constitution does say:
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation …pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”
It doesn’t quite “obligate,” but it does tend to imply some obligation.
The bigger question is: Why is this literal obligation important to you? The US government is obligated to insure domestic tranquility. The Constitution provided for a Supreme and lower courts. The states were delegated other governmental powers.
Where is your technicality going?
I keep asking: So I ask again: What actually obligates a government to enforce legal contracts?
That question is NOT NOT NOT addressed by showing examples where a government or court DOES enforce legal contracts.
Obligates. Ob li gates.
Go back to high school debate class and call me back.
jim; Sept.16,
Dave terru” you said, ““The number of visitors is dependent on the needs and comfort of the patient as well as the needs and comfort of the second patient in a semi-private room. The impact of patient’s visitors on the overall environment of care will be considered. Please respect the request of unit nursing staff if they should occasionally have to ask you to limit numbers of visitors or times of visitation.”
In other words, if you hope to pack 15 of your closest buddies into your hospital room at the same time, think again.
Or 12, or 10, or 8, or 6; Or ANY number MORE than what the Hospital is comfortable!
The POINT is that the Hospital or Medical Facility WILL determine who, how many, and when visitors are allowed to see patients.
A FACT which you acknowledge above, but refuse to admit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ82_3tGM3U
Kim Davis … putting the cunt in county
==State court abstention doctrines==
No national rule requires state courts to abstain from hearing cases brought in federal courts or in courts of other states. But every state has some doctrine that lets its courts stay actions to avoid duplicative litigation.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstention_doctrine&action=edit§ion=7
Some states have doctrines that let state courts abstain from hearing cases already pending in other kinds of tribunals. For example, in ''Gavle v. Little Six, Inc.,'' 555 N.W.2d 284 (Minn. 1996), the [[Minnesota Supreme Court]] upheld abstention where the state court might "undermine the authority of the tribal courts over Reservation affairs" or "infringe on the right of Indians to govern themselves".
A civil judgment is the final order of a court in a civil lawsuit. A civil lawsuit is any lawsuit that is not a criminal lawsuit. Typically, a criminal lawsuit involves a government entity, such as a state or the federal government, and a private individual. A civil lawsuit, in contrast, involves two private parties, such as two corporations or two persons. When a court finally decides a civil lawsuit, the court's decision is referred to as a civil judgmen
Read more : http://www.ehow.com/about_5087814_civil-judgment-mean.html
IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY THERE ARE SOME INSTANCES WHERE COURTS MAY DECLINE TO HEAR A "CIVIL LAW SUIT", HOWEVER IT REQUIRES A SPECIFIC PREDETERMINATION OF "CA– USE"
Dave terru” you said, ““The number of visitors is dependent on the needs and comfort of the patient as well as the needs and comfort of the second patient in a semi-private room. The impact of patient’s visitors on the overall environment of care will be considered. Please respect the request of unit nursing staff if they should occasionally have to ask you to limit numbers of visitors or times of visitation.”
In other words, if you hope to pack 15 of your closest buddies into your hospital room at the same time, think again.
Actually, I think Jim was on some of those past threads. Maybe he doesn’t remember. Either way, use the search feature to avoid unnecessary repetition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQqxz3hE02c
And again, this was by no means a complete list, just a few examples. There are actually literally thousands of different areas of law impacted by marriage recognition by the state.
Look up past IPR discussions.
Use the IPR search box.
State-recognized married couples have more visitation rights than others at many institutions.
But they do call husbands and wives in gay couples, when governments don’t recognize their marriages. That’s blatant discrimination and it should have ended a long time ago.
So what? Government should not be limiting immigration to begin with. But since it is, it’s imperative that it not keep married couples apart, as it had been doing to married gay couples before it started recognizing their marriages very recently.
There are disputes over inheritance, burial, etc., where next of kin have been given precedence over married couples because the marriages were not state-recognized. I already have more than enough things to do, so use the search box and find the past discussions. Examples have all been provided previously.
You assume incorrectly. Use the search box and look up the past discussions where plenty of examples have been given of them being ignored in favor of the wishes of the next of kin.
jim Sept.16,
” I think this is the first time I’ve commented on “hospital visitation” in any discussion area.
But, based on my own limited personal experiences, I find the “hospital visitation” arguments to be idiotic. In the relatively few instances where I’ve visited a person in a hospital, I’ve never been even been asked to identify myself, let alone somehow justify my relationship with the patient.”
What IS idiotic is to discount the existence of an entity or policy, simply because you have never seen or experienced it.
For example:
“The number of visitors is dependent on the needs and comfort of the patient as well as the needs and comfort of the second patient in a semi-private room. The impact of patient’s visitors on the overall environment of care will be considered. Please respect the request of unit nursing staff if they should occasionally have to ask you to limit numbers of visitors or times of visitation.”
See more at:
Dave Terry: You ignored my point. I clearly said, “I am not aware that “government” (at any level) is “obliged to enforce legal contracts””
Which you entirely ignored. It is true that government CAN enforce contracts, but your statement was that it must do so. You didn’t support your claim.
The section of the US Constitution to which you referred defines what those courts (Federal) are capable of adjudicating, NOT what they are obligated to adjudicate.
So I ask again: What actually obligates a government to enforce legal contracts?
William Saturn Sept.16,
Right here you are not arguing for the “fundamental right” to marriage, you are arguing for the “fundamental right” to have the state-recognize your marriage so that you can receive the government benefits that come from such recognition.
non-sequitur! There is no direct or necessary LINK between having the state recognize your
marriage and having the right to receive government benefits from such recognition!!
Government ‘largess’ or entitlements are frauds. Legality and entitlements are completely
unrelated!
jim “Sept.16:
I am not aware that “government” (at any level) is “obliged to enforce legal contracts”. Especially ALL kinds of contracts. Where did that come from?
I never said, specifically, “ALL kinds of contracts”. There are generally, exceptions to
every rule. But consider; WHAT recourse does one have to enforce a “Contract”, of
which they are a ‘party’?
1. Local courts
2, State courts
3. Federal courts
“U.S. Constitution” – Article III; Section 2:
“(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases affecting…..Controversies [between a State
and Citizens of another state; between Citizens of different States; between citizens of
the same State”
“There are cases involving not just visitation but end of life decisions”
I assume living wills have long been available to solve problems such as this.
,” inheritance”
I am not aware of any limitation on leaving assets to anyone, regardless of being related or not.
“, immigration cases,”
But there can be a lot of fraud in immigration-by-marriage. Remember the comedy movie, “Green Card”.
“compelled testimony at trials,”
Government can pretty much compel anyone to testify at trials. I am personally (as a libertarian) opposed to that, but the ‘marital exemption’ hardly exists anymore. In most cases, prosecutors don’t call husbands and wives simply because it doesn’t look good.
“jail visitation”
Generally, the only relevant limitations on jail visitation not based on marriage, but past criminal history. Could you be more specific?
“and so on. Literally thousands of different aspects of law, and private legal contracts have been thrown out in favor of next of kin – even if those next of kin are homophobic and don’t recognize the marriage. ”
I don’t know about “private legal contracts”. Specifics?
“This has all been discussed very extensively in past IPR threads.”
None of which I’ve seen.
There are cases involving not just visitation but end of life decisions, inheritance, immigration cases, compelled testimony at trials, jail visitation, and so on. Literally thousands of different aspects of law, and private legal contracts have been thrown out in favor of next of kin – even if those next of kin are homophobic and don’t recognize the marriage. This has all been discussed very extensively in past IPR threads.
I think this is the first time I’ve commented on “hospital visitation” in any discussion area.
But, based on my own limited personal experiences, I find the “hospital visitation” arguments to be idiotic. In the relatively few instances where I’ve visited a person in a hospital, I’ve never been even been asked to identify myself, let alone somehow justify my relationship with the patient. I just walked in, wandered the halls, and got to the room. The main impediment was actually FINDING the room in question, although hospital staff were always helpful on that subject..
Do hospitals exist that place restrictions on visitation? Presumably they do for maternity wards, where the possibility of stealing a baby exists. Or, perhaps visitation hours are limited. But other than that, where has there actually ever been a problem?
True, but it does get tiresome.
Unfortunately, deprogramming brainwashing requires repetition in almost all cases.
I might as well try to explain it to the actual planet Saturn, or to the ancient Roman deity Saturn, with equal success. As for William Saturn…we’ve been over this quite a few times already.
pf: Any point in doing so again?
me: Apparently so, for Saturn, at minimum.
Already addressed the nonsense on stilts about immigration above and the marriage issue on prior threads (hospital visitation rights, for example). Any point in doing so again?
ws: If you want to make a contract then you can make a contract. Why does the state need to be involved? To enforce the contract? Well yeah, but isn’t that considered only when the contract is breached? Why must the state recognize it before? There’s any easy answer to that question: entitlements.
me: It may be easy, but hardly complete. The marriage contract is a longstanding, boilerplate one that allows for a number of complex life matters to be sorted out without having to negotiate a formal contract, with various terms and conditions. Matters of children, end-of-life situations, and jointly held property are expedited and simplified, a universal Legal Zoom, if you will.
Some do negotiate additional terms to the marriage contract…pre-nup’s. Most don’t.
William Saturn: This is absolutely correct. They REALLY want the state to have the state recognize their marriages. But that is not what libertarians should be working for.
Dave,
If you want to make a contract then you can make a contract. Why does the state need to be involved? To enforce the contract? Well yeah, but isn’t that considered only when the contract is breached? Why must the state recognize it before? There’s any easy answer to that question: entitlements.
Right here you are not arguing for the “fundamental right” to marriage, you are arguing for the “fundamental right” to have the state-recognize your marriage so that you can receive the government benefits that come from such recognition.
Dave Terry: You said, The ONLY reason that the government got involved with marriage is due to the fact that marriage falls under the ‘legal contracts’ category and the government is obliged to enforce legal contracts.”
I am not aware that “government” (at any level) is “obliged to enforce legal contracts”. Especially ALL kinds of contracts. Where did that come from?
For example, the Federal Constitution doesn’t mention “marriage” at any point. It also only mentions forms of the word “contract” twice, and neither is in the meaning you ascribe. It does not claim that states “must” offer something called “marriage”. While the 1967 Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia referred to marriage as a right, I believe that this is properly understood only as a non-discrimination point of view: If a given state were to decide to stop offering any sort of marriage, this would not in any way run afoul of any Supreme Court decisions. (In Loving, the SC presumably assumed that marriage had been, was, and will always be offered.)
William Saturn
September 15, 2015 at 6:39 pm
“Replace marriage and marriage licenses in this press release with “health care” or “welfare.” but it’s kind of strange for a libertarian to aggressively defend government entitlements as rights. This problem here is not created by this lady, it is created by too much government involvement in personal lives.”
Absolute NONSENSE!
The ONLY reason that the government got involved with marriage is due to the fact that marriage falls under the ‘legal contracts’ category and the government is obliged to enforce
legal contracts.
Marriage is NOT a “government entitlement” It is a fundamental right recognized by virtually
every civilization on earth.
You cited http://www.ilrc.org/files/documents/letter_to_counties_re_miranda-olivares.pdf
“Significantly, the court held that continuing to detain Ms. Miranda-Olivares solely on
the ICE detainer after she was eligible for release on her criminal charges constituted a new
arrest, and thus required probable cause. ”
You didn’t notice that there is a different fact pattern here. In the recent San-Francisco killing case, the killer had previously been in the custody of the Feds, and only then was he delivered to San Francisco. So, it isn’t a “new arrest”, it is merely returning the person to the original custodian, the Federal government.
Further, you didn’t notice that the claim made by that foolish ACLU letter is illogical: It said, “The decision makes clear that local law
enforcement agencies that detain individuals on the sole authority of an ICE detainer violate
the Fourth Amendment, unless there has been an independent judicial finding of probable
cause to justify the detention.”
But the illegal alien was being held on a criminal charge in San Francisco. Complying with both the criminal proceedings AND the detainer would merely require San Francisco personnel calling up the Feds, and saying something like, “We are planning to release this person at 12:00 noon May XX, so if you want to get him back you will have to show up at that point.”
Notice the wording above said “on the SOLE authority of an ICE detainer.” The illegal wouldn’t have been “detained on the sole authority of an ICE detainer” if he had been released straight into the hands of the Feds.
And no, the City didn’t merely “failed to prevent a murder”: It in fact assisted it, by preventing the illegal from being handed back to the Feds.
“between the Federal government and about 48 states, which obligated all parties to honor things called “detainers” filed on each other’s prisoners. The Feds filed a detainer on that illegal alien who killed that woman in San Francisco a few months ago. The City was legally obligated to surrender her. They did not.”
If you had followed what your own link would had told you, you’d find that state/local officials who have done exactly that in other states have been ruled by federal courts to have violated the 4th Amendment. ‘Detainers’ are not warrants and are not, absent a warrant issued on probable cause, a legal basis for imprisoning or arresting someone. Not only is what you are suggesting not mandatory on local officials, it is prohibited by the Constitution and by federal courts. That’s right, even non-citizens have 4th Amendment rights.
http://www.ilrc.org/files/documents/letter_to_counties_re_miranda-olivares.pdf
“the City itself becomes liable for this deprivation of rights caused by its “sanctuary city” practice”
What the City is doing isn’t unlawful, and isn’t depriving anybody of their rights. Even if you think that’s what the law should be, it isn’t. And it would take junking some long-standing and well-settled principles limiting federal power to do it, and to mandate local officials detain and hand over people for the federal government *whom no arrest warrant has been issued for*.
“Oh, I forgot, the Mexican scumbag who did the killing actually stated that he came to San Francisco BECA– USE of the sanctuary city status.”
And what if you find a murderer who moved to San Francisco because he liked the historic architecture? Because he got a $15 min wage job? Who stayed because his apartment is rent-controlled? Can the city be sued for those things as well?
You are imputing a degree of causality that is far too attenuated to form the basis of any liability. San Francisco and California has not failed to make murder illegal, nor to investigate and prosecute murderers (including this one), nor to deny the protection of those laws to any persons. The fact that the City failed to prevent a murder doesn’t create any more of a liability in this case, than it does any other homicide where the city allegedly could have or should have arrested the murderer for something else first.
Kentucky tried to illegally usurp that right of individuals to freely contract, and to discriminate in ways that no state entering the Union of States (USA) has a right to (nor any state anywhere should have any right to).
Actually there was a host of crimes all around here. First of all the government has no business regulating marriage at all. The federal government has no Constitutional role in it at all. That role, if any, is delegated to the states. Kentucky law says thats between a man and a woman till the feds illegally usurped that. Thats when ms kelly stepped herself over the line and denied licenses to both homosexuals and hetrosexuals until she got her way. That is why she should be removed.
Contradiction in terms.
Andy Craig: Your comment starts out like a virtually textbook definition of a straw-man argument. You said:
“Per jim’s logic, the government is responsible for Jonestown because it didn’t round up and incarcerate all people named “Jim.”
In other words, you intentionally misrepresented what I said.
“On a more concrete level, the talking-point of comparing Kim Davis to “sanctuary cities” doesn’t make any sense, because so-called sanctuary cities aren’t breaking any law.”
First off, you are probably ignoring the fact that “cities” are legal entities, but they also consist of employees who are not immune to being charged with crimes under Federal law. As for civil liability, you need to check out a Supreme Court case, “Monell” (Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/658/case.html ) Notice http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/49 :
“It is well established that allegedly unlawful actions by governmental employees cannot be imputed to cities and other local government units, and do not give rise to liability by local governing units under Section 1983, because a city, county, or similar governmental agency is only liable for the deprivation of federal rights caused by its own policy, custom or practice./1/ Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services establishes the principle that the government is liable only for actions for which it is directly responsible, establishing the parameters of the exception to the common law rule that government should be immune from suit./2/ Furthermore, a plaintiff must show that action taken pursuant to official municipal policy caused the injury.”
Notice the comment, “…caused by its own policy, custom, or practice”. So, while a person could sue the personnel of San Francisco, because the “sanctuary city” policy was indeed “…caused by its own policy, custom, or practice”, the City itself becomes liable for this deprivation of rights caused by its “sanctuary city” practice. Oh, I forgot, the Mexican scumbag who did the killing actually stated that he came to San Francisco BECA– USE of the sanctuary city status.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/02/why-kim-daviss-refusal-to-issue-same-sex-marriage-licenses-is-legally-different-from-a-sanctuary-citys-refusal-to-cooperate-with-federal-immigration-law/
This cite contains a foolish claim,
“So-called sanctuary cities are jurisdictions in which local officials have decided that they will not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Put another way, they are jurisdictions in which local officials are refusing to implement a federal program. The decision to become a sanctuary city may be regrettable, unwise, or worse, but it is perfectly legal and entirely consistent with our constitutional structure.”
However, the State of California years ago signed a treaty called the “Interstate Agreement on Detainers”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detainer between the Federal government and about 48 states, which obligated all parties to honor things called “detainers” filed on each other’s prisoners. The Feds filed a detainer on that illegal alien who killed that woman in San Francisco a few months ago. The City was legally obligated to surrender her. They did not.
That’s like saying Colorado is violating individual rights if someone who is high on marijuana commits a murder. I’m sure you know better than to make such a shockingly poor argument seriously. Are you just bored, or what?
Per jim’s logic, the government is responsible for Jonestown because it didn’t round up and incarcerate all people named “Jim.”
On a more concrete level, the talking-point of comparing Kim Davis to “sanctuary cities” doesn’t make any sense, because so-called sanctuary cities aren’t breaking any law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/02/why-kim-daviss-refusal-to-issue-same-sex-marriage-licenses-is-legally-different-from-a-sanctuary-citys-refusal-to-cooperate-with-federal-immigration-law/
Though the whole episode and those sorts of talking points, are great for exposing “state’s rights” hypocrites who apparently want to ditch such basics of Federalism 101 as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Also Davis herself, whose defenders plead the supremacy of states rights over federal courts and the Constitution, but who is now asking a federal court to strike down Kentucky law for allegedly violating her rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Even under the most radical theories of strict federalism and state’s rights, the defense of Davis is at best incoherent and in many cases plainly disingenuous. Primarily because she was violating Kentucky law just as much as she was the U.S. Constitution.
@ William – “it’s kind of strange for a libertarian to aggressively defend government entitlements as rights”
Marriage might have certain entitlements or gov’t benefits attached to it, but the ability of two persons to simply contract a marital union is definitely a negative right, a liberty of action, association, and contract, not a creation of the state. The only way to do that in most states, including Kentucky, is with a civil marriage license.
While I don’t disagree with the notion of “getting the gov’t out of marriage,” getting hung-up on the word “license” is an example of placing style over substantive effect.
I have examined the proposals to simply do away with licensing, and have it be a matter of recording the contract. And I have yet to find any substantive distinction between the two, other than the status quo has the word “license” on the form and these hypothetical bills (like the one in AL) would call the piece of paper something else. All of the restrictions on who may marry- age, relatives, already-married- will remain in place (as would the restrictions on same-sex marriages had they not been already struck down), and more importantly all of the ways gov’t is involved in marriage *after the wedding* remains unchanged (dispute resolution, custody, recognition, etc.).
I’m not saying it wouldn’t be a marginal symbolic improvement, but that’s all it would be, and very marginal at that. There’s a lot more good to be done on the family law and divorce court side of things, than playing word games with county clerk paperwork.
Replace marriage and marriage licenses in this press release with “health care” or “welfare.” I’m not defending this lady and I’m not saying that anything in this press release is necessarily wrong, but it’s kind of strange for a libertarian to aggressively defend government entitlements as rights. This problem here is not created by this lady, it is created by too much government involvement in personal lives.
Humongous: You said, “Sanctuary cities are not violating any individuals’ rights, unlike Ms. Davis did.”
I disagree. The people who have been killed by illegal aliens lost their rights to life. While they were killed by illegal aliens, those illegal aliens were aided and abetted by state or local government. That’s called “conspiracy”, or perhaps “accessory before, during, and after the fact”.
So yes, the sanctuary cities are violating individuals’ rights.
That’s David first name only, not Terry.
David is obviously off track here. Sanctuary cities are not violating any individuals’ rights, unlike Ms. Davis did. They are simply saying that it is not their job to violate the rights of individuals on behalf of federal edict enforcement. That’s the job of federal agencies, not cities. Likewise states and cities have every right to say they won’t enforce federal drug laws or gun bans and so on. But they can’t say they will deny business licenses to Jews, drivers licenses to women, occupational licenses to blacks, taxi medallions to left handed people..or marriage licenses to homosexuals.
Andy: “This woman’s actions are like if a librarian at a public library refused to allow black people to check out books.”
……or allow anyone, access to books by homosexuals OR about homosexuals.
I agree with Gary Johnson here. This woman’s actions are like if a librarian at a public library refused to allow black people to check out books.
There may well be some hypocrisy in which laws get enforced, etc…, but even so, I do not think this woman’s actions here make her a great person.
Re; Ms Davis is No Hero”
Give ‘m Hell Gary
OTOH, GO to Hell, david!
As a card carrying Christian,
you obviously wouldn’t know
what a bigot was, if you tripped
over him in your darkness!
Are you not familiar with the
NINETH and TENTH Amendments?
.
Uhm….where’s your equal outrage (and written piece) condemning liberal politicians who OPENLY refuse to follow federal immigration laws in the so-called “sanctuary cities”? Why can liberal elected office holders pick & choose which laws to enforce but others can’t? The only logical conclusion one can draw is that you are a bigot against Christians—for if not—then you would have written a similar piece of outrage at those who run sanctuary cities….HYPOCRITE