The 14 Amendment & Federal Laws Both Are Flexible, unless your name is Kim Davis

Readability

The 14 Amendment & Federal Laws Both Are Flexible, unless your name is Kim Davis

As I’ve been writ­ing a lot about the Kim Davis sit­u­a­tion I was very inter­ested in how it would come up in the Pres­i­den­tial debate on Wednes­day, how­ever the sub­ject didn’t so much point out the dif­fer­ences in the GOP posi­tion as it pointed out the seem­ingly con­trary posi­tions of both media and the selec­tive enforce­ment of fed­eral law and selec­tive inter­pre­ta­tion of the con­sti­tu­tion depend­ing on who it involves.

First lets look at the Kim Davis exchange:

Jake Tap­per: I want to turn back to Gov­er­nor Huck­abee. Gov­er­nor Huck­abee, last week, you held a rally for a county clerk in Ken­tucky who was jailed for refus­ing to issue mar­riage licenses to same-​sex cou­ples, as I don’t need to tell you. You’ve called what hap­pened to Kim Davis, that clerk, “an exam­ple of the crim­i­nal­iza­tion of Chris­tian­ity.” There are sev­eral peo­ple on the stage who dis­agree with you. Gov­er­nor Bush, for exam­ple, says that that clerk is sworn to uphold the law. Is Gov­er­nor Bush on the wrong side of the crim­i­nal­iza­tion of Christianity?

Gov Mike Huck­abee: No, I don’t think he’s on the wrong side of such an issue. Jeb is a friend. I’m not up here to fight with Jeb or to fight with any­body else. But I am here to fight for some­body who is a county clerk elected under the Ken­tucky con­sti­tu­tion that 75 per­cent of the peo­ple of that state had voted for that said that mar­riage was between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court in a very, very divided deci­sion decided out of thin air that they were just going to rede­fine mar­riage. It’s a deci­sion that the other jus­tices in dis­sent said they didn’t have and there wasn’t a con­sti­tu­tional shred of capac­ity for them to do it. I thought that every­body here passed ninth-​grade civics. The courts can­not leg­is­late. That’s what Roberts said. But heck, it’s what we learned in civics. The courts can’t make a law. They can inter­pret one. They can review one. They can’t imple­ment it. They can’t force it. But here’s what hap­pened: Because the courts just decided that some­thing was going to be and peo­ple relin­quished it and the other two branches of gov­ern­ment sat by silently — I thought we had three branches of gov­ern­ment, they were all equal to each other, we have sep­a­ra­tion of pow­ers, and we have checks and bal­ances. If the court can just make a deci­sion and we just all sur­ren­der to it, we have what Jef­fer­son said was judi­cial tyranny. The rea­son that this is a real issue that we need to think about

Jake Tap­per:Thank you, Governor.

Gov Mike Huck­abee: No, no. Let me fin­ish this one thought, Jake. I haven’t got­ten that much time, so I’m going to take just what lit­tle I can here. We made accom­mo­da­tion to the Fort Hood shooter to let him grow a beard. We made accom­mo­da­tions to the detainees at Gitmo — I’ve been to Gitmo, and I’ve seen the accom­mo­da­tions that we made to the Mus­lim detainees who killed Amer­i­cans. You’re telling me that you can­not make an accom­mo­da­tion for an elected Demo­c­rat county clerk from Rowan County, Ken­tucky? What else is it other than the crim­i­nal­iza­tion of her faith and the exal­ta­tion of the faith of every­one else who might be a Fort Hood shooter or a detainee at Gitmo?

Jake Tap­per: Well, I’m not telling you that, Gov­er­nor. But Gov­er­nor Bush is, because he — because he dis­agrees. He thinks that Kim Davis swore to uphold the law. You dis­agree? You’re not — you don’t…

Gov Jeb Bush: I don’t think — you’re not stat­ing my views right.

Jake Tap­per: OK. Please do.

Gov Jeb Bush: I think there needs to be accom­mo­da­tion for some­one act­ing on faith. Reli­gious con­science is — is — is a first free­dom. It’s — it’s a pow­er­ful part of our — of our Bill of Rights. And, in a big, tol­er­ant coun­try, we should respect the rule of law, allow peo­ple in — in — in this coun­try — I’m a — I was opposed to the deci­sion, but we — you can’t just say, “well, they — gays can’t get mar­ried now.” But this woman, there should be some accom­mo­da­tion for her con­science, just as there should be for peo­ple that are florists that don’t want to par­tic­i­pate in wed­dings, or bak­ers. A great coun­try like us should find a way to have accom­mo­da­tions for peo­ple so that we can solve the prob­lem in the right way. This should be solved at the local level…

Jake Tap­per: You did…

Gov Jeb Bush: And so we do agree, Mike.

Gov Chris Christie: I was —

Jake Tap­per: Gov­er­nor, you said, quote, “she is sworn to uphold the law.”

Gov Chris Christie: She is, and so if she, based on con­science, can’t sign that — that mar­riage license, then there should be some­one in her office to be able to do it, and if the law needs to be changed in the state of Ken­tucky, which is what she’s advo­cat­ing, it should be changed.

Ok so we have a ques­tion of “she’s sworn to uphold the law” and “there needs to be an accom­mo­da­tion based on faith” pre­sum­ably based on the 1st amend­ment but oddly enough when Mr. Tap­per asked this ques­tion on fed­eral drug laws

Jake Tap­per: Sen­a­tor Paul, Gov­er­nor Christie recently said, quote, “if you’re get­ting high in Col­orado today,” where mar­i­juana has been legal­ized, “enjoy it until Jan­u­ary 2017, because I will enforce the fed­eral laws against mar­i­juana.” Will you?

The argu­ments on enforce­ment sud­denly changed. While Sen­a­tor Paul invoked the 10th amend­ment sug­gest­ing the feds had crossed into a state issue. Dur­ing his answer he men­tioned a per­son on stage who used pot at one time. It turned out to be Jeb who had this to say. (all empha­sis mine)

Gov Jeb Bush: So, 40 years ago, I smoked mar­i­juana, and I admit it. I’m sure that other peo­ple might have done it and may not want to say it in front of 25 mil­lion peo­ple. My mom’s not happy that I just did. That’s true. And here’s the deal. Here’s the deal. We have — we have a seri­ous epi­demic of drugs that goes way beyond mar­i­juana. What goes on in Col­orado, as far as I’m con­cerned, that should be a state deci­sion. But if you look at the prob­lem of drugs in this — in this soci­ety today, it’s a seri­ous prob­lem. Rand, you know this because you’re cam­paign­ing in New Hamp­shire like all of us, and you see the epi­demic of heroin, the over­doses of heroin that’s tak­ing place. People’s fam­i­lies are — are being torn apart. It is appro­pri­ate for the gov­ern­ment to play a con­sis­tent role to be able to pro­vide more treat­ment, more pre­ven­tion — we’re the state that has the most drug courts across every cir­cuit in — in — in Florida, there are drug courts to give peo­ple a sec­ond chance. That’s the best way to do this.

Hold on a sec­ond. The laws con­cern­ing drugs are Fed­eral laws, laws actu­ally passed by the con­gress and signed by the pres­i­dent as opposed to the rein­ter­pre­ta­tion of a con­sti­tu­tional amend­ment. How is it that Kim Davis a county clerk is “sworn to uphold the law” but pub­lic ser­vants in the state of Col­orado who are not claim­ing this has any­thing to do with reli­gion, are not?

As the exchange con­tin­ued. It got worse, after Jeb bush was pressed by Sen Paul on med­ical mar­i­juana: again empha­sis mine

Sen Rand Paul: Well, you vote — you oppose med­ical marijuana…

Gov Jeb Bush: Here’s the deal. No, I did not oppose when the leg­is­la­ture passed the bill to deal with that very issue. That’s the way to solve this prob­lem. Med­ical mar­i­juana on the bal­lot was opened up, there was a huge loop­hole, it was the first step to get­ting to a (inaudi­ble) place. And as a cit­i­zen of Florida, I voted no.

So Jeb Bush believes Kim Davis “Is sworn to uphold the law” but didn’t oppose the state leg­is­la­ture in Florida pass­ing a bill directly con­tra­dict­ing estab­lished fed­eral law and appar­ently he’s not alone here. (again empha­sis mine)

Gov Chris Christie: And Sen­a­tor Paul knows that that’s sim­ply not the truth. In New Jer­sey, we have med­ical mar­i­juana laws, which I sup­ported and imple­mented. This is not med­ical mar­i­juana. There’s goes as much — a fur­ther step beyond. This is recre­ational use of mar­i­juana. This is much dif­fer­ent. And so, while he would like to use a sym­pa­thetic story to back up his point, it doesn’t work. I’m not against med­ical mar­i­juana. We do it in New Jer­sey. But I’m against the recre­ational use against mar­i­juana. If he wants to change the fed­eral law, get Con­gress to pass the law to change it, and get a pres­i­dent to sign it.

So Christie, like Bush is will­ing to sup­port and imple­ment laws that con­tra­dict exist­ing fed­eral law, laws that he is sworn to uphold, and is will­ing to do this with­out claim­ing a reli­gious or con­sti­tu­tional rea­son. It sounds to me like “being sworn to uphold the law” appar­ently doesn’t apply if the law is sup­ported by yup­pies on the left or the MSM who are both widely in favor of legal­iz­ing med­ical marijuana.

Now let’s take a look at another sub­ject. The Ques­tion of the 14th amend­ment and birthright cit­i­zen­ship came up, Mr. Trump (backed up by Sen­a­tor Rand Paul) said schol­ars said no but when asked by Jake Tap­per, Carly Fio­r­ina (after mak­ing a great point con­cern­ing the Demo­c­rat’ desire to have this as an issue & not solve the prob­lem said this: again empha­sis mine

Carly Fio­r­ina: …the truth is, you can’t just wave your hands and say “the 14th Amend­ment is gonna go away.” It will take an extremely ardu­ous vote in Con­gress, fol­lowed by two-​thirds of the states, and if that doesn’t work to amend the con­sti­tu­tion, then it is a long, ardu­ous process in court. And mean­while, what will con­tinue to go on is what has gone on for 25 years. With all due respect, Mr. Trump, we’ve been talk­ing about ille­gal immi­gra­tion for 25 years. San Fran­cisco has been a sanc­tu­ary city since 1989. There are 300 of them. And mean­while, what has hap­pened? Noth­ing. The bor­der remains inse­cure. The legal immi­gra­tion sys­tem remains bro­ken. Look, we know what it takes to secure a bor­der. We’ve heard a lot of great ideas here. Money, man­power, technology…

So Mrs. Fio­r­ina says that “you can’t just wave your hands and say “the 14th Amend­ment is going to go away, and an awful lot of media pun­dits and peo­ple like Jeb Bush are with her on this. But lets take a look at the text of it The 14th Amend­ment specif­i­cally sec­tion 1 which states:

Amend­ment XIV

Sec­tion 1.

All per­sons born or nat­u­ral­ized in the United States, and sub­ject to the juris­dic­tion thereof, are cit­i­zens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priv­i­leges or immu­ni­ties of cit­i­zens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any per­son of life, lib­erty, or prop­erty, with­out due process of law; nor deny to any per­son within its juris­dic­tion the equal pro­tec­tion of the laws.

Nowhere in that entire sec­tion do you see the words “Gay Mar­riage” ( in fact you will not find the words “mar­riage” any­where in the US Con­sti­tu­tion)

Yet five mem­bers of the Supreme Court found a right to gay mar­riage that every other jus­tice who ever served on the Supreme Court did not, one that over­rode every sin­gle state con­sti­tu­tion that said otherwise.

So my ques­tion is this? If jus­tices can mag­i­cally rein­ter­pret the 14th Amend­ment to find a right to Gay Mar­riage in a doc­u­ment that doesn’t men­tion mar­riage, and the media claims it is legit how is it that one can’t inter­pret that same 14th amend­ment to say it doesn’t grant cit­i­zen­ship to peo­ple born here if their par­ents came ille­gally not “sub­ject to the juris­dic­tion thereof”.

Bot­tom line, appar­ently some in the GOP believe, with the media that when it comes to Kim Davis, the 14th Amend­ment is flex­i­ble and the enforce­ment of fed­eral law is not, but some of those same peo­ple believe with the media, that when it comes to birthright cit­i­zen­ship and fed­eral drug laws. The 14th Amend­ment is rigid and the enforce­ment of fed­eral law is flexible.

Funny isn’t it?

*******************************************************

The only pay I get for this work comes from you. If you think this is of value I ask you to kick in and help me reach my monthly goal $1834 a month or Twenty Two grand a year.

I’d appre­ci­ate it if you would hit DaTipJar




[olimome­ter id=14]

That gets all the bills paid. Con­sider Sub­scrib­ing 100 Sub­scribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Sub­scrip­tion level



Addi­tion­ally our sub­scribers get our pod­cast emailed directly to them before it show up any­where else.

I know you can get the MSM for noth­ing, but that’s pretty much what they’re good for.

As I’ve been writing a lot about the Kim Davis situation I was very interested in how it would come up in the Presidential debate on Wednesday, however the subject didn’t so much point out the differences in the GOP position as it pointed out the seemingly contrary positions of both media and the selective enforcement of federal law and selective interpretation of the constitution depending on who it involves.

First lets look at the Kim Davis exchange:

Jake Tapper: I want to turn back to Governor Huckabee. Governor Huckabee, last week, you held a rally for a county clerk in Kentucky who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as I don’t need to tell you. You’ve called what happened to Kim Davis, that clerk, “an example of the criminalization of Christianity.” There are several people on the stage who disagree with you. Governor Bush, for example, says that that clerk is sworn to uphold the law. Is Governor Bush on the wrong side of the criminalization of Christianity?

Gov Mike Huckabee: No, I don’t think he’s on the wrong side of such an issue. Jeb is a friend. I’m not up here to fight with Jeb or to fight with anybody else. But I am here to fight for somebody who is a county clerk elected under the Kentucky constitution that 75 percent of the people of that state had voted for that said that marriage was between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court in a very, very divided decision decided out of thin air that they were just going to redefine marriage. It’s a decision that the other justices in dissent said they didn’t have and there wasn’t a constitutional shred of capacity for them to do it. I thought that everybody here passed ninth-grade civics. The courts cannot legislate. That’s what Roberts said. But heck, it’s what we learned in civics. The courts can’t make a law. They can interpret one. They can review one. They can’t implement it. They can’t force it. But here’s what happened: Because the courts just decided that something was going to be and people relinquished it and the other two branches of government sat by silently — I thought we had three branches of government, they were all equal to each other, we have separation of powers, and we have checks and balances. If the court can just make a decision and we just all surrender to it, we have what Jefferson said was judicial tyranny. The reason that this is a real issue that we need to think about

Jake Tapper:Thank you, Governor.

Gov Mike Huckabee: No, no. Let me finish this one thought, Jake. I haven’t gotten that much time, so I’m going to take just what little I can here. We made accommodation to the Fort Hood shooter to let him grow a beard. We made accommodations to the detainees at Gitmo — I’ve been to Gitmo, and I’ve seen the accommodations that we made to the Muslim detainees who killed Americans. You’re telling me that you cannot make an accommodation for an elected Democrat county clerk from Rowan County, Kentucky? What else is it other than the criminalization of her faith and the exaltation of the faith of everyone else who might be a Fort Hood shooter or a detainee at Gitmo?

Jake Tapper:  Well, I’m not telling you that, Governor. But Governor Bush is, because he — because he disagrees. He thinks that Kim Davis swore to uphold the law. You disagree? You’re not — you don’t…

Gov Jeb Bush: I don’t think — you’re not stating my views right.

Jake Tapper: OK. Please do.

Gov Jeb Bush: I think there needs to be accommodation for someone acting on faith. Religious conscience is — is — is a first freedom. It’s — it’s a powerful part of our — of our Bill of Rights. And, in a big, tolerant country, we should respect the rule of law, allow people in — in — in this country — I’m a — I was opposed to the decision, but we — you can’t just say, “well, they — gays can’t get married now.” But this woman, there should be some accommodation for her conscience, just as there should be for people that are florists that don’t want to participate in weddings, or bakers. A great country like us should find a way to have accommodations for people so that we can solve the problem in the right way. This should be solved at the local level…

Jake Tapper: You did…

Gov Jeb Bush: And so we do agree, Mike.

Gov Chris Christie: I was —

Jake Tapper: Governor, you said, quote, “she is sworn to uphold the law.”

Gov Chris Christie: She is, and so if she, based on conscience, can’t sign that — that marriage license, then there should be someone in her office to be able to do it, and if the law needs to be changed in the state of Kentucky, which is what she’s advocating, it should be changed.

Ok so we have a question of “she’s sworn to uphold the law” and “there needs to be an accommodation based on faith” presumably based on the 1st amendment but oddly enough when Mr. Tapper asked this question on federal drug laws

Jake Tapper: Senator Paul, Governor Christie recently said, quote, “if you’re getting high in Colorado today,” where marijuana has been legalized, “enjoy it until January 2017, because I will enforce the federal laws against marijuana.” Will you?

The arguments on enforcement suddenly changed.  While Senator Paul invoked the 10th amendment suggesting the feds had crossed into a state issue. During his answer he mentioned a person on stage who used pot at one time. It turned out to be Jeb who had this to say. (all emphasis mine)

Gov Jeb Bush: So, 40 years ago, I smoked marijuana, and I admit it. I’m sure that other people might have done it and may not want to say it in front of 25 million people. My mom’s not happy that I just did. That’s true. And here’s the deal. Here’s the deal. We have — we have a serious epidemic of drugs that goes way beyond marijuana. What goes on in Colorado, as far as I’m concerned, that should be a state decision. But if you look at the problem of drugs in this — in this society today, it’s a serious problem. Rand, you know this because you’re campaigning in New Hampshire like all of us, and you see the epidemic of heroin, the overdoses of heroin that’s taking place. People’s families are — are being torn apart. It is appropriate for the government to play a consistent role to be able to provide more treatment, more prevention — we’re the state that has the most drug courts across every circuit in — in — in Florida, there are drug courts to give people a second chance. That’s the best way to do this.

Hold on a second. The laws concerning drugs are Federal laws, laws actually passed by the congress and signed by the president as opposed to the reinterpretation of a constitutional amendment.  How is it that Kim Davis a county clerk is “sworn to uphold the law” but public servants in the state of Colorado who are not claiming this has anything to do with religion, are not?

As the exchange continued. It got worse, after Jeb bush was pressed by Sen Paul on medical marijuana: again emphasis mine

Sen Rand Paul: Well, you vote — you oppose medical marijuana…

Gov Jeb Bush: Here’s the deal. No, I did not oppose when the legislature passed the bill to deal with that very issue. That’s the way to solve this problem. Medical marijuana on the ballot was opened up, there was a huge loophole, it was the first step to getting to a (inaudible) place. And as a citizen of Florida, I voted no.

So Jeb Bush believes Kim Davis “Is sworn to uphold the law” but didn’t oppose the state legislature in Florida passing a bill directly contradicting established federal law and apparently he’s not alone here.  (again emphasis mine)

Gov Chris Christie: And Senator Paul knows that that’s simply not the truth. In New Jersey, we have medical marijuana laws, which I supported and implemented. This is not medical marijuana. There’s goes as much — a further step beyond. This is recreational use of marijuana. This is much different. And so, while he would like to use a sympathetic story to back up his point, it doesn’t work. I’m not against medical marijuana. We do it in New Jersey. But I’m against the recreational use against marijuana. If he wants to change the federal law, get Congress to pass the law to change it, and get a president to sign it.

So Christie, like Bush is willing to support and implement laws that contradict existing federal law, laws that he is sworn to uphold, and is willing to do this without claiming a religious or constitutional reason.  It sounds to me like “being sworn to uphold the law” apparently doesn’t apply if the law is supported by yuppies on the left or the MSM who are both widely in favor of legalizing medical marijuana.

 

Now let’s take a look at another subject. The Question of the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship came up, Mr. Trump (backed up by Senator Rand Paul) said scholars said no but when asked by Jake Tapper, Carly Fiorina (after making a great point concerning the Democrat’ desire to have this as an issue & not solve the problem said this: again emphasis mine

Carly Fiorina: …the truth is, you can’t just wave your hands and say “the 14th Amendment is gonna go away.” It will take an extremely arduous vote in Congress, followed by two-thirds of the states, and if that doesn’t work to amend the constitution, then it is a long, arduous process in court. And meanwhile, what will continue to go on is what has gone on for 25 years. With all due respect, Mr. Trump, we’ve been talking about illegal immigration for 25 years. San Francisco has been a sanctuary city since 1989. There are 300 of them. And meanwhile, what has happened? Nothing. The border remains insecure. The legal immigration system remains broken. Look, we know what it takes to secure a border. We’ve heard a lot of great ideas here. Money, manpower, technology…

So Mrs. Fiorina says that “you can’t just wave your hands and say “the 14th Amendment is going to go away, and an awful lot of media pundits and people like Jeb Bush are with her on this. But lets take a look at the text of it The 14th Amendment specifically section 1 which states:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Nowhere in that entire section do you see the words “Gay Marriage” ( in fact you will not find the words “marriage” anywhere in the US Constitution)

Yet five members of the Supreme Court found a right to gay marriage that every other justice who ever served on the Supreme Court did not, one that overrode every single state constitution that said otherwise.

So my question is this? If justices can magically reinterpret the 14th Amendment to find a right to Gay Marriage in a document that doesn’t mention marriage, and the media claims it is legit how is it that one can’t interpret that same 14th amendment to say it doesn’t grant citizenship to people born here if their parents came illegally not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

Bottom line, apparently some in the GOP believe, with the media that when it comes to Kim Davis, the 14th Amendment is flexible and the enforcement of federal law is not, but some of those same people believe with the media, that when it comes to birthright citizenship and federal drug laws. The 14th Amendment is rigid and the enforcement of federal law is flexible.

Funny isn’t it?

*******************************************************

The only pay I get for this work comes from you. If you think this is of value I ask you to kick in and help me reach my monthly goal $1834 a month or Twenty Two grand a year.

I’d appreciate it if you would hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what they’re good for.