Looks like someone enjoyed her time in jail

Mustrum_Ridcully · Sep 16, 2015

tomBitonti said:
I can't speak to the latter, but maybe we don't have to go there?

I'm with a resignation in protest, except, as an elected official, she can make a case that she was elected based on her character, and that she cannot in due conscious, administer the laws as they have been newly presented. Then, as an elected official, she could claim a duty to make decisions based on her character as an elected official.

A question would be the particular oaths she was required to take when she took office, and what priorities are expressed by those oaths.

Thx!

TomB

I don't know much about the USA, but I storngly suspect that just because you're elected doesn't allow you to ignore or violate the law. For example:
Even if everyone in your community agrees that serving alcohol to minors is fine, if it's against the law, an elected sheriff would most likely still do something against people giving alcohol to minors.

That someone is elected into office mostly represents that you trust this person to uphold the law and act within the constraints of the law to improve and support your community.

tomBitonti · Sep 16, 2015

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
I don't know much about the USA, but I storngly suspect that just because you're elected doesn't allow you to ignore or violate the law. For example:
Even if everyone in your community agrees that serving alcohol to minors is fine, if it's against the law, an elected sheriff would most likely still do something against people giving alcohol to minors.

That someone is elected into office mostly represents that you trust this person to uphold the law and act within the constraints of the law to improve and support your community.

What would matter is how the position is represented. That's why I asked about the oaths. If there something in the oath that expressed a strong representation of the voters or brought up personal character the issue seems more complex.

But I think you are right. An elected official, even if they take an oath to represent the ideals of a community and act with good character according to the standards of the community cannot deprive folks of their rights.

Maybe a stretch: If congress blocks funding overall to pay for medical expenses because of objections to medically necessary abortions, how much different is that?

Thx!
TomB

Janx · Sep 16, 2015

tomBitonti said:
What would matter is how the position is represented. That's why I asked about the oaths. If there something in the oath that expressed a strong representation of the voters or brought up personal character the issue seems more complex.

But I think you are right. An elected official, even if they take an oath to represent the ideals of a community and act with good character according to the standards of the community cannot deprive folks of their rights.

Maybe a stretch: If congress blocks funding overall to pay for medical expenses because of objections to medically necessary abortions, how much different is that?

Thx!
TomB

I suspect the difference is that congress gets to make laws. And paying for something or not paying for something isn't necessarily a right.

Whereas, the County Clerk's job is largely to hand out pieces of paper with a signature on it. In theory, the only lawful reason she can refuse service is if a person was fixing to do something unlawful with that piece of paper. Like marry a pig.

I'm not even sure why a County Clerk is needed, other than bureaucracy. Surely a robot or web form could replace her entire office.

Umbran · Sep 16, 2015

tomBitonti said:
What would matter is how the position is represented. That's why I asked about the oaths.

Detailed oaths aside - the 14th amendment (and the Equal Protection clause) has already been ruled to apply to all levels of government - Federal, State, and Local. The highest court of the land has ruled that Equal Protection applied to gays and marriage.

This is not objecting to some podunk local ordinance. This is the Constitution we are talking about. Even if the local oath did not say, "...and uphold the Constitution of the United States," that does mean the law does not apply.

Maybe a stretch: If congress blocks funding overall to pay for medical expenses because of objections to medically necessary abortions, how much different is that?

In a legal sense, very different. The issue at hand isn't just applying religious law instead of the law of the land. The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. You cannot offer a legal status (married) to one group of people, but not another. If Congress chose to fund abortions to one class of people, but not another, that would be a violation of Equal Protection. Pulling funding entirely is providing the same (lack of) service to all, and so would not be an issue in this sense.

It is possible for folks to have objections to abortion without religious motivation, and thereby the choice to fund or not is not necessarily an Establishment Clause violation. Note that the Bible says, "Thou shalt not commit murder," but we have laws against murder, and that's okay.

tomBitonti · Sep 16, 2015

I was wondering the same thing about this being an elected position. Maybe the position had more to it years ago? Or maybe it's a juicy bit of pork for the dominant party? That the position is an elected one seems very strange to me.

I don't think the oath or the mechanism for removal matters for whether the clerk would go to jail, but it might matter as to whether she would be removed from office.

For Congress, there have been a lot of laws which were struck down because they did not include an exception for medically necessary abortions. (That is my recollection.) What if Congress imposes a shutdown because they won't allow any abortions in a particular funding bill (even medical ones)?

Thx!

TomB

Ryujin · Sep 16, 2015

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
I don't know much about the USA, but I storngly suspect that just because you're elected doesn't allow you to ignore or violate the law. For example:
Even if everyone in your community agrees that serving alcohol to minors is fine, if it's against the law, an elected sheriff would most likely still do something against people giving alcohol to minors.

That someone is elected into office mostly represents that you trust this person to uphold the law and act within the constraints of the law to improve and support your community.

This is where the judiciary acts as a check and balance against abuses by elected officials. Sure, she can claim that she's acting on behalf of the electorate, but then the judiciary can (has) slap her down for failing to do her elected duty. Hopefully the cycle will repeat and when she feels enough like a whack-a-mole, she'll finally give up and resign.

Dannyalcatraz · Sep 16, 2015

I forget where it was, but there was another clerk who was opposed to gay marriage. That one, however, didn't make news because- among other things- he/she suggested that the state could accommodate both sides by making the process of getting a marriage license as simple as downloading a form from tehnstwte's computers.

Janx · Sep 16, 2015

Umbran said:
In a legal sense, very different. The issue at hand isn't just applying religious law instead of the law of the land. The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. You cannot offer a legal status (married) to one group of people, but not another. If Congress chose to fund abortions to one class of people, but not another, that would be a violation of Equal Protection. Pulling funding entirely is providing the same (lack of) service to all, and so would not be an issue in this sense.

One legal loophole the KY Clerk seems to have used is that she refused to grant ANY licenses. Thus, though her reason was discriminatory/religious, her actions were technically not. Odds are a lawyer (on her side) told her to play it that way when she decided to start this little strike.

Dannyalcatraz · Sep 16, 2015

Janx said:
One legal loophole the KY Clerk seems to have used is that she refused to grant ANY licenses. Thus, though her reason was discriminatory/religious, her actions were technically not. Odds are a lawyer (on her side) told her to play it that way when she decided to start this little strike.

It is only a loophole in the sense that, by doing so, she is attempting to avoid the claim that she is singling out gays.

It isn't a loophole in the sense that she's denying guaranteed fundamental Constitutional rights to everyone, and not performing the duties of her office. IOW, even while attempting to appear non-discriminatory, she still runs afoul of other laws.

Janx · Sep 16, 2015

Dannyalcatraz said:
It is only a loophole in the sense that, by doing so, she is attempting to avoid the claim that she is singling out gays.

It isn't a loophole in the sense that she's denying guaranteed fundamental Constitutional rights to everyone, and not performing the duties of her office. IOW, even while attempting to appear non-discriminatory, she still runs afoul of other laws.

by hook or by crook, she's guilty of something.

I merely suspected that she denied all services in order to avoid "actually discriminating". You figure at some point, all protests as some point have to break a law to make their point, and you have to choose which law that is, and make sure you do your best on the others. She knew that if she simply refused to service gays, she'd be off to FPMITA prison for sure. So she likely weaseled to the plan she did.