Judge Who Jails Kim Davis Claims Power Above God

[allodial]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2803[/ATTACH] [More/source]

Interestingly enough an article mentions the following about BUNNING:

In 2007, Bunning was part of a three-judge panel on a federal appeals court to overturn a Michigan ban on partial-birth abortion, determining the language of the law to be overly broad with the potential to outlaw other legal types of abortion.

In 2003, Judge Bunning ordered the Boyd County Kentucky School District to allow the Gay-Straight Alliance, a student group, to meet on school grounds. {When were sex-oriented clubs or groups ever allowed to be formed in high schools? If a high school teacher who formed an organization to promote safe sex among male and female students and had safe sex parties he or she would have been fired.}

Boyd County held training sessions on avoiding anti-gay harassment, and penalized students with unexcused absences for not showing up. When parents sued the school district, Bunning ruled in favor of the school district.

Clarification/IMHO
I get the sense that *ahem* between the lines, the issue of Natural law or the law of Nature's (it is likely that the Founders understood the word 'nature' be of Egyptian origin and referring to the 'ntr' or 'neteru'--today many would probably prefer you to take the watered down of meaning of 'nature' to do with wild animals having sex in the woods and eating each other but the Egyptian/Ethiopian root is much deeper and might link back to the first few chapters of Genesis) God is viewed in that light by that court because the court is an admiralty court and thusly a contract-enforcement venue. That is its akin to a judge (aware of the nature of the venue) saying "if we allow who someone failed to make a reservation of rights to claim that religious beliefs over-ride their contractual obligations it would adversely impact admiralty proceedings and contract enforcement (i.e. would set a dangerous precedent)". To BUNNING like there is the presumption or evidence is that there are contractual obligations which require Kim DAVIS to issue the licenses.

I suspect had she raise the objection and made the necessary reservations before-hand or if she or others issued demands (writ of quo warranto) to show by what authority SCOTUS or others acted, it would be a different outcome.

From what I gather, David BUNNING requiring performance of obligations under contracts. But you really have to get the idea of the nature of the forum. On the other hand, there is such a thing a law that is directory in nature (i.e. it is not law truly law but is binding on officers and ministers of the state only).

Although Kentucky was a slave state, it had not seceded and was not subject to military occupation during the Reconstruction Period. It was subject to the Freedmen's Bureau oversight of new labor contracts and work to institute free labor. A congressional investigation was undertaken because of issues raised about the propriety of its elected officials. During the election of 1865, ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment was a major political issue. Kentucky eventually rejected the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments but had to implement them when they were ratified.

Democrats prevailed in the election, and one of their first acts was to repeal the Expatriation Act of 1862, restoring the citizenship of former Confederates. --From Wikipedia

It is very much worth noting IMHO that Kentucky was not subject to military occupation during Reconstruction, however they did create a constitution in 1892 and ratified the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of _______ according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."
AFAIK the above is the oath of office taken by Kentucky officials.

Technically, per her oath of office, if she upholds the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, she would be upholding the gay marriage ban. The authority of SCOTUS to alter the Kentucky Constitution could be questioned in the style of a Writ of Quo Warranto. More than likely she is operating under the 1891 Constitution in the U.S. State of Kentucky.

Clearly, the gay rights thing smells of creation of a federal franchise. Can SCOTUS force the States to create franchises for the federal government? Why don't the district courts issue 'gay marriage' licenses instead of requiring the States to do so? Even the franchise that may have come to former slaves did not require the States to create franchises only to acknowledge them and permit their operation.

IMHO its also worth noting that Kentucky was a county of Virginia but was never officially a territory. The Shawnee ceded their claims to colonial Virginia in 1774. Kentucky became the 15th State of the United States of America in 1792. It was "set apart" as an "Independent State" per Compact With Virginia. Before it was a "State" it was a Virginia "District" (aka the District of Kentucky).

Related:

• Judge Who Jails Kim Davis Claims Power Above God
• Five Things to Know About the Federal Judge Who Sent the Kentucky Clerk to Jail

[pumpkin]

The judicial is making that branch unequal and above the other branches. This is a separation of powers issue. I think she should resign and then run for governor.

[allodial]

The judicial is making that branch unequal and above the other branches. This is a separation of powers issue. I think she should resign and then run for governor.

There is very likely a way to resolve things in her favor. Apparently the job pays $90K per year. You'd figure state attorneys should be defending rather than a private firm.

[allodial]

It seems that under the Judiciary Act of 1789, that two states were divided into two districts each: Virgina and Massachusetts. Massachusetts was divided into the District of Main and the District of Massachusetts. Virgina was divided into the District of Virginia and the District of Kentucky. It was the District of Kentucky --a creature of the Judiciary Act of 1789--that was allowed to become an "Independent State". Perhaps there is a reason Kentucky was chosen as a venue.

Kentucky never became an organized territory with a formal territorial government. It was "organized" by the Judiciary Act of 1789 as the District of Kentucky. This could mean that Kentucky was always a direct creature of the United States Congress ala legislation.

On September 24, 1789, the Judiciary Act of 1789 organized Kentucky, which was then part of Virginia, as a judicial district and then authorized one post to cover that judicial district. This district court was not yet assigned to a judicial circuit, and therefore was granted the same jurisdiction as the United States Circuit Courts, excluding in appeals and writs of error, which are the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2811[/ATTACH]

Is that suggesting that the judicial district called District of Kentucky (an "Independent State"--note the words free and sovereign are lacking) was admitted as a State of the Union? Are counties of Virginia ever mentioned?

[pumpkin]

From what enabling acts I have read, the new states are on equal footing as the original 13.

[allodial]

From what enabling acts I have read, the new states are on equal footing as the original 13.

Very good point and has been considered. In any case, it is well established that an order must be an order to do something lawful, if it is a command to do something unlawful it is not an order. There are varying opinions on the effect of admission of a state into the United States. Key point is that there might be something particular about Kentucky that is different from the other states. Its worth noting that before the admission into U.S. Statehood, they considered becoming a ward of (Roman Catholic) Spain first--the judge that ordered DAVIS to jail is a Roman Catholic too. I'm not knocking Roman Catholics, but there are some interesting patterns.

Kentucky was so fed up with Virginia she gave serious thought to either or becoming an independent nation, or even a ward of Spain. Louisiana encouraged this because it would help slow American expansion, which was proving even more aggressive than British expansion. Because of this though, Kentucky has slight distrust of Louisiana and her motives. From Introducing Kentucky: Aloof and Often

I would tend to suggest there to be a noteworthy difference between a state of America and a state of the United States