“THE LAW” VERSUS A CLEAR CONSCIENCE — reblogging Your Sister is in Jail

freedomconscienceI suppose it will seem to some that I am going too far, that I am just being absurd and playing the Hitler card. I am not playing the Hitler card.  What I am playing is the conscience card. With that in mind, please consider the words of Hartley Shawcross, the lead British prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal. Here is an excerpt of Shawcross’ defense of the CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL, the document that authorized the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal.

Admittedly, the conscience shrinks from the rigors of collective punishment, which may fall upon the guilty and the innocent alike, although, it may be noted, most of these innocent victims would not have hesitated to reap the fruits of the criminal act if it had been successful. Humanity and justice will find means of mitigating any injustice in collective punishment. Above all, much hardship can be obviated by making the punishment fall upon the individuals who were themselves directly responsible for the criminal conduct of their state. It is here that the powers who framed this Charter took a step which justice, sound legal sense, and an enlightened appreciation of the good of mankind must acclaim without cavil or reserve. The Charter lays down expressly that there shall be individual responsibility for the crimes, including the crimes against the peace, committed on behalf of the state. The state is not an abstract entity. Its rights and duties are the rights and duties of men. Its actions are the actions of men. It is a salutary principle, a principle of law, that politicians who embark upon a particular policy-as here-of aggressive war should not be able to seek immunity behind the intangible personality of the state. It is a salutary legal rule that persons who, in violation of the law, plunge their own and other countries into an aggressive war should do so with a halter around their necks. (from here)

We cannot hide behind the “fact” we are just following orders or obeying the law. We can always refuse orders or disobey “the Law,” and sometimes we must. Therefore, it seems to me those who think Kim Davis should resign want something that never was and cannot be. They want good people bound by “The Law,” but not bound by the need for a clear conscience. Yes, Ms. Davis occupies an elected office. Yes, she has obligations to her constituents, but would she fulfill those obligations if her conscience did not require it?

Don’t we know that “The Law” can be anything man can imagine? Who establishes — what establishes — The Law? Are the members of the Supreme Court the only people who can read the Constitution? Are the members of the Supreme Court the only people who take an oath to support and defend the Constitution? Why doesn’t anyone take an oath to support and defend the opinions of the Supreme Court?

Why do we require public officials to take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the Supreme Court? Most of us can read. The Constitution is plainly written. It is a brief document. The Federalist Papers, not a library full of legal journals, explains most of the major issues. After considerable deliberation, the American People, not the Supreme Court, reluctantly accepted the Constitution as The Law of the land.

Didn’t the Constitution infer that men have the right to own slaves? The fact the Constitution is imperfect is why the American People accepted it reluctantly.  With its unconstitutional decisions — with lies — the Supreme Court threatens to wreck the Constitution. Just five people, five people with too much pride in their own wisdom, arbitrarily amended the Constitution and legalized same-sex “marriage,” overriding the laws of Kentucky and many other states.

No one believes the people who wrote the Constitution considered “same-sex “marriage” a right. We know the men who wrote the Constitution designed a system of laws intended to protect our individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not to force crap like same-sex “marriage” upon unwilling. Yet same-sex “marriage” advocates would use “The Law” to do exactly that. Is homosexuality a new or obscure concern? Don’t we all know that when the Supreme Court declared a right to same-sex “marriage” five people lied?

Is Ms. Davis perfect? No. Is she some sort of hypocrite? I don’t know. Is she the one I would have picked to take a stand against same-sex “marriage”? I certainly would not have picked her if I were making a movie. Nevertheless, with her refusal, she has made the hypocrisy of the proponents of same-sex marriage self-evident. With blatant hypocrisy they demand that she follow “The Law,” but when have they shown any respect whatsoever for The Law, especially the plain intent of the Constitution?

Should we be surprised that those who would pervert marriage will also pervert The Law? No. Instead of condemning Ms. Davis, such should question their own motives. Why do they prefer lies? What price will they pay to defend their precious lies? Who won’t they sacrifice upon the altar of that perversion they call “The Law”?

So what should we do? Here is a suggestion. (H/T to insanitybytes22 for the link to Your Sister is in Jail at Glass Planet.)

But Peter and the apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than any human authority…”

The ink was barely dry on U.S. District Judge David Bunning’s order sending Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis to jail for following in the apostles’ footsteps, obeying God rather than man before the Minutemen of the “me too! I’m good just like you!” faction of Christ’s Holy Church took to the interwebs to declare their solidarity with the pitchfork waving mob. It is not my purpose to go down any of the gazillions of rabbit trails, logical and otherwise that sprout like toadstools across the manure-rich landscape of social media after the rain of such schadenfreude laden storms. (continued here).

Instead of calling for Kim Davis to resign, we need to replace the people who appointed and confirmed the appointment of dishonest judges. We also need to amend the Constitution. We must stop the judges on the Supreme Court from arbitrarily amending the Constitution.

57 thoughts on ““THE LAW” VERSUS A CLEAR CONSCIENCE — reblogging Your Sister is in Jail

  1. Again, Keith, I’m afraid I’m not as omniscient as you credit me. I don’t spend time in Democratic Party circles, so it’s just not something that I have a basis for commenting on knowledgeably in response to Tom’s 1744 comment.

    I agree with you that there is considerable irony in the way things played out in the 1850s. It’s a fascinating, but somewhat depressing period because we know where it’s leading. The intricate compromises intended to keep a lid on sectional conflicts kept getting more and more absurd – The Fugitive Slave Act was sort of the low point. And you’re quite right to observe that the States Rights issue got flipped on its head with Southern complaints about northern disobedience to the law. Ironies abound. The whole play of the state/federal arm-wrestling match from 1789 to the outbreak of the Civil War is well worth an immersion approach for people who really want to understand US history.

    I don’t have any problem with Ms Davis deciding that her beliefs are worth going to jail for. I agree that that is an exercise of civil disobedience. If that’s her chosen course, she’s in good historical company. Perhaps she can pen a letter from the calaboose that will go down in history as an inspiring testimony to her beliefs and the cause of non-violent resistance. Martin Luther King used his time in confinement wisely indeed.

    What I have a problem with is the idea that she shouldn’t go to jail for defying the law or, worse yet, that she should be the ultimate level of review in her County of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States on constitutional issues. Then, I have an additional problem with the idea that she not only should be able to refuse to follow the law, as her civil service job requires, but she should also be able to forbid other civil servants who do no share her views from doing their jobs, and that they all get public salaries and benefits in the meantime. That’s where I think the civil disobedience reference gets cheapened and the analogy to other practitioners gets tortured more than a teeny bit. This is part of the point Michael Gerson was making in the link I provided.

    I’m interested to hear your views (and Tom’s and anyone else’s) on the Gerson column. George Will has also come out in much the same place. I suppose one response is to call them liars and leftists, but that would seem a bit counter-factual.

    Scout

    Like

  2. For Ms. Davis, Tom, responsible civil disobedience would be to resign her position. She wants her very well-paid job (I read somewhere that she is paid $80K per annum from the public purse), but she doesn’t want to do it. Moreover, she wants to interfere with others who don’t share her views from doing their jobs. Not a very edifying spectacle.

    As a Republican, I don’t know much about what Democrats do, but I’m all in favor of every crooked politician in the country quitting their job. Not sure where you got the idea that I think they should all stay put. But that’s a little off topic, isn’t it. Ms. Davis isn’t crooked. She just isn’t thinking very clearly and she’s being used by people around her to pursue larger agendas.

    Scout

    Like

    1. @ *scout, who wrote:

      As a Republican, I don’t know much about what Democrats do

      Pretend ignorance, again.

      So, *scout, should Rosa Parks have simply meekly gotten off the bus, since that was the law? Specifically, a law that was part of “what Democrats do”?

      How about all those civil employees in the 1850s who refused to allow their states’ jails to be used to house escaped slaves? Should those clerks, officials and other public employees have simply resigned, and allowed the Democrats to do “what Democrats do”?

      This was indeed the most proximate cause of the Civil War: the South complained (in the secession declarations) that state employees were being allowed to override federal law, and the southern states complained that states did not have the right to do this. So they left the Union because the Union allowed too much of “states’ rights” and was not enforcing and jailing those public employees. Those employees had vowed to go to jail rather than let their jails be used to enforce a new federal ruling.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Keith: re your 2340: You can be such a charmer, I must say.

    I view these sites as a place to exchange ideas. The first time I have to call someone a liar, as opposed to engaging the strength or weakness of the ideas he expresses, I hope I will have the self-awareness to know that I’ve lost the ability to exchange views with others and should go spend my time doing other things.

    As for Sanctuary cities, I think it’s essential to ask what someone is talking about when they use that term. To my knowledge (and I may be mistaken), there are no cities of any significance who have purported to withdraw from federal law on this point (at that point, the armed force of the national government can be used to quash rebellion, as we learned in the 1860s). There appears to be, however, in popular parlance an assumption that something like that has gone on. My question to insanitybytes was trying to understand what he/she was talking about and how it might relate to Ms Davis’s actions.

    What has happened in many places is that municipalities have been advised, on constitutional grounds, that they may not use local police powers to enforce federal immigration detainers, as that power runs only to federal authorities, and, thus, the use of local police to detain immigrants would present major liabilities for the local governments in terms of false arrests, arrests without warrants, etc. Federal courts have upheld that position, although I think it will continue to bubble up through the system and eventually get sorted out before the Supreme Court that we all here revere as the final arbiter of these tough issues. As if that weren’t enough (and it is enough, if I were in a position of local authority trying to evaluate my options), some local leaders have taken the position that the federal authorities are the only ones with immigration enforcement powers and that they (the localities) cannot divert scarce and expensive public law enforcement resources to doing what the federal government should be doing, and has the only constitutional authority to do. In common chit-chat, some of these places have been referred to as “sanctuary cities”, but the term is intended to be a pejorative and is a misnomer. If that’s what our colleague, Insanitybytes, is talking about, it is not analogous relationship to Ms. Davis wanting to have her individual religious views be the Supreme Law of the Land in her County in Kentucky.

    Beyond that, I think InsanityBytes’ responses to my queries will be informative and useful to furthering our (mostly) civil discussion here.

    I am rattling on a bit, but I wouldn’t want to leave without saying that any modesty that I present here in terms of acknowledging my own weaknesses and shortcomings is entirely sincere. Your thinking it “false”, indicates that you have a much higher assessment of me than I do myself. Thanks, I guess.

    Scout

    Like

    1. We have a public officials who won’t enforce our immigration laws. Instead they are actively working to subvert them. And what do you do? What do Democrats always do? They fire up the smudge pots and thrown up a smoke screen. They fired barrages of smelly nonsense with their legalistic bullshit cannons. They search for splinter in their opponent’s eye; they ignore the log in their own eye.

      Even as Kim Davis, a mere county clerk, engages in a minor act of civil disobedience, we have phalanxes of major government officials including our President and Congress, systematically shredding the Constitution, wasting trillions of dollars, and jeopardizing our nation’s security.

      So why do I write about Kim Davis. Her story reveals the hypocrisy of a great many the people who insist that she should resign. Some don’t know any better, by you do *scout. You want her to quit her job, but honest to goodness crooked politicians you don’t care about.

      Like

  4. Reblogged this on Invitation to a Biblical World View and commented:
    According to Mrs. Davis, to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple has a heaven or hell consequence. Which if you read Romans 1:18-32 and Galatians 5:19-21 you will see she is telling the truth from the word of God. It is far better to serve God than to serve man. Thank you Kim Davis for being brave enough to be thrown in jail by a judge following a wicked decision by the 5 to 4 Supreme court decision that overthrew the majority of voters across the United States.

    Like

    1. If she resigned, would she not remove herself from that Heaven or hell choice. As it is, instead of allowing her scruples to control her actions, she apparently wants to continue to put herself in a position where she takes taxpayer money to disobey the laws of the Republic. Better to find other work that poses no such moral dilemma. Given her views, it sort of seems like insisting on getting paid to bartend but refusing to serve alcohol. Or a fundamentalist Muslim who insists on getting paid to work at DMV, but refuse to issue drivers licenses to women. We don’t really think that’s a good situation, do we?

      Moreover, we really don’t think it’s a good idea in our magnificent pluralistic democratic Republic, that any individual can just self-exempt from compliance with law because he or she has some idea in his/her head that a particular thing violates some religious constraint. What’s the limiting principle between that and complete anarchy? If it’s the validity of the religious belief, we will need religious courts to rule on that.

      Scout

      Like

      1. “Moreover, we really don’t think it’s a good idea in our magnificent pluralistic democratic Republic, that any individual can just self-exempt from compliance with law…”

        Fortunately I am not living in a sanctuary city with 15 marijuana stores or else your comment would make no sense. Oh…wait, I am living in a sanctuary city with 15 marijuana stores, all in violation of federal law, so I guess your comment really doesn’t make any sense. Also, it is full of hypocrisy.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. What is a “sanctuary city”? And do you approve of them? And is marijuana legal in your state? And, do you think it a good idea that each of us decides for ourselves whether or not to be subject to the law? And, if you do think a good idea that people just flit in and out of being subject to law based on individual decisions about whether to obey it, what is the limiting principle, as you see it, that stands between that principle and complete anarchy?

          And what is the hypocrisy in my comment? Are you aware of my having self-exempted myself from the application of the law? I am not, so it would surprise me to learn that you have superior knowledge of that situation.

          Scout

          Like

          1. @ *scout

            When you say Kim Davis has self-exempted herself, that is not true. She accepted the consequences of her civil disobedience.

            What you are doing is trying bludgeon opposition with repetition that only partly true. That is not the same logical argument.

            Like

          2. @ *scout, who wrote:

            What is a “sanctuary city”?

            Here’s a task for you: Provide a good working definition of this term as commonly understood by everyone on this thread who isn’t feigning colossal ignorance about it. Or state here, bluntly, that you really have no idea what this term means that’s been in the news for years and your request for a definition was genuine.

            This technique of yours, this poisonous interleaving of false modesty and false ignorance (often tied together) is one of the most irritating things about dealing with you in comments. You know you’re lying. The people you interact with here know you’re lying. And you’re even aware of the fact that your technique fools no one. But it’s the sort of thing that is just your style: Pretend you don’t understand something to distract attention away from the core issues under discussion. Your other common approach is to pick some tiny and immaterial aspect of a comment and focus all your attention on that, ignoring the main point.

            Grow up, *scout. You’re a smart man, and I don’t care how much you disdain conservatives and Christianity (except for your private versions of these things, of course), you can still engage in reasonable discussions of substantive issues without the *scout scatterpoint sideshow.

            ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

            Like

      2. Actually the Muslim works for the airlines but refuses to serve alcohol to guests. By US law, her employers have to make “reasonable accommodation” for her religious beliefs — except that US law is not the only thing involved.

        What will never be a part of that case is a judicial inquiry into “the validity of the religious belief,” in this case the analysis of the extent to which the Qur’anic concept of abrogation of Meccan suras versus Medinan ones renders the complete prohibition of alcohol the final dictate, or the use of alcohol in moderation as noted in other suras.

        The Court is not tasked with pursuing whether a religious belief is doctrinarily valid (versus held in good faith). You know that; you claim to be involved in Constitutional law. But you’ve asserted over and over again here that it would tie up the courts inquiring into the validity of religious beliefs, which you know is not true. And you’ve asserted that people refusing to serve blacks at their places of business justified this on the basis of religious beliefs, which you also know is not true.

        You’re simply trying to make a slippery slope argument to undercut the protection of religious belief encoded into the Constitution as amended. You also give no credence whatsoever to civil disobedience, nor do you even acknowledge the possibility of unjust SCOTUS rulings (which of course cannot be punished by voters). But elsewhere, I’d wager that you’ve found other Supreme Court arguments lacking. Are you satisfied with the Citizens United decision, for example?

        Clerks and other government employees refused to enforce various slave-return laws, and made rather a point of this. (State nullification of federal laws was also used, just as is being done informally with regard to marijuana.) Those 1850s clerks were in a position similar to the current gal; they strongly felt that the enforcement of a new law would violate Constitutional provisions. They were correct. Some went to jail for this, but not many as the tide of public opinion supported them, just as the tide of public opinion is now in support of Kim Wilson. That may not always be true, and in any event it public opinion does not overrule the Constitution.

        The US Supreme Court in Obergefell had to override both public opinion and the Constitution in order to implement, by a majority of one-half of a black-robed blackguard, that bare majority’s notion of what is proper to raise their own estimate of themselves in world opinion. Some now sitting on this Court have previously stated flatly that the world’s notion of proper behavior and appropriate law should be given great weight. Presumably they were not thinking of Iran and Saudi Arabia when they said that.

        Ginsburg famously suggested that the US Constitution is not a good model for other countries to emulate, and that more progressive documents would be an improvement.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I do acknowledge, Keith, “the possibility of unjust Supreme Court rulings” and civil disobedience has a long and honorable history in this country, particularly in the Civil Rights era of the mid 20th Century. But that’s not what we’re talking about here, is it? Ms Davis wants to have her cake and eat it too. She wants to defy the law, refuse to do her job, but keep the job and get paid for it from the public purse while she’s not doing it. What could be more indefensible than the idea that she not only self-exempts, but then has the citizens pay her to do it? If she resigned, that would be her civil disobedience statement and I certainly would respect her for it. I see you picked up my example of the Fugitive Slave Act. Yes, if you elect to go to jail rather than enforce, that’s a noble action. Just don’t expect that we let you stay in the job while you don’t do it. That cheapens your civil disobedience statement.

          At some level, my argument that one has to test the validity of the religious argument for self-exemption comes into play if one allows, as I do not, that it is a valid concept. I go back to my example (slightly modified to move from cake selling to withholding government services) of a few posts ago – If I have a sincere religious belief that left-handed people should not receive drivers’ licenses, and am a civil servant charged with issuing drivers’ licenses, does the inquiry end with my refusal? Of course not. But then how do we sort out whether my religious belief packs less self-exemption punch than Ms. Davis’s re the issuance of civil marriage licenses to same sex couples? Religion being what it is, it’s a daunting class to carve out some beliefs and not others. And, to make the hypothetical a bit less absurd, it could well be that a strict Muslim DMV clerk of certain sects would look askance at the idea of women receiving drivers’ licenses. Is he equally entitled to withhold government services as is Ms. Davis? If not, what is the limiting principle that distinguishes him from her? If there is one, do we not have to have some means of assessing that? And, if so, do we also have to have some means of sorting out the nutter who, in all sincerity, believes southpaws should be turned away at the government window?

          Scout

          Like

      3. Kim Davis did not go to jail like Hillary Clinton for her security violation or Barack Obama for tyrannical use of his pen and his phone?

        And what about those judges lying on their resumes? Didn’t they say they could read?

        Like

        1. Huh? A shoolyard reply on a schoolboy level, Tom.

          Hillary Clinton is not a clerk of any particular county refusing to follow the law of the land. If Hillary Clinton goes to jail, it will be for mishandling classified information, not for refusing to execute her office in the face of court order directing her to do so (although I could imagine a situation in which the courts order her to deliver up some information, she tries to evade that, and they lower a contempt boom on her, but we’re not there yet. That would be a teeny bit closer to the present Kentucky situation, but not much).

          There are established avenues for challenging Presidential actions that exceed their lawful authority. The current President and several others have been caught out on that charge by the courts. The penalty is not jail. The penalty is court order invalidating their actions.

          Scout

          Like

          1. Actually, Hilliary Clinton and Barack Obama and a great many Democrats want it both ways. They want one set of laws for themselves and another set for the little people and those who dare to buck their precious system. Kim Davis is quite open about what she wants. Clinton and Obama lie. Instead of resigning or recusing themselves, five judges on the Supreme Court lied and said the Constitution says something it does not say.

            And you? I don’t know what motivates you. I just see the hypocrisy in condemning someone for honest to goodness civil disobedience. Even if you support same-sex “marriage,” even if you had the bias we would expect of someone whose “spouse” happens to be of the same sex, you have to blind to your own hypocrisy not to recognize that regardless of the cause civil disobedience is still just civil disobedience.

            Like

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Because The Bible Wasn't Written In English

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Fr. Pietraszko's Corner

Discovering Truth and Love

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

The Wesleyan Tribe

A lifelong United Methodist Speaking Into The Chaos Of Today

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Healthy Mind Ministry

A Ministry Devoted To Mental Wellness Through Jesus Christ

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Why be stagnant?

SGM

Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

Communio

"Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Heb. 10:7

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

praythroughhistory

Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy

Lillie-Put

The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. Wisdom to help us find the path to true love, peace, and joy in our lives, and our world.

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

cookiecrumbstoliveby

Life through the eyes of "cookie"

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture." ColorStorm

%d bloggers like this: