Constitution

by

Kim Davis Comes Out of the Closet

Kim Davis, the Kentucky Clerk who has been lauded by conservative religious groups all over for her brave stand against equality in marriage, has finally come out of the closet and has gone through a transformation.

“I had been living a lie all those years,” she said. “While on the surface, I appeared as one thing to everyone, deep down inside I knew that my core being was completely different.”635768272291820336-same

She was one of the lucky ones who had friends who approved of her becoming “trans” and actively encouraged it. “We’re so happy for her,” said one Christian backer, showing the love and understanding that Jesus encouraged.

“It was difficult, but I have to admit that based on the inner desires I have, I can no longer deny who I am,” Davis said. “Yes, it is true. I am a Republican.”

The Republican party, with its goal of inequality and intolerance for those it deems sinful in the eyes of a book written thousands of years ago by ignorant shepherds, welcomed her with open arms. “Finally, at last, Ms. Davis can be who she really is, free from discrimination, and welcome in society without fear of being treated with hatred,” said a local GOP leader, adding, “I mean, it’s not like she’s one of those goddamn fags, after all.”

by

You don’t have a right to a job!

Give me a freakin’ break.

National Bigot Kim Davis was playing the martyr card again today, complaining that she had to choose between “her conscience and freedom” because gosh darn it, the evil government that she works for wants to make her do her job.

Well, no, Ms. Bigot — your choice is not between “your conscience and freedom”.  It’s between your job and freedom. If you don’t want to do your job, just quit already.

A sign recently erected in Kim Davis' town

A sign recently erected in Kim Davis’ town

This is the same old argument we see time and time again, always by people who have no understanding of their Constitutional rights. Your right to have an opinion doesn’t mean you have the right to force it on everyone else, nor does it mean you are protected from the consequences of that opinion.

Just since I started this blog a few years ago, this issue has come up more than once.

There was that bank teller (also from Kentucky) that complained that her rights were violated when she was fired after she kept preaching to customers, despite being told to stop by her boss.

And that CEO from Mozilla who whined that he was being wrongly fired for fighting against gay marriage while his business was actively anti-discrimination.

And the conservative pundist Charles Krauthamer, who doesn’t understand that he doesn’t have the right to have his column printed in the paper.

And “actor” Rob Schneider who lost his job as an insurance spokesman after dissing vaccinations (which insurance companies like).

In each of these situations, people wrongly thought that losing their jobs because of what they said meant their freedom of speech was violated. You don’t have the right to a specific job! If your speech, religion, or actions stand in the way of you doing your job, then you’re not being “punished” for your opinions — you’re being punished for not doing your freakin’ job.

by

Answering Your Legal Questions about that Kentucky Clerk

I really didn’t want to write more about Kim Davis, the Kentucky Clerk who refuses to issue legal marriage licenses to people she is bigoted against … but she just won’t go away. People keep emailing me about the case.  So let’s answer a few legal questions.

Has she broken the law? No, she has not “broken the law” in the strictest sense.  What she did was refuse to do her job for religious reasons and ordered everyone in her office to refuse too. As someone pointed out, this would be like having a Jewish postmaster who feels that delivering Christmas Cards was against his religion, so he orders all the mail carriers under him to not deliver any of these cards. Or maybe a better example is a Muslim clerk at the DMV who doesn’t believe women should drive and so prevents any licenses to be issued to women.

Kim Davis and the Constitutional scholars she relies upon

Kim Davis and the Constitutional scholars she relies upon

Kim Davis is not following the law. This denied basic civil rights to citizens who were entitled to them. The judge ordered her to give people what they are entitled to under the law. She refused, and got to see the jail from the inside.

But there really isn’t a “law” to allow gay marriage, is there?  Her idiot supporters argue with a straight face that there is no “law” allowing gay marriage and therefore she is doing nothing wrong. I have no idea what this stupid argument means. There is a law providing for marriage, and the Supreme Court has said that the law must be applied without discriminating. There is also no “law” that specifically says a marriage is allowed between different races, yet no one thinks this Clerk could refuse to issue one, do they?

This argument comes from morons like Mike Huckabee, who wants to swear an oath to the Constitution but has apparently never read it. He argues with a straight face that since the legislature never passed a law allowing gay marriage, the Supreme Court didn’t have the right to make the decision in the first place and therefore we can all ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling. This is the kind of argument that we lawyers refer to in our legalese way as “bullshit.”

Can she fire the clerk who is issuing these licenses? Fortunately, one of the Clerks in her office has stated that he will continue to issue marriages to anyone eligible even if she comes back and orders him not to (as she has vowed to do in her loving, Christian way). Can she fire him? Sure, but would it be a legal firing? Probably not. How can you justify firing someone who did their job when you ordered them not to? He’d have a pretty good case against the state for an unjust firing. (Since this is Kentucky, I can be fairly sure these people aren’t unionized like they are in my area.)

Can she cancel the licenses her office has given out already? No. She doesn’t have a job that allows her discretion. If you are eligible for a license, you get one.

She may try, of course, and I think that will not be appreciated by the judge.

Can she go back to jail, and how long can she stay there? She is out of jail now, because the judge assumes she will either do her job or allow others to do their job. If she still refuses to do so, the judge will probably send her back to jail. That’s what Contempt is for — they’re not meant to be punishment, but instead to force people to do what they are supposed to do.

You might recall cases where journalists refused to reveal their sources and were held in contempt. Some stayed in jail for months.

How can we get rid of her? The only way to get rid of this elected person is to impeach her. This is Kentucky, so that’s probably not going to happen, any more than Alabama would have impeached George Wallace when he disobeyed the courts to block black children from going to school with white children 50 years ago. The judge cannot force the legislature to do this; all he can do is keep jailing her if she refuses to obey his orders.

Why are her lawyers doing this? Davis’ lawyers are a bunch of right-wing hacks supported by a lobbying group that is propping her up to use as a fundraising measure. Their briefs have little law in them and read more like the kind of rants you see on crazy blogs that talk about “God’s Law” ruling over secular law. They probably know they have no legal basis for their appeals and so instead are writing what their donors want to read. That way, when the judge rules against them, they can argue that he is “denying God.” Ca-ching! More donations. Appealing to bigotry has become quite profitable lately, you know.

Her own lawyers have to know she will never be successful. A recent legal panel on Fox unanimously was against her, calling her lawyer “incredibly stupid.” (Yes, I did say “Fox” — not a mistake.) When even the experts at Fox News are against you…

Why is there a double standard when Obama violates the Constitution all the time and gets away with it? Seriously, people ask this, and usually their definition of “violating the Constitution” boils down to “does stuff I don’t like.” Some people know in their hearts what the Constitution says and means without that pesky need to actually learn anything about it (in much the same way Kim Davis has done with the Bible).

Is the judge some sort of liberal crusader?  No. The judge is a conservative Republican, appointed by George W. Bush. He probably doesn’t support gay marriage, but he does support the law. You gotta admire him for that.

by

Constitutional Fundamentalists: Either liars or just damned stupid

I’m so sick of fundamentalist politicians and internet trolls. And not just the religious ones — the Constitutional ones.

These people view the US Constitution as if it were written on stone, never changing, and can never be questioned.

Like religious fundamentalists, they believe there is only one interpretation of their holy book and — here’s the amazing part —  that interpretation is always exactly in line with their own personal views!constitution_quill_pen

Most of us who study the Constitution for a living are aware that the Founding Fathers, though great men, were not gods. We know that the Constitution was written by politicians, who made compromises and wrote the thing to be deliberately vague in parts because that was the only way they could get the damn thing passed. That’s how politics works.

The most obvious example may be “The Virginia Compromise.” (Look, it even has “compromise” in its name.) The smaller states wanted each state to have an equal vote so that they wouldn’t be ignored. The larger states wanted it to be based on population which would obviously benefit them. In the end, we got both — a Senate where each state gets the same representation no matter how small, and a House where the states with more people get more representation.

Then there are the first ten amendments themselves (the “Bill of Rights”). Many states refused to ratify the Constitution without these protections, and it’s a good thing they demanded them.

But the clearest example of compromise in the Constitution has to do with slavery. Most of the northern states had already abolished it and wanted the entire country to do the same, but the southern states refused. The south was worried that as soon as this Constitution was passed, the northern states would outlaw slavery completely. Without some provisions to prevent this, the south refused to agree to the Constitution. Rather than split the country within the first ten years of its existence, a series of compromises were worked out. (Sadly, postponing this only led to the bloodiest war in American history seventy years later.)

First, there’s Article I section 9 which specifically prohibited Congress from passing any law outlawing the importing of slaves before 1808 (twenty years from the Constitution’s signing). Why 1808? Was there something magical about that year? No, that was just the number that compromise produced. (And as soon as 1808 came about, Congress did exactly what the south was worried about and banished the importation of any more slaves.)

Second, there’s the ridiculous 3/5ths clause. The south demanded that when determining how many representatives they would get in the House, that slaves should be counted as “people” even when they were property in every other respect under the law. The north rightly pointed out how stupid this was, but the south insisted and there was another compromise made. We ended up with a provision that held that 3/5ths of every slave would count. No mention as to which 3/5th of the slave counted, though, but apparently it didn’t include the head since the views of the slaves mattered not.

Third, there’s the 2nd Amendment, which allowed the southern states to keep their state “militias” which were basically armed gangs whose only job it was to intimidate slaves and capture ones who escaped.

Within a few years of its passage, there were cases before the Supreme Court to determine the Constitution’s meaning and its application. The Founding Fathers themselves were still around and they could not agree! To think that there is some magical interpretation we can know today, hundreds of years later, is ridiculous.

So anyone who claims to “know” the intent of the Founding Fathers — as if they all agreed completely — is either lying to you or just too damned stupid to realize they’re spouting bullshit.

by

Liberals are not trying to ban the Confederate flag

Sure, we hate it. It stands for treason, injustice, and slavery. Anyone who flies that flag is either a bigot, an asshole who likes trolling people, or willfully ignorant of what that flag means to people.

That flag does not belong on public property, nor should public funds ever be used to display it (except perhaps in a museum). There is indeed a movement to prohibit it from being displayed on government property.flagthatmattered

But banning it completely would clearly violate the 1st Amendment.

People have the right to hold unpopular positions. They have the right to be obnoxious and insulting. They can fly that flag on their own property all they want, put it on their car, wave it in the air while they walk down the street.

That doesn’t mean we can’t object. That doesn’t mean we can’t protest it and try to encourage people not to support the anti-American Racist Slaver Treason Flag. We can refuse to deal with people who fly it, boycott businesses that support it, and protest using our 1st Amendment rights, too.

There are always extremists on both ends of the political spectrum. There are indeed liberals who don’t understand what “freedom of speech” means who want to ban the flag and force every statue of a Confederate soldier down to the ground. Oh, and statues of Columbus, too. And Andrew Jackson. And anyone else who doesn’t agree with them 100% … because that’s what extremists want — you either agree with them completely or you’re the enemy.

Don’t paint everyone with the same brush, though. Liberals hate that flag and all it stands for and wish for no one to ever fly it again — but a true liberal also loves freedom of speech and is against censorship.

by

Idiot Who Wants to Swear Oath to Constitution Has Never Read It

Dr. Ben Carson, who has never studied Constitutional Law in his life but has studied medicine and still thinks life begins at conception, recently declared that Congress has the Constitutional authority to remove judges just because they don’t like them.

Most Americans aren’t aware of this Congressional power “because they don’t know the Constitution,” he said.  Exactly where in the Constitution is this power? He didn’t explain. Probably because it’s not there, I dunno.    Obamacare-27

Anyway, Bennie here thinks that judges who rule in favor of gay marriage should be removed because they made an unconstitutional decision. Let’s see, who decides whether a law is unconstitutional according to our Constitution? Is it the judicial branch? No, of course not. It’s Dr. Ben Carson.

Carson, who also believes Obamacare is Unconstitutional, has previously spoken about how wonderful it would be if Congress loved the Constitution like they used to. He then cited Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd as shining examples of people who loved the Constitution — you know, those two senators who were members of the KKK and believed that the Constitution only applied to white people. Those guys. (Yes, you can now do some psychoanalysis on Dr. Ben if you wish.)

And this guy is on the short list of Republican Presidential possibilities.

I am not making this up.

by

Air Force demands an oath to God

“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”  That’s in the United States Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 3).

The US Air Force doesn’t care.  They swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and then they ignore the parts they don’t like by demanding that the oath include the words “So help me God.” bilde 

This clear violation is surely headed to court, and we’re going to hear the same arguments they always make:  But this is a Christian country and the majority should rule and blah blah blah.

I’ve debated this issue with True Believers and it’s a waste of time — they never seem to accept the fact that it’s unconstitutional discrimination.  Since it’s discrimination they agree with, how can it be wrong?

Imagine if they argued this:

“This is a white nation and the Founding Fathers supported slavery. The majority doesn’t want blacks in the military, so they should abide by tradition. The minority shouldn’t be allowed to dictate to the majority what the laws should be.”

“This is a straight nation and the Founding Fathers supported heterosexuality. The majority doesn’t want gays in the military, so they should abide by tradition. The minority shouldn’t be allowed to dictate to the majority what the laws should be.”

“This is a male-run nation and the Founding Fathers supported men being in charge. The majority doesn’t want women in the military, so they should abide by tradition. The minority shouldn’t be allowed to dictate to the majority what the laws should be.”

So, yeah, I’m upset whenever there is discrimination.  Like the current fight for gay rights, the people who want to discriminate can’t see past their own biases to understand what is wrong with their position.

And, for the record, I would be just as upset if the military was requiring an oath that denied the existence of God. The government has no right to discriminate based on religion or lack thereof.

by

The “Congressional Reform Act”

I’m still seeing this ridiculous meme popping up, talking about the non-existent “Congressional Reform Act.” congressWhile I understand and share in the dislike of Congress right now and believe that major reforms are needed concerning campaign finance laws and lobbying, nothing in this thing addresses that.  Most of this meme doesn’t even make sense.

And no, it isn’t being sponsored by Warren Buffet or anyone else, and isn’t a proposed “28th Amendment.”

Let’s go over these proposals one at a time.

1.  “No Tenure”?  Well, yeah, of course.  No one in congress has “tenure.”  They can be voted out each election cycle.  “No pension”?  Why not?  Why shouldn’t they get a pension like any other job?  That’s just petty.

2.  This is just a restatement of “no pension,” isn’t it?  Not sure why pensions are so important to the anonymous person who came up with this thing.

3.  This is just a fact.  This is what the current law is. This is not a change at all. Congress does indeed participate in Social Security. Apparently the person writing this didn’t do the slightest bit of research.

4.  Pensions again, along with the Social Security thing.  Not sure how many times he needs to make the same points.  So far, after four bullet points, the only one that is something new is “Let’s not give them a pension.”

5.  Oh, look, the pension thing again. Whoever posted this really doesn’t like people getting pensions. Apparently, this person objects to a retirement plan the way every other person gets one, through both personal contributions and employer contributions. Personally, I think I’d rather have ex-congress members get a pension than work as a lobbyist when they retire.

6.  Hey, now, that’s a great idea! And not about pensions! Too bad it’s already in the Constitution as the 27th Amendment.

7.  Congress’ current health care system is the Federal one.  It’s the same one every federal employee gets. The janitor who cleans the Congress member’s office gets the same basic plan. Congress does not get a “special” plan (although, admittedly, since they are rich, they can afford to upgrade the plan to the best possible, but so can any other federal employee). There was a proposal for we, the people, to join in this great plan (it was called “the Public Option”) but it was defeated by insurance companies and Tea Party idiots who had no idea what it meant, apparently, since they are often the same ones posting this meme all over the internet.

8.  Congress does have to abide by all laws they impose on us, as Congress members who ended up with criminal records can tell you. There is an exception that allows for Congressional immunity for things they say, but that makes absolute sense and is in the Constitution. You’d need an Amendment to get rid of that, and that hasn’t ever been an issue or a problem. So here’s another one that is unneeded because it’s already in the law.

9.  I have no idea what this means. What contracts? Does this mean if a Congressman contracts with someone to build a house, the contract is not valid? Seriously, I don’t know what this means but it certainly seems to violate the Constitution’s contract clause.

So when we get rid of the things that are already part of our laws and are redundant, we’re basically left with “Let’s not give these guys pensions.”

The moral:  Maybe you should know something about what you’re proposing before you go proposing it.

by

No, your freedom of speech was not violated

Once more, a contingent of People Who Don’t Understand The Constitution are complaining because it doesn’t mean what they think it means.

Not surprisingly, it’s mostly religious folks, who also don’t understand the Bible either.

This time, it’s a woman who was fired from her job, violating her Freedom of Speech!  Or so she says.Stock Photo of the Consitution of the United States and Feather Quill

A Kentucky bank teller is complaining that her 1st Amendment rights were violated because she was fired for saying “Have a blessed day” to her customers.  She also criticized patrons for “taking the Lord’s name in vain” and talked to people about “salvation”.

She was told by her boss to stop that, but she didn’t, because Jeebus demands her to do so or something.   And now she’s fired.  And whining that her speech and religious rights have been violated.

Well, no.  As anyone who understands the first thing about freedoms will tell you.   An employer has the right to tell their employees not to discuss religion, or politics, or anything of the sort with the customers, in the same way they can tell you to not wear boxing shorts and tank tops to work.

I certainly wouldn’t want to go to a bank and have the teller tell me “All praise to C’thulu” as I left. Or “Be sure to vote for my candidate!” or “Remember: oral sex is a sin.”

There’s a place for everything, and that is not the place.  It’s a business decision.

If the business fired her simply for being a Christian, she would have a wonderful case, because her rights were clearly being violated.  For that matter, if the bank fired her for saying any of those things on her own time when she wasn’t working, then I would happily take her case and fight against such a clear violation.  But reasonable work rules such as “Don’t piss off our customers” don’t get that kind of protection.

And let’s once more make it clear, since this is one of the biggest mistakes People Who Don’t Understand The Constitution make:  The 1st Amendment prevents the government from taking away your freedom of speech.  It does not mean that you have the right to say whatever you want at any time and not take criticism for it or never have to face the consequences.

 

 

 

by

Supreme Court: Corporations over women

A few days ago, we learned that dead people have more rights than women.  Now we learn that corporations have more rights than women, too.

As you probably know, Hobby Lobby won their ridiculous case (I wrote about that here, here, and here months ago).   While I am sad, I am not shocked.

I remember being shocked in law school when I read an opinion from Scalia that dealt with a similar issue, as to whether an employer could refuse to provide contraception for women (including abortions) but still provide it for men, and Scalicorporations-over-wethepeoplea’s logic was that the law did not discriminate against women — it merely discriminated against pregnant people.

Later, he ruled that the 14th Amendment which says that there can be no discrimination against “people” didn’t apply to women who wanted to be treated as equals in the military. “That’s different,” he said.

So this is nothing new. Women, in Scalia’s mind, aren’t really “people.”

This is what happens when you make corporations into people. They start having religions and then want to force everyone else to live by their religious laws.

So now religious law is more important than the secular law — but only for employers.  Got that?

Why do these people get to decide how to spend my money?  Health benefits belong to me, just like my salary.  Why does my boss get to decide how I want to use them?  Can my boss dock my salary if I decide to spend it on things he doesn’t like?

That’s the bottom line many people don’t get.  This is about who decides, and once more the Supreme Court has ruled that the power in this country belongs with the corporations and 1%, not with “we, the people.”

I see that the anti-gay religious folks are thrilled. After all, if the religion of the employer is more important than the law, then clearly employers can now discriminate against gays and lesbians if it offends their “deeply held religious views.”

And why stop there? I’m sure there are religious employers whose religion tells them they can discriminate against Jews, or women, or blacks.

Heck, there are enough gods out there that you can easily find one to worship that will allow you to ignore just about every law you want.

So what do we do?  How can we overturn this decision?

Well, you can’t.

What you can do is vote.  Vote in every election, not just the Presidential one.  Fill our government with Democrats who will put into place a single-payer system that we should have done in the first place.  That will solve many problems as well as make this decision completely irrelevant and moot.