Thread: Supreme Court will not review Kim Davis case involving same-sex marriage licenses

Originally Posted by GaiaGoddess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourte...s_Constitution

Guess we need a deep dive on the 14th Amendment as it pertains to this topic

In order to confirm the true meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, as stated by those who framed the amendment, the starting place is THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 39TH CONGRESS

.
Have Justices Kagan and Sotomayor engaged in misfeasance and nonfeasance resulting in an injustice being inflicted on Kim Davis?


It seems to me our Supreme Court including Kagan and Sotomayor, in Obergefell v. Hodges , set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, while Article V [with the people's consent] is the only lawful way to alter the enforceable terms and conditions our Constitution?



So, how did Kagan and Sotomayor, in Obergefell v. Hodges determine that our federal Constitution forbids the States from making distinctions in law based upon sex?

A reason why I ask the above questions is, a Senate Report in 1872, during the 42 Congress, answered the above question in crystal clear language:

“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which would give the phrase…a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution.” Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

And, our very own Supreme Court emphatically provides a procedure answering the same question:

“The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.”_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

It should also be noted that our U.S. Supreme Court has never officially reversed the decision in Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) in which the State of Illinois refused to grant a license to a woman to practice law in Illinois, on the ground that females were not eligible under the laws of that state. The USSC upheld the law as not violating the Fourteenth Amendment!

So, considering the Fourteenth Amendment was not violated in 1872 by by Illinois making distinctions in law based upon sex, when was our Constitution amended to henceforth forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex?

The only amendment to be found in our Constitution since 1872 with reference to sex is the Nineteenth Amendment, adopted in 1920. But that amendment, is narrowly worded and limits the protection against “sex” discriminations as follows:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

Is it now obvious that the American people have never adopted a constitutional amendment in our federal constitution, forbidding our States from making distinctions in law based upon “sex” other than the Nineteenth Amendment?

Is it not also true that the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which would have forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex, was rejected in 1982 by an insufficient number of States approving the amendment?

Now, in view of the historical evidence provided, is it now crystal clear that Kagan and Sotomayor, in Obergefell v. Hodges , in essence, set themselves up (along with three other S.C. Justices) as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, while Article V is the only lawful way to alter our Constitution?

Do the actions of these two, Kagan and Sotomayor, not fall within the four walls of misfeasance and nonfeasance, and effectively resulted in wrongfully letting stand a $100,000 damages verdict against Kim Davis, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license?

A majority on our Supreme Court is not vested with power to alter the terms and conditions set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment. Article V is the only lawful way to alter the terms and conditions set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court has never taken up and formally reversed the decision in BRADWELL V. THE STATE, 83 U. S. 130 (1872)

Bradwell v. The State is apparently still good law and essentially confirmed a State has authority to make distinctions based upon sex, and that refusing to issue a license based upon sex violates no provision of the federal Constitution.

Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment states:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”


Keep in mind our U.S. Supreme Court has never taken up and reversed the decision in Bradwell v. The State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) in which the State of Illinois refused to grant a license to a woman to practice law in Illinois, on the ground that females were not eligible under the laws of that state. The USSC upheld the law as not violating the Fourteenth Amendment!

Kim Davis should sue Justices Sotomayor and Kagan under the Seventh Amendment for Sotomayor and Kagan’s misfeasance and nonfeasance in Obergefell v. Hodges which has led to a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

The Seventh Amendment states:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Keep in mind Sotomayor and Kagan took an oath to support and defend our written Constitution which does not allow them to substitute their personal feelings and predilections as the rule of law, which is what they did in Obergefell v. Hodges . . . they ignored fundamental rules of constitutional construction.


“In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it…A construction which would give the phrase…a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution.” Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Additionally, our very own Supreme Court points to Sotomayor and Kagan’s fundamental duty:

"The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it."_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Let a jury decide whether or not Sotomayor and Kagan engaged in misfeasance and nonfeasance.

Originally Posted by johnwk

... Kim Davis should sue Justices Sotomayor and Kagan under the Seventh Amendment for Sotomayor and Kagan’s misfeasance and nonfeasance in Obergefell v. Hodges which has led to a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license ...

Agreed that this is a sensible idea for Kim Davis!