Friday, September 04, 2015

Remember when Obama was the public official refusing to enforce the marriage laws?

The defenders of Tolerance and Diversity argue that Kim Davis, the Rowan County Kentucky Clerk who was jailed yesterday for refusing to issue marriage licenses, belongs in jail because she is a public official who has refused to do her job.

Here is the argument liberals are using to put Kim Davis in jail, in proper logical form:
All public officials who do not enforce existing law should be prosecuted
Kim Davis is a public official who does not enforce existing law
Therefore Kim Davis should be prosecuted
This syllogism is perfectly logical; that is, if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. But are all the premises true? Is it really true to say that "All public officials who do not enforce existing law should be prosecuted"? If it is, then the liberal using the argument has a problem.

Ted Cruz made an excellent point the yesterday. He said, "Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare?"

So let's keep the same logical structure of this argument and the same major premise (the one about public officials) but replace the minor premise and draw the new conclusion:
All public officials who do not enforce existing law should be prosecuted
President Obama is a public official who does not enforce existing law
Therefore President Obama should be prosecuted
Now if the first (or major) premise is true and the second (or minor) premise is also true (which it certainly is), then the liberals using this should be asked why it is, if they think that Kim Davis should be prosecuted, they don't also think that Obama should be prosecuted.

But Cruz has apparently forgotten about an even more relevant example, one that has to do with the marriage issue itself. On Feb. 4, 2011, the Obama administration announced that it would no longer be enforcing the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Hmmm.

Where were the people in the folks now so concerned with public officials doing their jobs then? Funny, but I can't recall them calling for Obama to resign or face jail time.

If the highest public official in the land is within his rights to refuse to enforce the law on marriage, then is Kim Davis not be within her rights to do the same thing?

14 comments:

Singring said...

Martin. here's some friendly advice: whenever you find yourself writing a sentence like: 'Ted Cruz made an excellent point yesterday', take a deep breath, rub your eyes, have a sip of brandy, maybe get up and take a short walk outside - whatever helps you come back to your senses. Then write something sane.

With regards to your Obama comparison, it is completely bogus. Law enforcement choosing not to enforce a law at their discretion is not analogous to county clerks refusing to service the request of a citizen for a marriage license.

Police departments everywhere make decisions on which laws they will enforce at their own initiative every day. They don't enforce parking laws is some cases, they don't enforce laws against jaywalking, against smoking pot and a whole range of other offenses depending on the resources they have and where they see priorities. That doesn't mean they are violating the law or the constitution. If someone came to them, said they had been mugged and beaten and the cops just shrugged and said 'not interested, we're not enforcing laws against assault' - *then* they would be in trouble.

This is what is happening here. Karen Davis was approached by residents of her county who wanted her to issue a marriage certificate - which she refused in direct contravention of the law and her role as a clerk.

KyCobb said...

As usual, you have it wrong, Martin. The proper logical form is this:

All public officials who willfully violate the civil rights of people should be prosecuted. Kim Davis is a public official who willfully violates the civil rights of people. Therefore Kim Davis should be prosecuted.

Anonymous said...

MC: "But are all the premises true? Is it really true to say that "All public officials who do not enforce existing law should be prosecuted"? "

It seems pretty clear this is not true. Life tends to to be more complicated than simple arguments. There are certainly cases where this is not true.

j a higginbotham

Anonymous said...

Mr. Cothran certainly makes a good point. A law carries a duty, and in the case of DOMA the government has a duty to defend it against any aggression. Something as serious as defining what marriage is, is very important for the common good of society. This is nothing like not stopping any car that goes over 1 mph over the speed limit. It's a silly notion equating "jaywalking" to marriage, unless one believes that "jaywalking" is really an institution that has existed for thousands of years; I think not.

Old Rebel said...

Let's see what the SJWs make of this Muslim flight attendant who won't perform certain duties of her job:

"What this case comes down to is no one should have to choose between their career and religion and it's incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can practice their religion freely," said Lena Masri, an attorney with Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Anonymous said...

Marriage as we know it has not existed for 1000's of years; see, e.g., http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html .

Flight attendant won't do her job and others won't help; out she goes. At least the airline can (i hope) fire her.

j a higginbotham

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

When Ted Cruz starts making more sense than his left-wing critics, then his left-wing critics should stop criticizing Ted Cruz for not making sense.

Your trying to draw some substantive distinction between

I'm trying to figure out in what way the enforcement of a law passed by entire chambers of elected lawmakers with the support of voters and the signature of the chief executive is somehow less important than "servicing the request" of a handful of same-sex couples.

Maybe you could explain to my why this is supposed to be compelling.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Of what importance is it to specify they are willful? Of course they're willful--in both cases. And why do someone's civil rights have any higher status than an enumerated Constitutional right?

Martin Cothran said...

The difference between the Muslim flight attendant and Kim Davis is that serving alcohol would have been part of her job description when she was hired, whereas in Kim Davis' case, her job description explicitly involved only traditional marriages.

Singring said...

"Let's see what the SJWs make of this Muslim flight attendant who won't perform certain duties of her job:

"What this case comes down to is no one should have to choose between their career and religion and it's incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can practice their religion freely," said Lena Masri, an attorney with Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations"

First off - who says Lena Masri represents 'SJWs' or anyone else?

Second, I am completely in agreement with the firing of this flight attendant. The fact that the airline at first agreed to accommodate her wishes might give her a legal recourse, but from my point of view, religious grounds are not enough to refuse to perform work-related tasks.

Now...where is you consistency? If you agree that this flight attendant should be fired - shouldn't Ms Davis be fired as well?

Singring said...

"The difference between the Muslim flight attendant and Kim Davis is that serving alcohol would have been part of her job description when she was hired, whereas in Kim Davis' case, her job description explicitly involved only traditional marriages."

Nonsense. Her job description explicitly involved issuing marriage licenses. The Supreme Court has ordered states to issue marriage license to homosexual couples. Therefore, her job requires her to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

The proper analogy would be if the flight attendant's job description was to serve drinks and her company decided to start serving alcoholic drinks where they hadn't in the past. Which is not the case.

By the way - regarding the religious freedom law in Kentucky you championed - were you lying about its implications at the time or are you lying now when you demand it be applied to a case you argued it wouldn't apply to in the past?

As a senior policy analyst who lobbied for that bill you really ought to know.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"Of what importance is it to specify they are willful? Of course they're willful--in both cases. And why do someone's civil rights have any higher status than an enumerated Constitutional right?"

You said "both cases." Please specify in what case the President was sued for violating a person's civil and/or constitutional rights, the plaintiff obtained injunctive relief against the President, the President violated the court order, and the plaintiff moved to hold the President in contempt of court.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

No, I don't need to specify anything. You are making a claim that the condition of being sued for violation of Constitutional rights or being found in contempt of court in themselves qualify or condition an enumerated right I have under the Constitution. Just suing somebody or holding them in contempt of court does not automatically change my status under the Constitution, nor does it constitute an argument against the fact that I am protected under that right.

Art said...

And why do someone's civil rights have any higher status than an enumerated Constitutional right?

Um,

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."