THEN WHY HAVEN’T CHARGES BEEN LEVELED?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Sep. 3, 2015) — On Thursday, The New York Times reported on Rowan County, KY head court clerk Kim Davis, who was earlier taken into federal custody by U.S. marshals for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses or allow her assistants to do so.
The Times quoted White House spokesman Josh Earnest as having said, in response to Davis’s decision to defy a federal judge’s order to issue the licenses, “No one is above the law. That applies to the president of the United States and it applies to the clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, as well.”
Davis was elected by the voters of Rowan County in 2014.
For the first time in U.S. history, the Supreme Court found in June that the 14th Amendment gives “equal protection” to same-sex couples to marry. “It cannot be denied that this Court’s cases describing the right to marry presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners,” the court wrote in its opinion on page 16.
On page 24 of the opinion, the majority stated, “Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right. The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way, though they set forth independent principles. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always co-extensive, yet in some instances each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. In any particular case one Clause may be thought to capture the essence of the right in a more accurate and comprehensive way, even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.”
After Davis first refused to issue licenses to same-sex couples following the Supreme Court’s published opinion, two traditional couples and two same-sex couples filed a lawsuit in an attempt to force her to comply. Davis then ceased issuing all marriage licenses. On Thursday morning, she said that she was willing to go to jail so as not to violate her deeply-held religious belief that marriage is a covenant sanctioned by God between a man and a woman.
According to Earnest’s statement, federal law applies to “the president” in the matter of the long-form birth certificate forgery posted on the White House website on April 27, 2011 which was declared fraudulent by a criminal investigation conducted by the Maricopa County, AZ Cold Case Posse.
Obama personally attested a connection to the image when it was first posted in a televised press conference.
On March 1, 2012, the image and Obama’s Selective Service registration form were described as “computer-generated forgeries” at a formal press conference which major media shunned.
Obama’s short-form birth certificate has also been deemed by experts to be a forgery.
Obama’s “documents” each contain a government stamp or seal. According to U.S. Code, each instance of forgery constitutes “a separate offense.”
Later in the Davis article, The Times quoted a Los Angeles law professor as having stated that although Davis was found in “civil contempt” by U.S. District Court Judge David L. Bunning, the finding “is not supposed to be punitive, it’s supposed to coerce the person to obey the judge’s order…Judges really don’t like it when people disobey their order.”
TIME Magazine, once an example of classic presenter of facts to the American public, offered its own opinion on Thursday that “Davis has tried to wriggle out of her dilemma by refusing to issue any marriage licenses at all. But that’s another way of saying that she doesn’t want to do her job. It’s not as if she has been conscripted into service. A number of other candidates also wanted the job when Davis ran in 2014.”
Davis’s supporters claim her beliefs and actions are protected by the First Amendment.
In January 2012, Obama or his attorney was ordered to appear in the courtroom of Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi in Atlanta, GA for a hearing over whether or not Obama met the constitutional requirements to serve as president. At the time, Obama was seeking his second term in the White House, regardless of his eligibility, which has still not been conclusively determined.
Obama’s Georgia attorney, Michael Jablonski, issued a letter to Malihi stating that he was “suspending participation” in the hearing Malihi convened on January 26, 2012. Neither he nor Obama appeared for the hearing.
No penalty was assessed against Jablonski or Obama, and Obama’s name appeared on the Georgia ballot despite the reported forgery of his birth certificate.
Ballot challenges against Obama in other states resulted in plaintiffs’ being barred from speaking and Obama’s name being placed on the ballot.
The mainstream media have ridiculed Cold Case Posse investigators rather than launched a probe of their own to prove or disprove the conclusions. In contrast, the media has been quick to report on Davis’s arrest.
The Supreme Court has refused to hear any of the myriad cases challenging Obama’s eligibility both before and after the posse declared Obama’s only publicly-proffered documentation fraudulent. “We’re evading that issue,” U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas chuckled during a hearing with a congressional committee in 2010, referring to presidential eligibility.
In its 2013-2014 session, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Obama had violated his constitutional authority by nominating three people to the National Labor Relations Board when, they opined, the Senate had not actually been in recess, as the U.S. Constitution requires in such instances.
Summarizing the court’s decision in Canning, The New York Times reported, “Mr. Obama violated the Constitution in 2012, the justices said, by appointing officials to the National Labor Relations Board during a break in the Senate’s work when the chamber was convening every three days in short pro forma sessions in which no business was conducted.”
On March 10, 2009, U.S. Army soldiers were deployed into Samson, AL to perform law enforcement activity following a shooting under Gen. Martin Dempsey, who reported to Obama as putative commander-in-chief. Several months later, an inspector general’s report found that the Posse Comitatus Act had been violated, as was claimed in a formal complaint of treason filed by LCDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (Ret.) on March 17, 2009.
Fitzpatrick is currently in prison, but Obama is not.
Rather than facing discipline, Obama promoted Dempsey to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2012. Dempsey later testified, along with then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, that “building an international consensus” was given precedence by the Pentagon over U.S. “unilateral action” in Syria.
Obama is currently being sued by the U.S. House of Representatives for allegedly overstepping his constitutional constraints on various points.
A fund has been established to assist Davis with legal costs. Two other Kentucky clerks may face the same fate.