President Trump’s Immigration Authority

To the Honorable (insert your Congressman’s name, here):

I am writing you in specific protest of the actions of at least two federal judges, possibly more, who appear to me to be flagrantly violating the United States Constitution, federal law, and their oaths of office to each.

The authority of the President to determine the circumstances under which foreign nationals may enter the United States has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.  In an 1892 case, Ekiu v. United States, the Court held that, “It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.”  Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have reaffirmed this accepted maxim.

Specifically:

  1. President Trump did not create a law.  His executive order carried out an existing law.
  2. The text of President Trump’s executive order on immigration does not list any particular countries.  That formula was in the existing law.
  3. The law in question is the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, which former President Obama signed into law.

US Code on Immigration

Furthermore, I respectfully request you initiate impeachment proceedings against the offending judges in direct response to their actions violating the law and the trust of the American people, as well as to send a clear message to all judges that We the People elect both our lawmakers — members of the House and the Senate — as well as the one who signs or vetoes bills — the President — and we expect all members of our judicial system at all levels to follow the law, from the supreme Law of the Land on down, without deviation or bent given to various political influence.

Background and Substantiating References:

“After a federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the immigration order temporarily banning refugees and nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States, the Department of Justice filed an appeal of the order on Saturday night.

“The Dept. of Justice asked that an emergency stay be issued pending the appeal to resume Trump’s ban efforts.

“The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco instead asked for the Trump administration to file a counter-response by Monday afternoon and denied the emergency stay.”

Source: https://www.yahoo.com/…/doj-emergency-stay-rejected-donald-…

I hereby find both the original federal judge and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to be in violation of their oaths of office, as follows:

In the United States, federal judges are required to take two oaths. The first oath is this:

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (office) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. [So help me God.]

The second is the same oath that members of Congress take:

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]

Both the original federal judge as well as the judge(s) sitting on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are required by federal law to adhere to both the Constitution as well as the laws of the United States.

President Trump’s executive order begins with full and inarguable legal justification:

“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) (INA), the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109 367) (Secure Fence Act), and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104 208 Div. C) (IIRIRA), and in order to ensure the safety and territorial integrity of the United States as well as to ensure that the Nation’s immigration laws are faithfully executed, I hereby order as follows…”

I have examined the legal references above. I know the Constitution very well, and immigration laws reasonably well.

Therefore, it is my informed opinion that there is zero lawful basis for either the original federal judge to block President Trump’s immigration order or for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the order as requested by the U.S. Department of Justice.

In my informed opinion, these judges are bad judges. This is not “good behavior” as required by our United States Constitution, and they need to be immediately removed from office for refusing to adhere to their oaths of office as members of the federal judiciary commensurate with our Constitution and federal law.

Sincerely…

Separation of Church and State Primer

“The religious group, which will run the ark’s operations, won a federal court ruling in January that clarified that it can make religious-based hires even as it seeks a Kentucky tourism tax incentive worth millions.”
 
“We are a religious group and we make no apology about that, and (federal law) allows us that,” Ham said Thursday. “We’re requiring them to be Christians, that’s the bottom line.”
 
Those of you who think for one second that “separation of church and state” is a part of U.S. law need a history lesson. Most people, including a lot of anti-religious historians, get this horribly wrong, possibly by intent, as the many letters our Founding Fathers wrote clarifying the matter are readily available in the Library of Congress, if not online. I know this for a fact, personal first-hand knowledge, for I spent an appreciable portion of the summer of 1982 holding them in my white-gloved hands as I read through hundreds of the more than 50,000 documents kept in what was then The American Heritage room of the Library of Congress.
With that in mind…
 
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
 
The first part prevents Congress from allowing the establishment of any official religion or church. It was craft specifically to avoid the problem of the period, whereby England had established the Church of England as the “official” religion while persecuting all others. Some folks in Congress wanted to establish Christianity as the official religion, but most of the authors of our Bill of Rights wisely knew that if they did that, the next step would be to define which denominations were “acceptable” as “Christian,” and the saga of religious persecution that drove millions out of Europe would infect the United States and fester our freedoms forever.
 
The second part is much clearer, and simply means that Congress can NOT interfere with the free practice of religions. Subsequent decisions by various federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have established this applies at all judicial and legislative levels throughout our country.
 
BOTTOM LINE: Those who attempt to use Thomas Jefferson’s “separation of church and state” clause found ONLY in his letter to the Danbury Baptists are committing the SAME religious intolerance and persecution our Founding Fathers escaped from Europe and were trying to prevent here in the United States.
 
If you believe otherwise, you’re a Constitutionally illiterate idiot and are in serious need of an objective Civics class taught by someone who is not an anti-Constitutional atheist.
 
 

Solving America’s Problems Requires Clear Thinking

Yesterday I stumbled across a rather insightful editorial by Bart Hinkle at the Richmond Times.  He demonstrated such clear thinking that I wrote the author a letter, presented here with minor corrections for spelling, punctuation, and grammar:

I found your recent article to be very insightful.  It is a fascinating look at what ails America today. It boils down to dereliction of duty to “support and defend the Constitution” at ALL levels of government.

I concur with you that Congress has failed to do its duty to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic,” almost certainly because the loyalty of many Congressman to their party or various idealistic excursions has increasingly eclipsed their loyalty to the proven reality of the Constitution.  Sadly, we see the same thing in the Supreme Court, which should never be the case.  With respect to the points you made in your article, I believe additional factors have come into play, including the increasing fear of being labeled politically incorrect, and the corresponding unwillingness to take necessary and more permanent actions against elected officials who refuse to abide by “the supreme Law of the Land.”

Shortly after retiring from my career as an Air Force officer, I began working to educate people on the dangers facing our nation, particularly from the erosion of the absolute moral base our Founding Fathers cautioned was essential to the long-term health of our nation.  With such a moral base, even an imperfect Constitution and its resulting society would survive, as leaders would retain the same principles, precepts, and moral values held by the framers.  The resolution of unanticipated issues would naturally incline towards the time-tested precepts which have served our nation so well for so long.  Without such a moral base, even a perfect Constitution would eventually fail.  A nation lacking proper morals would be increasingly opposed to Constitutional principles and values, until its leaders began ignoring increasingly larger portions of the Constitution, eventually leaving it behind altogether.

Our Founding Fathers did a miraculous job crafting our Constitution.  It is extremely difficult, however, if not impossible, to create a legal foundation capable of fighting the erosion of society when that society’s elected and appointed leaders, either out of ignorance or willful malice, fail to follow the written legal foundation.

In light of this perspective, I submit to you three additional avenues of failure, along with some proposals for amendments that might be able to stem the flow of our nation’s life-blood, even restore proper function in the presence of decreasing loyalty to the Constitution:

Failure 1:  Education of the people:  Sadly, too many Americans are voting for government officials at all levels not because of what a candidate can do for their country, but because of what a candidate can do for them.  This self-seeking behavior and failure to delay gratification ultimately results in poorer results.  Candidates are rarely able to deliver on their campaign promises.  When a person believes rhetoric promising him or her a better life, and votes for that candidate, they wind up doing little to work hard and secure that life for themselves.  Instead, they wait around for the candidate to make their lives better.  When that fails, they become embittered at the “other guy” their candidate blames as the problem, or they become embittered with the system itself.

The Department of Education and liberal school systems has been largely complicit in this area of demise by lowering and even eliminating the bar in vital areas like civics and history while cluttering the educational landscape with requirements that eclipse a child’s opportunity to obtain a full, well-rounded education suitable for understanding how human society really works.  This is really the root problem of what’s going on in America.  If the people stopped electing those who are undermining our Republic, the problem would largely disappear.  Our Republic would be preserved.  Sadly, many people are no longer capable of correctly assessing the worth of a candidate, or envisioning the long-term effects of electing a candidate.

Possible solutions:  Eliminate the Department of Education and use those funds at the state level to provide for a more graduated pay scale for teachers instead of the current rise and cap pay curves; raise standards required of teachers; ensure those standards reflect the requirements addressed as outlined above.

Failure 2:  Personification of the corporate:  No serious student of the Constitution would ever conclude that our Founding Fathers meant to give business the same access to our government as We the People, much less a 1000% greater influence over Congressional decision-making.  The fallout from this decision has lead to increasingly darker decisions being made by Congress, ones that treat citizens as cattle to be mined for their ability to be skimmed for a fat, corporate/federal profit, instead of the rightful rulers of our once-great nation.

Possible solution:  Check Citizens United with an amendment that declares corporate anthropomorphization to be verboten.  Ensure it reaffirms the Constitution’s focus on We the People under sovereign States as the rightful owners of our own country.

Failure 3:  Senators and Representatives are too similar.  This arose as a result of the 17th Amendment.  Article I, Section 3, which used to read:  “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof…”  The Amendment now reads:  “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof…”  While I understand this was an attempt to solve problems involving legislative corruption and deadlocks, I do not agree it was the best solution.  For all intents and purposes, what we now have are a House and a Senate that look very similar.  Even dividing Congress into two houses makes little sense when the people elect one Representative from their district and two more to represent the State as a whole.  Why not instead simply elect “general Congressmen,” and scrap the two-house system?

Possible solution:  Repeal the 17th Amendment.  The original issue is that “There was a sense that senatorial elections were ‘bought and sold’, changing hands for favors and sums of money rather than because of the competence of the candidate.”  That sounds the same as it is today, so what problem was actually solved?  If none, then that’s strike one against the 17th Amendment.  As far as electoral deadlocks, the solution is simple:  Require states to provide for a tiebreaker, much as we have for the Supreme Court and the Senate.  An example might be, “In case of tie, the Assistant Governor will cast the tie-breaking vote.”  They could also flip a coin, roll die, or spin a wheel.  States could choose whatever method they want, so long as it’s expedient.  To help deter delays in breaking such ties, simply stipulate that if the states fail to provide two Senators, those positions will simply remain unfilled and the State will be underrepresented in Congress, something no State wants to face.  Our Constitution set the precedence for that by requiring percentage votes of “members present” for many things, including very important things, such as treaties and impeachment.

Bart, I thoroughly enjoyed your article and have bookmarked you in the hopes of reading many more to come!

Sincerely…

Here is Bart’s response:

Thank you for the note. You raise some very interesting points.

All the best,
B.

It was my pleasure.  

Court Rules People Have a “Fundamental Right” to Own Assault Weapons

OUTSTANDING!

From the article…

In a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Thursday sided with a broad coalition of gun owners, businesses and organizations that challenged the constitutionality of a Maryland ban on assault weapons and other laws aimed at curbing gun violence. 

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said the state’s prohibition on what the court called “the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens” amounted to a violation of their rights under the Constitution.

Well, almost outstanding.  The judge seriously erred when he said, “In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment — the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”  That’s not quite the “fundamental right” our Founding Fathers penned into the Constitution via our Second Amendment.

Chief Judge William Traxler erred when he limited the scope of understanding to “in defense of hearth and home.”  A “hearth” is the floor in front of a fireplace, where families of old would gather for dinner, usually cooked over that fireplace, and while away the evening hours basking in its warmth, discussing the day, and playing.

Our Second Amendment knows no such bounds, either on location or type and size of arms.

The Constitution states that all ratified amendments become a part of the Constitution.  Thus, the Constitution states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This prohibition against the right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute.  It’s application isn’t limited to a specific government entity.  It applies to everyone.  Furthermore, it’s scope isn’t limited, either.  For example, it’s not limited to “hearth and home,” but rather applies every where a free man may travel.

It’s not even limited to “firearms.”  Our Founding Fathers chose the term, “arms,” even though knew exceedingly well that the term “firearms” was a type of arms that used a rapidly-burning powder to discharge a projectile.  A sword is also a type of arms, as is a club, mace, hatchet, machete, and knife.  They are all “arms.”  Thus, any restriction — infringement — on their size, length, weight, caliber, action, mechanism, or capacity constitutes an infringement, and an un-Constitutional one, at that.

Sharia Law v. Constitutional Law – Who is Above the Law?

 

The recent poll says 51% of American Muslims think that Sharia law has precedent over the Constitution and that they should be able to establish Sharia courts throughout America.
 
The question asks whether Americans feel these Muslims should be deported from America.
 
97% of respondents say YES.
 
3% of respondents say NO.
 
Admittedly, the poll is posted on a website — Supreme Patriot — that is unlikely to see much bleeding heart libtard traffic. Even so, this isn’t an opinion piece. It’s a legal piece.
 
When our Founding Fathers penned, “Congress shall make no law respecting (giving preferential treatment to) an establishment of religion,” they MEANT it, and for damned good reason, including the one unfolding before us.
 
As for me, I don’t care what they think. I most certainly do care, however, what they do — their behavior.
 
1. If they’re an illegal immigrant, they’ve already broken the law. Deport them without question or hesitation and bar reentry. We already have laws on the books to effect this course of action. Follow the law.
 
2. If they’re here legally, but behave in a manner that violates the law, particularly the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, then they deserve the same punishment as anyone who infringes on another’s rights and freedoms, commensurate with the laws currently on the books concerning nuisance, harassment, misdemeanor, and felony behavior.
 
2a. If their legal status is on a visa, then either prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, or deport them as required by the law.
 
2b. If their legal status is a U.S. citizen, then prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
 
The key word throughout is “law.” No one is above the law. Not Obama. Not Holder. Not Lynch. Not Kerry. Not an U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Not Muslims. Not Americans. Not legal immigrants. And certainly not illegal immigrants.
 
And by “law,” I am NOT referring to “sharia law.” I am referring to “the supreme Law of the Land.” Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
 
If Muslims can’t respect the Constitution of the United States of America, then they are in the WRONG country. They should get the HELL out of HERE.
 
Fair warning.

Shall Not Be Infringed

The term “infringement” doesn’t mean “prohibition.” It means “an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege.” If I were to move off the sidewalk and walk through my neighbor’s grass, I would be infringing. It does little direct damage, but over time, that section of grass would die. If I then moved over to a fresh strip of grass, that would die, too. When our Founding Fathers penned “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” in our Second Amendment, they created an absolute prohibition against any and all infringements, no matter how slight, in order to protect — absolutely — the right of the people to keep (own/possess) and bear (carry) arms. Furthermore, this prohibition not limited to the federal government. It doesn’t not say, “Congress shall not…” It simply states that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This applies to EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, and FOR ALL TIME, WITHOUT CESSATION.  It is an absolute right, to be protected at all costs, without question.

The U.S. Supreme Court Has NO Authority Over Same-Sex Marriage Issues – So Says Our Constitution

The United States Supreme Court does NOT have authority over same-sex marriage issues. Our Constitution says so, specifically, in Article III, Section 2: “The judicial Power shall extend to all ConstitutionCases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”
 
In case someone missed it, let’s break this down. The judicial power of the Supreme Court covers “all cases in law and equity,” but is LIMITED to cases “arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made or which shall be made, under their Authority.”
Our Founding Fathers embedded three restrictions in the latter clause.
The first restriction is to cases “arising under this Constitution.”  If the case arises outside the bounds of the Constitution, such as all cases involving “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,” as clearly stated in the Tenth Amendment, then the case does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The second restriction is to Laws of the United States.  This does not include state law.  Our Constitution mentions the word “law” 36 times, but the most salient mention addresses this claim head-on in Article VI:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
By “Laws of the United States,” the framers are clearly referring to laws made “in Pursuance thereof.”  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “pursuance” as “a carrying out or into effect.”  Put simply, they’re talking about laws made by the federal government i.e. proposed by Congress and signed into law by the President.  The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over those laws, as those laws are the “Laws of the United States.”
The third restriction is to treaties, either made or in the process of being made.  For clear examples of how restrictive the Constitution is towards treaties, please read this, as well as this.
 
Put simply, if the issue is neither specified in the Constitution nor expressly granted by the Constitution to the federal government, Bill of Rightsthen under the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
 
That’s it.  The Constitution specifically and expressly limited the Supreme Court’s authority to only those powers given by the Constitution to the United States aka the federal government.  All powers not delegated to the feds nor prohibited by the Constitution to the States are reserved to the States or to the people, and are NOT subject to judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
As marriage issues were never among the few and limited powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution, the U.S. partisan SCOTUSSupreme Court has NO AUTHORITY to decide marriage issues.  The U.S. Supreme Court VIOLATED the scope of their Constitutionally-derived authority, and their decision in these matters is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.
 
The Supreme Court is NOT the final authority in the United States of America.  WE are.  We the People are the final authority.  This noble concept of a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” is clearly embedded throughout the Constitution, and was additionally reflected verbatim 100 years after the founding of our nation by Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address.
Thus, we’ve clearly established the fact the Supreme Court had absolutely zero business even hearing this case, much less rendering an opinion.  As if this weren’t enough, however, let’s dig a little further, where we find additional restrictions on the types of cases our Constitution allows them to hear:
 
1. “all Cases affecting Ambassadors” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
 
2. “other public Ministers and Consuls” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
 
3. “all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
 
4. “Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply. States issue marriage licenses only to the citizens within that state. The federal government is not a party to that dispute.
 
5. “Controversies between two or more States.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply. Ibid.
 
6. “between a State and Citizens of another State.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply. Ibid.
 
7. “between Citizens of different States.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply. Ibid.
 
8. “between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
 
9. “between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.” – NOPE! Doesn’t apply…
 
Not only did the U.S. Supreme Court make a decision on an issue that falls outside of its legal authority and jurisdiction, it also made a decision that failed to meet ANY of the circumstances in which our Constitution gives them any authority.
 

Double Whammy!

The U.S. Supreme Court FAILED the American People by overstepping the bounds of their jurisdiction and the legal limits of their authority.
 
Interesting enough, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, and rightly so, that neither citizens nor law enforcement officers are under any obligation whatsoever to follow or enforce un-Constitutional laws. Ergo, when SCOTUS goofed and rendered a decision that violates “the supreme Law of the Land,” neither citizens nor law enforcement officers are under any obligation whatsoever to follow or enforce that decision, either.
Summary Findings:
Since the State of Kentucky does not recognize same-sex marriages within state law, and…
Since the State of Kentucky further has in place statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriages…
same-sex marriageKim Davis, the Rowan County court clerk was FULLY within her authority to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses under the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution of the State of Kentucky, and the laws of the State of Kentucky.
Additional Findings:
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction does NOT extend to matters not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and…
Since marriage issues are NOT among such matters, and…
Since the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that an “unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.  An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed…”

Ergo, the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges is null and void.  It is NOT to be followed, considered, or given any credence whatsoever in the matter of same-sex marriages in

same-sex marriage
Unsuccessful Kentucky Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Jack Conway concedes his race to Republican Rand Paul during a speech in Louisville, Ky., Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010. (AP Photo/Garry Jones)

particular, or marriage in general.  Those who do, including Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, are VIOLATING Kim Davis’ Constitutional rights to do her job correctly and properly within the scope of both Kentucky state law as well as the Constitution.

And in an interesting turn of events, Jack Conway is running for governor in the 2015 gubernatorial election to be held on November 3.  Isn’t that special?  That and the fact that he’s a member of the…  *GASP!* Demoncrap Party should give everyone a proper understanding of the context in which he would threaten to prosecute someone like Kim Davis for…  FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION.
The LAST thing either Kentucky or America needs are peanut-brittle-brained politicians like Jack Conway who have zero qualms about throwing good, solid, moral citizens like Kim Davis under the bus.

Here’s a thought, Kentucky:  VOTE FOR MATT BEVIN!  A vote for Bevin is a vote FOR your Constitutional rights, instead of Conway’s clearly demonstrated ANTI-Constitutional behavior.

Additional Perspective:

I came across the following tidbit and found it to be dead-on accurate.  Thus, this isn’t merely a double-whammy, but a triple whammy:
By Jana Jobe
I was in favor of Kim Davis being jailed last week in Ky because I believed the media when they said she was violating the law by refusing to issue a marriage license to same sex couples. But, I heard a comment from Mike Huckabee that made me wonder if it was true. So I did a little reading.
Remember in Civics class where we learned that Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court interprets them? Ok, in 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) into Federal law stating that marriage was between a man and a woman. There was no Federal Law concerning marriage prior to that, so DOMA became THE Federal statute pertaining to marriage.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that PART of DOMA was unconstitutional and some states voted to allow same sex marriage. However, they were in conflict with the remaining articles of DOMA.
The way Federal Laws work is that state law can be MORE restrictive but it cannot be less restrictive than Federal law. So, some states, who voted to recognize same sex marriage were in conflict with Federal Law. Which is the reason the Supreme Court heard the issue again this year. We all know their decision.
But, what we apparently forgot is that since they can’t make law, their decision to declare DOMA unconstitutional resulted in there being NO federal law concerning marriage. Which means, jurisdiction falls to the state. And what that means boys and girls is that Kim Davis IS NOT in violation of ANY law by refusing to issue marriage licenses after the SCOTUS ruling. In fact, if she had issued a license to a same sex couple, she would have been in violation of the state laws of Kentucky, which had voted no on the issue.
Congress failed to be prepared to handle the situation resulting from SCOTUS striking down DOMA by writing a new Federal Law so we are left with the issue being handled at a state level. In the states that voted no on this issue, same sex marriage is not Federally protected.
Jana Jobe is correct. In fact, hers is the third of three rock-solid reasons why the actions of Kim Davis are entirely consistent with both Kentucky State Law as well as the Constitution.  None of them have anything to do with her lawyer’s insistence that she be given a “religious exclusion.”  Without bringing religion into the matter at all, Kim Davis has a rock-solid, three-legged defense, one that will stand on any one of its three legs.
Thus, I do not understand why her lawyer is leading with the fourth issue, a weak one, at best. In fact, if he’s successful, he will set the stage for all Muslims (and other religions) to refuse to do anything at work that violates their religious convictions while retaining immunity from being fired. That’s definitely not the right approach!  Companies need to be able to fire employees for non-performance, particularly when tasks like serving alcohol to airline passengers is clearly stated in the employment contract. 
It would be far better for Kim Davis and her attorney to knock this one out of the park from three different angles, all based on rock-solid Constitutional, Federal, and State law, rather than attempt the religious exclusion approach.