Kim Davis: Supreme Court Decision is NOT Law of the Land

BarbWire contributor John Biver recently wrote, “SCOTUS issues opinions as a co-equal branch. The only way to properly read Article III is with the words of the Founders as the backdrop. Misreading it makes SCOTUS into an oligarchy. With the words of the Founders you understand it as the weakest branch, not the strongest — which is how most law schools improperly teach it to be. Today’s law schools, after all, are a product of the progressives. What I find interesting is that while lawyers are taught to consider legislative intent regarding statutes, the Founders’ intent is completely ignored regarding the role of the Supreme Court.”

“The distinctive mark of the American political experiment is that we are a nation of laws, not men. And what we mean by a “law” is something enacted by the elected representatives of the people or by the people themselves, whether at the state level or federal level.

A corollary to the maxim that we are a nation of laws is that we are decidedly NOT a nation of “rulings.” A court ruling is not a “law,” it is a “ruling.” It may have the force of law due to the abject acquiescence of a meekly compliant people, but it is not a law.

A “law” is not a “law” unless it is enacted according to constitutional procedure. Under our Constitution, courts have no power to make or change law, none whatsoever.”

Trending: Antifa and Kristallnacht – Will the Lesson Ever be Learned?

Many people are wrongfully conceding that what the Supreme Court decides is “law of the land.” Just about every talking-head on FOX news and the every presidential candidate is wrongly going along with this false narrative, except for Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Santorum.


Kim Davis hasn’t broken any law. As a matter of fact, she is the one following her oath and the law.

See Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 402.990:

Any clerk who knowingly issues a marriage license in violation of KRS Chapter 402 shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Any clerk who knowingly issues a marriage license to any persons prohibited by KRS Chapter 402 from marrying shall be fined $500 to $1,000 and removed from office by the judgment of the court in which convicted (KRS 402.990).

And so what would be a violation of KRS Chapter 402? Oh, well if the clerk issued a license to known relatives, someone who already has a living spouse, someone underage, AND to ouples of the same sex.

Read the law:

In Kentucky only persons of the opposite sex may enter into marriage. See Elkhorn Coal Corporation v. Tackett, Ky., 49 S.W.2d 571, 573 (1932). Thus in Jones v. Hallahan, Ky., 501 S.W.2d 588 (1973), the court held that the attempted marriage between two women was not a valid marriage since by being of the same sex they were incapable of entering into a “marriage” as the term is defined by common usage. The court concluded that it could find “no constitutional sanction or protection of the right of marriage between persons of the same sex.”

As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, “marriage” refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. Effective: July 15, 1998

History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998.

For those unfamiliar with Kentucky law.

For all of those suggesting that Mrs. Davis should obey the “law” and just quit.

Here is the law in Kentucky:

Kentucky Constitution Section 233A
Valid or recognized marriage — Legal status of unmarried individuals.
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.
Text as Ratified on: November 2, 2004.
History: Creation proposed by 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 128, sec. 1.

There is no right to marriage — same sex “marriage,” man-woman marriage — guaranteed in the Constitution. In fact, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at all, which means the federal government has no role in marriage as a construct.

Per the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

Because the Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority with regards to marriage, the Tenth Amendment explicitly leaves that power with the individual states.

Therefore, there is no law in the U.S. Constitution regarding marriage and there is no law in Kentucky that says clerks must issue licenses to persons caught up in homosexual practice.

Same sex “marriage” is forbidden by the Kentucky state’s Constitution:

Kentucky constitution Section 233A. Valid or recognized marriage – Legal status of unmarried individuals. Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky.

Even though they won’t come out and say it outright, even homosexual activists and their proponents know deep down that it isn’t the “law of the land.”…


Civil Disobedience is warranted.

“I’m not discriminating, because I’m not issuing licenses to anybody,” Davis said Wednesday to Robbie Blankenship and his partner of 20 years, Jesse Cruz, who drove down from Ohio to get a marriage license.”


Kim Davis is being illegally imprisoned by the federal government for not agreeing to violate her oath by issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples in Kentucky, since the Kentucky marriage statutes strictly limit the issuance of marriage licenses to male-female couples.

Article Six of the United States Constitution establishes the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land, forbids a religious test as a requirement for holding a governmental position and holds the United States under the Constitution responsible for debts incurred. Sounds like Kim Davis didn’t pass the test to follow this new religion of “believe and affirm same sex unions” or be damned!


Also, Kim Davis simply didn’t want to have to put her name on those marriage licenses.

All they would of have had to do was accomodate that.

The Supreme Court cannot and did not make the law. Article I, Section I of the Constitution vests “all” legislative power in “Congress,” and none in “the Supreme Court.” The Supreme Court has no lawmaking authority. The separation-of-powers destroying notion of judge-made law, called “common-law,” was itself obliterated by the Constitution. Laws have to be passed through Congress first. And Congress has to have a Constitutional basis for passing laws. There is no Constitutional basis for marriage. This is why originally each state was placing it in the hands of the people to vote on.

“The Supreme Court issues administrative opinions that the other two superior branches (legislative and executive) should strongly consider. But any change in the laws must be made via the Constitutionally proscribed process (by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive.)

Judicial opinions are only legally binding on the parties in the case being heard in so far as they comply with the Constitution. Any law or court opinion contrary to the Constitution is legally null and void on ots face and must be ignored and rejected by every civil magistrate at every level and branch of government.” – Gregg Jackson (Feel free to look it up, rather than assume he is wrong, just because he doesn’t share the same feelings about this subject as you do)

But what about the 14th Amendment? Invoking the 14th Amendment is fraudulent, it has nothing to do with marriage. The 14th Amendment simply originated to ensure black persons who were born in America are not denied first class citizenship for reasons of their skin color. Skin color, or melanin, is an immutable and benign characteristic that has nothing to do with behavior or determining behavior or a set of behaviors. Homosexual sex and relationships are behaviors and conduct that people engage in.

Big difference.

And there was no ban. Regarding the 14th Amendment, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity, yet denies other individuals the same right. Every adult can already marry another adult of the opposite sex. If an adult was/is not interested in that, the law still treats everybody the same. Also, any combination of two adults who are of the same sex have never been banned from having any kind of commitment ceremony and working out a legal agreement a contract to share wills, estates, retirement funds, hospital visitation rights, etc. The 14th Amendment being used to redefine marriage is nonsensical and fraudulent.

Racists wanted a form of marriage that encourages the separation the races. Marxist/leftists groups like The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and homosexual activists groups like HRC, GLAAD, GLSEN, etc and their fellow “gay-kool-aid” drinkers and carriers are pushing for form a of marriage that encourages and promotes the separation of the sexes. So before segregation of the races, and now segregation of the sexes.

Who’s on the right side of history, again?

1908204_743148092450419_4498689085874209343_n 10422934_686307728112846_6365003619510809830_n

Kim Davis has obeyed Constitutional Law and the Rule of Law, Kentucky marriage statutes, Kentucky and U.S. Constitutions and, most importantly, the Word of Almighty GOD.”

(Oh, and by the way, her past, which we all have, especially a past that occurred before she became a Christian just 4 years ago, is irrelevant to the above facts).

We have come to know and expect the liberal elite to put forth talking points and count on their followers to either ignore them or simply repeat their talking points without question. But fellow Conservatives and Christians, when you do it, you’re only enabling the destructive force of leftist elites.

Please share this far and wide!

By the way, Kim Davis is one of many who are now just starting to exercise civil disobedience…

“MOREHEAD, Ky. (AP) — A jailed Kentucky clerk asserted that marriage licenses issued without her authority Friday to same sex couples in Rowan County are void and “not worth the paper they are written on,” because she didn’t authorize them, her attorney said.

Kim Davis now wears an orange jumpsuit and “has already been doing Bible studies with herself” in jail, her attorney Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel told reporters after meeting with her behind bars. He said Davis is in very good spirits, and is prepared to stay as long as it takes to uphold her religious freedoms.

“She’s not going to resign, she’s not going to sacrifice her conscience, so she’s doing what Martin Luther King Jr. wrote about in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, which is to pay the consequences for her decision,” Staver said.

She simply asked for one accomodation. That she didn’t have to put her name on the licenses. They couldn’t even just wait until she received that accommodation and threw her in jail.”

The current view of “getting the government out of marriage” may also be a wrongheaded one, and it reveals a basic misunderstanding of how government is involved in marriage to begin with, so they cop-out to this idea of one extreme to the other, that it should apply to everyone, or no one.

Redefining the legal definition of marriage that removes the biological imperative will end up expanding the state more into the private lives. The state will always be involved in marriage, one way or the other.

Not every marriage produces children, but every child is born from a mother and father. The best interests of children to know their biological roots whenever possible is dependent on the interest of the state. There is no other way around it. So if we don’t have a legal safeguard that protects children’s rights to their biological connections, then what is the difference between redefining marriage to make biological connections unnecessary, which is what same sex “marriage” does, and getting the government out of marriage?

Marriage is a private institution, but it always has and will have a public purpose.

Again, not every marriage produces children, but every child has parents. If you “get the government out of marriage” altogether, it will just increase government into our lives more on the back end as a result of increased custody disputes and broken homes where more children are DELIBERATELY and INTENTIONALLY denied one or both of their biological roots. That won’t be good for the economy either. Please read these as time permits, especially before responding, and really give it consideration.

What is needed now is to call on all of the clerks who are working for Kim Davis to obey the law, and therefore stand with Kim Davis. Whether her clerks think same sex “marriage” is right or not, there is no Constitutional basis for marriage, no law was ever passed through Congress, 75% of the people of Kentucky voted for natural marriage (see here), and the Kentucky state law as mentioned above.

In summary,

1.) 5-9 unelected officials do not make laws for the rest of the American people. That is an oligarchy. Regardless of where you stand on a particular cultural or moral issue, judicial supremacy should be alarming to all. Rights are not and can not be given on the basis of behaviors or practices people engage in or want to engage in. If “liberty & privacy rights” are the basis to grant rights to engage in a behavior that a group of people cry the loudest about, what are the limitations?

2.) 2 supreme court justices (Ginsburg and Kagan) should of recused themselves anyway. The legal issue is the redefinition of marriage. Officiating at an natural marriage does not indicate whether or not you support the redefinition of marriage, and thus the presumption of impartiality is preserved. There are plenty of people who have officiated at a natural/authentic marriage who also support same sex “marriage.” However, to officiate at a same sex “marriage” is to cast your vote for redefinition — and thus prove you are not impartial.

3.) Only members of Congress are authorized to make federal law, and it has to have a Constitutional basis. (See Article 1)

4.) There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage or homosexual practice, nothing in the 14th Amendment, which was to prevent freed slaves from being murdered (life), lynched (liberty), or deprived of owning their own property (property). Liberty doesn’t mean freedom from moral restraints of certain behaviors people want to engage in.

5.) There is no Constitutional basis for homosexual practice, therefore 10th Amendment is only applicable here, which is state’s rights.

6.) People of Kentucky voted 75% in favor of keeping marriage between one man and one woman. Kentucky law and state Constitution defines marriage as one man one woman. See Kentucky Constitution Section 233A and Kentucky statutes 402.005, 402.020 & 402.080.

7.) Therefore, Kim Davis is not only obeying GOD’s law, but she is following both the Constitution, Kentucky statutes, and her oath as county clerk. Judge Bunning and any county clerk who issues same sex “marriage” licenses are the ones breaking the law.

Please share this article far and wide, and ask others to do the same. This is important, because most people have little knowledge about how the 3 branches of government work and what is in the Constitution. Lawyers and judges, and persons with that background, tend to buy into a false notion of judicial supremacy. They’re all over FOX news right now, which is unfortunate.

Here’s why…


The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.

Jason Salamone
Jason Salamone is a former liberal agnostic, but surrendered to Christ on April 7th, 2011 at Liberty Counsel's Awakening conference. A "Movement Conservative," Jason is a no exceptions pro-lifer, and believes that the natural family are foundational to small/limited government. Jason has contributed predominately as a non-editorial research analyst to a variety pro-family activists. When reading his articles, please don't overlook the hyperlinks used to reinforce the facts and data presented.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.