Tonight, two of Kentucky's three candidates for Lieutenant Governor met at Midway University for a televised debate. (The independent candidate, Heather Curtis, was not invited because the Curtis/Curtis ticket--her husband Drew is running for Governor--is polling below 10%.)
As one might expect, the candidates were questioned about Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and her defiance of the US Supreme Court's Obergfell decision, which overturned Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriage.
As one might further expect of the running mate of Tea Partier Matt Bevin, Jenean Hampton took exception to the Court's ruling; however, her exception went much further than mere dissent.
Head below the Orange Cheeto of Doom for the latest episode of Rabble-Rousing for Fun and Profit, or "They Just Don't Get It"...
As reported by the Louisville Courier-Journal:
Hampton said, if governor, she would simply issue an order to remove Davis' name from the marriage licenses. Gov. Steve Beshear has declined to do that, saying he doesn't have that authority under the law.
OK, that's bad enough; Hampton is specifically ignoring the fact that Davis has done far more than just remove her name from the license forms. Hampton knows full well that Davis wants to also remove any mention of
the office of County Court Clerk from the forms, which is in direct violation of
KRS 402.100, in which
the legislature specifically requires "an authorization statement of the county clerk". Her assertion that the Governor could simply change this by fiat is absurd on its face.
Of course, one doesn't throw red meat to one's base by saying "oh, I'd do things differently"; indeed, one must go over the top, beyond the pale, or both...and Hampton immediately obliged:
But she also questioned what has been established law for more than 200 years.
"(T)o say that it is the law of the land is questionable," she said. "The questions we don't ask is -- and these questions need to be asked first of all is -- whether the Supreme Court, one of three coequal branches of government, is the final arbiter of anything because, if that was true, I would still be a slave.
"And number two, does the Supreme Court, in fact, have the authority to overrule a state constitution as they did, because in our state constitution, Section 233A, we have defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Those are questions that still need to be resolved," Hampton said.
I have no words, but I managed to sum up my reaction in two tweets:
That's really what this boils down to; the GOP has offered up a gubernatorial ticket that denies simple truths of which the Courier-Journal (sadly) had to remind us in covering Hampton's comments:
In fact, the 1803 case of Marbury vs. Madison established the Supreme Court's power to review the constitutionality of laws. While the U.S. Constitution didn't assign that role to the court, many of the framers assumed that it would do so, according to the National Archives.
And the "Supremacy Clause" of the U.S. Constitution says that the U.S. Constitution, and federal laws and treaties "shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby."
Even if you acknowledge that Constitution doesn't explicitly grant that power to the Supreme Court, its judicial power in "all Cases...arising under this Constitution" (in Article III) and the Supremacy Clause (in Article VI) combine to grant the very power of judicial review claimed by the Supreme Court in
Marbury v. Madison:
It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.
If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
It's a sad day when this network engineer/freelace geek/Swiss Army Nerd has to correct someone who would be Governor or Lieutenant Governor of their state...