JP DENIES INTERACIAL COUPLE MARRAIGE LISCENSE

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

yes, it seems to be common knowledge that a crime has been committed, but what law has been broken? Stipulating that the couple had a right to marry, and that the state can not refuse that right, there still may be some right of a deputized citizen to refuse to do the deed. I have some foggy memory of a case 20+ years ago that said that state employees do not have the discretion to refuse to sign, but I may be wrong, and this case is a little different.

And if the guy at the motor vehicles bureau refuses to give you a driver's license because he doesn't like your face, that's within his discretionary authority? These people are paid from tax dollars. They have to follow their instructions.

0 Replies

@panzade,

panzade wrote:

If this has already been posted I apologize:

When it comes to civil rights laws, I believe federal law trumps state law. Specifically Loving vs Virginia

Quote:
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

Perhaps the JP didn't break a law but I think Louisiana is moving to remove him from his job, which would take about a year.
In the the meantime couples are free to go to other JPs

Panzade - thank you, I appreciate your info on Loving v. Virginia, as well as Debra's excerpts from the Louisiana constitution. Neither post however addresses the exact issue here, possibly too subtle for this board, so I'll try to make it clearer reasoning by analogy:

In 1905 a female factory worker in Portland, OR, was asked by her employer to work more than 10 hours a day, which was then forbidden under state law; she sued, and the employer was fined $10 (actually worth something at the time). He appealed to the US Supreme Court, claiming the Oregon statute violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Louis Brandeis, then still in private practice, was retained to defend the state's legislation.

He knew he had no basis in the law - especially since the Supreme Court had decided 3 years before that a NY State law forbidding long hours in a bakery was unconstitutional - so he limited discussion of the law to 3 pages out of a total of 113 in his brief. The remaining 110 argued that the state government has, under its police powers, the right to protect the health and safety of its citizens. Drawing primarily from European health reports he argued that Oregon was simply protecting its women. Brandeis won the case.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

...The governor has stated this was an illegal act. .....

The governor's opinion is not binding on anybody - he's already done everything he could:

Quote:

Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal said in a statement a nine-member commission that reviews lawyers and judges in the state should investigate. "Disciplinary action should be taken immediately -- including the revoking of his license," Jindal said.

http://www.thegrio.com/2009/10/governor-calls-for-the-outster-of-official-who-halted-interracial-marriage.php

0 Replies

This is rapidly degenerating into the stupidest active thread . . .

1 Reply

Hey, if Hawkeye can be obtuse, why can't everybody???

From what I've read, the highest government position in the individual states is the governor. It he says it's wrong, I'm going to believe him, OK. He's got advisors who, I'm sure, have looked into it and determined if laws were broken or not. But, if you feel you must dissect this statement, go right ahead. Knock yourself out.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

....From what I've read, the highest government position in the individual states is the governor. ....

The governor neither makes the law nor decides who may have broken it. He's part of the state's executive branch, i.e. neither legislative nor judiciary. However I came back to post a correction to the last sentence of my previous post ref the case argued by Brandeis in the Oregon woman's case: the Supreme Court ruled against him 9 to 0 >

Quote:

In his brief, Brandeis devoted just two pages to legal analysis. He spent more than 100 pages setting out statistical and sociological data on the harm that long workdays did to women. His use of facts and sociological arguments was both shocking and enormously successful. The court upheld Oregon’s law, 9 to 0.

http://my.brandeis.edu/news/item?news_item_id=6879&show_release_date=1
> which didn't however stop Brandeis from eventually getting to the Supreme Court himself.

His legacy (rather than that early Oregon failure) is at the heart of my question here. Again quoting from the same link:
[quote]But it is Brandeis’s insistence on injecting facts and real-world analysis into the law that is his most lasting achievement, and one that resounds especially strongly today, when “reality-based” logic is so embattled.[/quote]

That's the issue, "reality-based logic". Or, as another famous justice - Oliver Wendell Holmes - put it:
"The life of the law has been not logic but experience".

2 Replies

@High Seas,

Good lord, did you even read the second sentence.
I'm aware of all that. I'm merely stating that if the highest seat of government in any particular state, who presumably has been advised by the proper officials, whoever they may be, say it's wrong, it's most probably wrong. I think that Jindal et al, know of what they speak. I have never said he makes or decides the laws, but if he said, the dude should be fired because he broke the law, I'm assuming he knows what he is talking about.
Can we stop quibbling over sematics now, or do you want to beat another dead horse. It's bad enough having to read 14 pages explaining the dead simple to Hawkeye.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

However I came back to post a correction to the last sentence of my previous post ref the case argued by Brandeis in the Oregon woman's case: the Supreme Court ruled against him 9 to 0 >

Nope, you were right the first time.

Muller v. Oregon

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

yes, it seems to be common knowledge that a crime has been committed, but what law has been broken?

This is one of the most illogical sentences I have ever seen in my life (and I'm 70 years old). "Common knowledge" that "a crime has been committed" but a question as to whether a "law has been broken"??? Excuse me??? What am I missing here?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

This is rapidly degenerating into the stupidest active thread . . .

I poopface don't poopface know. I poopface think poopface there poopface are poopface some poopface really poopface interesting poopface and poopface provocative poopface points poopface being poopface raised.

P
O
O
P
F
A
C
E

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Fever hasn't broke yet, I see.

Hope you are feelin better...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I think I caught whatever chronic disease dyslexia has.

T
K
Laughing

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

High Seas wrote:
However I came back to post a correction to the last sentence of my previous post ref the case argued by Brandeis in the Oregon woman's case: the Supreme Court ruled against him 9 to 0 >

Nope, you were right the first time.

Muller v. Oregon

Thank you so much, Joe! I really thought my memory of the case was right, and misread the 9 to 0 decision quoted in the linked article. Appreciate your legal input very much, and hope you can shed some light on this Louisiana case - especially in view of the Brandeis precedent. Btw, I loved the decision you posted - mercifully brief, unlike so many of those we get nowadays. Thanks again.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

panzade wrote:

If this has already been posted I apologize:

When it comes to civil rights laws, I believe federal law trumps state law. Specifically Loving vs Virginia

Quote:
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[1], was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

Perhaps the JP didn't break a law but I think Louisiana is moving to remove him from his job, which would take about a year.
In the the meantime couples are free to go to other JPs

Panzade - thank you, I appreciate your info on Loving v. Virginia, as well as Debra's excerpts from the Louisiana constitution. Neither post however addresses the exact issue here, possibly too subtle for this board, so I'll try to make it clearer reasoning by analogy:

In 1905 a female factory worker in Portland, OR, was asked by her employer to work more than 10 hours a day, which was then forbidden under state law; she sued, and the employer was fined $10 (actually worth something at the time). He appealed to the US Supreme Court, claiming the Oregon statute violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Louis Brandeis, then still in private practice, was retained to defend the state's legislation.

He knew he had no basis in the law - especially since the Supreme Court had decided 3 years before that a NY State law forbidding long hours in a bakery was unconstitutional - so he limited discussion of the law to 3 pages out of a total of 113 in his brief. The remaining 110 argued that the state government has, under its police powers, the right to protect the health and safety of its citizens. Drawing primarily from European health reports he argued that Oregon was simply protecting its women. Brandeis won the case.

Your reference to Lochner era cases concerning economic regulation has no relevance whatsoever to the discussion. (You should educate yourself concerning the Lochner era, the court packing plan, and "the switch in time that saved nine.")

The law is clearly established that it is unconstitutional (under both state and federal constitutions) for a state actor to discriminate against a person on the basis of race and thus deprive that person of the equal protection of the laws of the state.

Perhaps you are arguing, if the justice of the peace hires a smart attorney like Brandeis, that there may be a chance that the United States Supreme Court will carve out an exception to clearly established constitutional law in order to permit state actors to abuse the power of the state to satisfy their personal racial bigotry. If so, you are clearly barking up the wrong tree and your argument would be thrown out immediately as wholly frivolous. After all, the STATE cannot discriminate on the basis of race and the STATE cannot act except through its employees and officials. An individual, when he acts in his or her capacity as a state employee or officer, does not have any discretion whatsoever to violate the state or federal constitutions.

0 Replies

@Merry Andrew,

hawkeye10 wrote:

yes, it seems to be common knowledge that a crime has been committed, but what law has been broken?

It is common knowledge that the Justice of the Peace (JP), a state actor, violated the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 3 of the Louisiana State Constitution. The JP intentionally refused to perform a public service lawfully required of him as a state employee or official. (The term "state" embodies the state and all of its political subdivisions whatever they may be called, e.g., cities, towns, parishes, counties, etc..) The JP admitted that he refused to issue a marriage license and solemnize a marriage because the applicants were not of the same race. He discriminated against individuals on the basis of race. Thus, he abused the power of the state and intentionally violated the constitutionally-secured civil rights of the applicants.

Additionally, when the JP intentionally refused to perform a duty that is required of him as a JP, he violated Section 134 of the Lousiana Code:

§134. Malfeasance in office

Malfeasance in office is committed when any public officer or public employee shall:

(1) Intentionally refuse or fail to perform any duty lawfully required of him, as such officer or employee; or

(2) Intentionally perform any such duty in an unlawful manner; or

(3) Knowingly permit any other public officer or public employee, under his authority, to intentionally refuse or fail to perform any duty lawfully required of him, or to perform any such duty in an unlawful manner.

Any duty lawfully required of a public officer or public employee when delegated by him to a public officer or public employee shall be deemed to be a lawful duty of such public officer or employee. The delegation of such lawful duty shall not relieve the public officer or employee of his lawful duty.

Whoever commits the crime of malfeasance in office shall be imprisoned for not more than five years with or without hard labor or shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars or both.

http://law.justia.com/louisiana/codes/146/78317.html

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Quote:

(1) Intentionally refuse or fail to perform any duty lawfully required of him, as such officer or employee; or

For which you need to show that signing a marriage license of two people who are legally entitled to marry is a lawful duty. The guy claims that facilitating the process was enough to legally perform his duty, that he was not 100% obligated to sign himself. Neither you nor anyone else that I have seen has shown conclusive proof that he is wrong. He might be, but so far this assumption that he is wrong has not been supported by any case history nor any verbatim law.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawk - Here. Let's make it simple. Since you so sincerely want the answer, you'll find the LA law or some legal document that grants discretionary privileges on a eligible couple to a Justice of the Peace. It's not us who have failed to prove anything. You've failed to prove there is any controversy to this at all. It's cut and dry illegal.

Gravity always wins, and your case is falling. You can't argue yourself out of hitting the ground.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Louisiana law states a justice of the peace is authorized but not mandated to perform marriages, though several legal experts argue a federal civil rights violation may have taken place

http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=11334930

I am on point here, kindly document a counter argument are else admit that you are wrong.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

It's not us who have failed to prove anything. You've failed to prove there is any controversy to this at all. It's cut and dry illegal.

you are profoundly confused...in America a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. You and several other dim wits go on about "he is guilty we all know he is guilty, we don't have to do more than point out how we all know that he is guilty"

You should be very very ashamed of yourself, of your willingness to follow the mob in violating the bedrock of American law.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

THe JP claims here that he operated with-in the law:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7e0lQzgJbc

0 Replies

JP DENIES INTERACIAL COUPLE MARRAIGE LISCENSE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know