Constable queried about abortion etc during interview

[bobalot]

Former constable candidate sues Williamson County commissioners

GEORGETOWN, Texas (KXAN) - Williamson County commissioners and the Williamson County Judge Dan Gattis are being sued for civil rights violations by a former candidate for an open constable position.

Robert Lloyd, a 27-year law enforcement veteran said he was asked about his views on abortion, gay marriage, religion, and who he voted for in the last election during an interview.

Such questions are illegal.

But that didn't stop Williamson County commissioners from asking those very questions when they were interviewing candidates for the Precinct 3 constable vacancy. And now, one of those candidates is suing them for violating his constitutional rights.

“This needs to stop. It’s ludicrous that this is happening,” Lloyd said.

In March, Lloyd was one of five candidates interviewed for the open Precinct 3 constable position in Williamson County. He says the questions asked by county commissioners took him by surprise.

“The majority of the interview took place asking me what my political affiliation was, my views on abortion, my views on gay marriage, long conversation about my religion,” Lloyd claimed.

Lloyd's attorneys with the Texas Civil Rights Project say those questions are illegal. In a lawsuit filed Monday, Lloyd recounts his answer when he was asked that question about his position on gay marriage.

“I gave the best answer that I felt that I could with the knowledge that the world is changing, people are changing, the US supreme court looks at these cases every day,” Lloyd said.

According to Lloyd, and the lawsuit, one commissioner responded by saying, “If you are appointed as constable, you better come up with a better answer than that.”

“This is so clearly a violation of both federal and state law,” said Jim Harrington with the Texas Civil Rights Project.

Harrington says not only is this is a clear violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but also The Texas Bill of Rights, which states "no religious test should ever be required as a qualification to any office."

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rules state: “an employer may not base hiring decisions on stereotypes and assumptions about a person's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability or genetic information.”

When asked about the interview questions in May, Williamson County Precinct 3 Commissioner Valerie Covey said those rules don’t apply in this situation.

“In general, this is a process that is different than a normal employment interview because it is an elected position,” Covey said.

When KXAN first reported this story in May, Covey was the only person on the commissioners court to agree to an on-camera interview.

“We wanted to make sure the candidate could not only do the job as constable, but also handle the rigor of political life,” Covey said.

Lloyd's attorneys also obtained handwritten notes taken by one commissioner during the interview process.

“You can see that they actually took notes about gay marriage and abortion responses and noted that in their political, religious opinion, that his response was not definitive,” said Dwayne Krause Yang. “So you can see that this actually affected his ability to be a constable."

Lloyd says he’s not asking for money from the lawsuit.

“My only drive in this is that I want it to be made public, and I want it to be corrected,” he said.

Two other candidates for the constable position are also joining this lawsuit, according to lawyers with the Texas Civil Rights Project. The group has also filed a criminal complaint with the Williamson County District Attorney’s office, asking for a criminal investigation.

KXAN reached out to each of the Williamson County commissioners on Monday and had not received any response to the lawsuit.

Source

What a shithole.

[Carinthium]

To repeat a point made on another thread in a different way, nobody who agrees with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka has no right to talk about something being unconstitutional.

[bobalot]

To repeat a point made on another thread in a different way, nobody who agrees with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka has no right to talk about something being unconstitutional.

For someone who isn't familiar with that case, could you explain the relevance here?

[Carinthium]

Case where segregation in education, even at a state level, was ruled to be unconstitutional.

[Flagg]

I think we need to send troops to occupy Texas.

[Simon_Jester]

Case where segregation in education, even at a state level, was ruled to be unconstitutional.

Have you just not heard of the Fourteenth Amendment?

This is disgusting.

[Lord Relvenous]

To repeat a point made on another thread in a different way, nobody who agrees with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka has no right to talk about something being unconstitutional.

Oh good, now I know to not read anything you say because you're a racist bag of dicks.

[Flagg]

To repeat a point made on another thread in a different way, nobody who agrees with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka has no right to talk about something being unconstitutional.

Oh good, now I know to not read anything you say because you're a racist bag of dicks.

I thought he was for it but he writes like an illiterate.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Case where segregation in education, even at a state level, was ruled to be unconstitutional.

Look, buddy, if the Constitution is only to be followed when the shitheads agree with it, you might as well dissolve to your constituent states. How about it, huh? You'll even find out how it's like to get pissed on by stronger countries, think about it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Case where segregation in education, even at a state level, was ruled to be unconstitutional.

What the hell kind of bizarre nutcase are you?

P.S. That was my way of telling you to justify your "viewpoint".

[Thanas]

No more dogpiling. Let him clarify first if he made a mistake or wrote it the wrong way. .

[Carinthium]

I chose that particular case, for what it's worth, not because it's ambigious but because I was almost certain, despite my own disagreement, that I was dealing with somebody who agreed with it.

First, of course, I will point out that the circumstances in which the Fourteenth Amendment were passed there is a very good case for saying it was "under duress". Applying an intentionalist ruleset, this clearly makes the Fourteenth Amendment amongst others invalud.

From a literalist point of view, the problem with the use of the Fourteenth Amendment clause is that it forbids the States to abridge the "privileges or immunities" of citizens of the United States. There is no specific privilege or immunity that would apply- taken literally, none of the Amendments forbid racial discrimination nor forbid seperate school facilities (even inferior ones). It doesn't even contradict the spirit of the amendments, given how racist the people who passed them were.

Basically, we are dealing with a case in which pragmatism was strongly for the decision (applying utilitarian pros and cons I'm not disputing that was the case) but in which the actual law itself was strongly against.

[Lord Relvenous]

No more dogpiling. Let him clarify first if he made a mistake or wrote it the wrong way. .

So can I call him a racist shitstain now?

That's honestly the only reason I can see someone trying to argue that the 14th Amendment is "invalud".

[Korto]

While we can certainly poke him about "invalud", unfortunately we can't draw too many conclusions from it (those of us who've never made a typo may cast the first stone), I do have a question...

Carinthium, is it your view that once a constitution is made, it must forever after be read and interpreted just as the writers intended, with no amending or reinterpreting to fit with changing times? It's a carved in stone, handed down from God, holy writ?
Do you feel "What the Writers Intended" should have over-riding weight when interpreting the constitution, when that would seem to be counter to what is more just and fitting for society at the time?
Aghast observers wish to know.

[Knife]

This happened in the other thread, where he went off in some bizarre 'literalism/intentional' side show.

[Carinthium]

Whoops about invalid, admittedly. But onto the substantial points. I think it's about time (and I'm guessing from what's been said that many others agree) that I put my Philosophy regarding Law on the table. This has changed over time, I should note- I am presenting my current version of it.

Ideally speaking, I would support a libertarian utopia where people are free to do what they do- even I, however, admit that such is probably impossible. Second best, however, is a state with proper Rule of Law. I meant something different from that than most people.

I start off from this point- it is unjust to compel a person to follow rules and penalise them for failure to do so if they cannot understand said rules. This is true if it is a major point or if it is a minor point. It follows that it is also unjust to have a system where the constitutionality of laws or otherwise is unclear. To minimise the injustice, it is best to make it that at least in principle a person can learn all the Law which applies to them.

Secondly, I support for reasons similiar to those others here would be a system in which nobody is Above the Law. This means that the rules apply to everybody uncompromisingly- nobody can get around them. If a judge can rule a Law effectively out of existence, however, then the judges are Above the Law. Maybe judges are constrained by informal rules- but so were monarchs of ancient times. Our system thus becomes no better than a feudal monarchy insofar as making a claim that nobody is Above the Law.

A system which satisfies the rule that at least in principle a person can learn all the laws that apply to them, and where laws apply uncompromisingly (which means at minimum that nobody can for practical purposes retcon a law out of existence), then that is Rule of Law.

On questions of interpretation, I reject many views (such as the Living Constitution) partially on this basis. I also note that if a precedent, no matter how poor it's legal logic, created by a Judge automatically becomes what is legal, then "legal" is a subjective term. A person can thus do illegal things and retroactively make them legal- so why worry about what is legal now, rather than simply making it legal later?

The only two views which remain are intentionalism and literalism. I reject intentionalism partially because intentions are inherently unclear things, and partially because it means people obey persons rather than a set of rules. Only literalism remains.

For what it's worth, I oppose judges distorting the Law in order to combat injustice because by doing so they are actively violating the rights of everybody in their society to understandable law. The reasons I consider this uncompromisable are similiar to the reasons utiltarianism is rejected by so many philosophers, including ideas about "clean hands".

[Terralthra]

From a literalist point of view, the problem with the use of the Fourteenth Amendment clause is that it forbids the States to abridge the "privileges or immunities" of citizens of the United States. There is no specific privilege or immunity that would apply- taken literally, none of the Amendments forbid racial discrimination nor forbid seperate school facilities (even inferior ones). It doesn't even contradict the spirit of the amendments, given how racist the people who passed them were.

You may have missed this, but it also says "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Brown v. Board relied on this section, as laws which grant inherently unequal treatment (as separate but equal did) to persons, based on their race (which it was), was not equal protection, and thus violated the 14th Amendment, explicitly.

[Terralthra]

As regards your "law must be consistent at all times" axiom, I note that it makes no allowance for, say, the science underlying a law/constitution requirement changing, and thus the boundaries changing as well.

For example, the 4th Amendment was interpreted decades ago as not forbidding passive observation from outside of private property, as the exterior of property which is visible from public property is correspondingly public, so stakeout need not require a warrant in order for the police officer observing something to see evidence of a crime. This has been adjusted in recent times as technological advances allow passive observation using infrared and other enhanced imaging techniques to penetrate walls, making a stakeout potentially much more intrusive, so the interpretation clarified the boundary, "changing the law". In what way does your system account for this sort of change?

[Ahriman238]

I chose that particular case, for what it's worth, not because it's ambigious but because I was almost certain, despite my own disagreement, that I was dealing with somebody who agreed with it.

First, of course, I will point out that the circumstances in which the Fourteenth Amendment were passed there is a very good case for saying it was "under duress". Applying an intentionalist ruleset, this clearly makes the Fourteenth Amendment amongst others invalud.

From a literalist point of view, the problem with the use of the Fourteenth Amendment clause is that it forbids the States to abridge the "privileges or immunities" of citizens of the United States. There is no specific privilege or immunity that would apply- taken literally, none of the Amendments forbid racial discrimination nor forbid seperate school facilities (even inferior ones). It doesn't even contradict the spirit of the amendments, given how racist the people who passed them were.

Basically, we are dealing with a case in which pragmatism was strongly for the decision (applying utilitarian pros and cons I'm not disputing that was the case) but in which the actual law itself was strongly against.

Hoo boy. So many things wrong, I hardly know where to begin. So let's try a point at a a time.

To begin with, the majority of the Union supported the adoption of the 14th. I will concede that Congress made recognition of statehood for each rebellious territory contingent upon ratifying the amendment. I defy you to look at how hard people sometimes still have to fight for racial equality in the South today, or how bitterly they fought it then, and tell me that bit of arm-twisting was not morally justified.

Privileges and Immunities of US citizens cover a lot of ground, I've heard about them for years, and I'd never say definitively what they don't cover without looking it up first. To simplify, then. P&I in it's original form broadly banned discrimination based on statehood, to make free travel easier. There could be no law banning people from another state or affording them any different treatment under the law, unless the state could prove such was justified in a court of law (very difficult.) The idea being that no fundamental rights could be abridged anywhere, in particular that a citizen of one state can easily become a citizen of another, and that no economic sanction or undue hardship should fall on them. It is wholly consistent with existing case law regarding the 14th Amendment that discrimination based on gender, race, or statehood is illegal. The argument for Brown v. Board was that it is not possible to have equal facilities where one is constricted and confined, and the second is free. Segregation was possible under the constitution (with the recognition of Blacks as citizens under the 14th) only under the legal fiction that everyone had equal freedoms and facilities, which is demonstrably not so.

http://aapf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013 ... tion1.jpeg





If I understand correctly, your final point is that the Brown v. Board ruling was moral, practical, but not strictly speaking legal. It was. It was entirely consistent with both the letter and spirit of the 14th Amendment.


Finally, I must ask you to expand on your original post. How, precisely, does no one who supports this ruling have any right to discuss what is and is not constitutional? I assume you mean to call us hypocrites, but I find your arguement confusing in that it was either deleted or never adequately made. Your subsequent posts define the case (probably not needed here, good to be thorough though) and then argue against the ruling, but I haven't yet seen a connection to the OP or your first post.


Getting back to the original purpose of the thread, I'll quote my favorite Texan. "It ain't legal. Worse than that, by God, it ain't right." Points to anyone who knows the film. But yeah, drilling them on their political views is a pretty clear violation of the law, even if you assume they had the purest of intentions and weren't striking out the candidates whose views they disagreed with.

[Lord Relvenous]

Ahriman, your first image is format breaking. Could you resize it or link to it instead?

[Carinthium]

Terralthra:

1- Protection of the laws. Education is not a matter of protection. Besides, if the facilities really were Seperate but Equal it would be a different matter.

2- Normally I would say that such pragmatic factors could take a hike, but the Fourth Amendment is an odd case as it uses the inherently vague term "unreasonable". I am opposed to such language in a Constitution as constituting an injustice, but since it is there even I have to admit that judges will end up having to define what is meant by "unreasonable".

Ahiriman:
1- I don't actually agree with an intentionalist perspective, but unlike you I have clear boundaries in my head between what is moral and what is legal, then apply the question of "what is moral" considering my independent conclusions on the question "what is legal". I was merely discussing the legal question from an intentionalist viewpoint.

2-
a- Stuff case law. It doesn't make sense to use case law either as an intentionalist or as a literalist.
b- As I said above, I'm not actually an intentionalist but was merely pointing it out. From an intentionalist perspective you might be right, but as I said it was under duress. Still, although not certain I would consider it a plausible argument that given how much racism there was when the Amendment was created that it's drafters wouldn't care.
c- If the Supreme Court had said that the facilities were not in fact equal and had ordered the relevant state governments to alter them so that they WERE in fact equal, that would be a different question.
d- Remember with privledges and immunities that I am taking the words LITERALLY. You are referring to INTENT when discussing the meanings of words.

I question the Brown decision's morality, but only based on it's legality. See above for my disputes on both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. From a purely pragmatic perspective I would agree with Brown, but that is because pragmatism uses an entirely different set of criterion.

A supporter of the Brown case would have to reject, I am arguing, both a literalist and an intentionalist interpretation of the Constitution. This leaves them no plausible means to say that some things are constitutional AND THAT SOME AREN'T. This is the problem.

If you're going to discuss morality seperate from legality, then I see a decent case for it not being right. Maybe it's a violation of federal or State law, I don't know enough to say. But I don't see how anybody can denounce what was done for being illegal AND support the Brown decision AND be self-consistent.

[Ahriman238]

Whoops about invalid, admittedly. But onto the substantial points. I think it's about time (and I'm guessing from what's been said that many others agree) that I put my Philosophy regarding Law on the table. This has changed over time, I should note- I am presenting my current version of it.

Ideally speaking, I would support a libertarian utopia where people are free to do what they do- even I, however, admit that such is probably impossible. Second best, however, is a state with proper Rule of Law. I meant something different from that than most people.

I start off from this point- it is unjust to compel a person to follow rules and penalise them for failure to do so if they cannot understand said rules. This is true if it is a major point or if it is a minor point. It follows that it is also unjust to have a system where the constitutionality of laws or otherwise is unclear. To minimise the injustice, it is best to make it that at least in principle a person can learn all the Law which applies to them.

So far, so good. The problem being that the law has to be clear in all possible cases, which makes it impractical to simplify to the biblical "no killing" for example. Society has also grown more complex but trimming unnecessary legislation is good. Keep in mind not everyone will agree with you on what laws are unnecessary.

Secondly, I support for reasons similiar to those others here would be a system in which nobody is Above the Law. This means that the rules apply to everybody uncompromisingly- nobody can get around them. If a judge can rule a Law effectively out of existence, however, then the judges are Above the Law. Maybe judges are constrained by informal rules- but so were monarchs of ancient times. Our system thus becomes no better than a feudal monarchy insofar as making a claim that nobody is Above the Law.

And from a promising beginning, to crash and burn. The courts interpret the law, to see where it fits and where it does not, and when two laws contradict each other, to decide which is more important. This is a common law thing, a tradition predating our nation by a very long time and expanded on by our nation's founders. The Framers gave every branch of government the tools to cripple the others, so none could dominate and nothing could be done without either consensus or compromise. Judges are constrained by a number of rules, formalized and not, and are subject to dismissal (except the Supremes) should they fail to do their jobs, or abuse their power. The flipside is they can;t be given the boot for doing their damn jobs.

A system which satisfies the rule that at least in principle a person can learn all the laws that apply to them, and where laws apply uncompromisingly (which means at minimum that nobody can for practical purposes retcon a law out of existence), then that is Rule of Law.

You're sounding a lot more like Kant and Hobbes than Mills and Rand. Jury's out on whether that's a good thing.

On questions of interpretation, I reject many views (such as the Living Constitution) partially on this basis. I also note that if a precedent, no matter how poor it's legal logic, created by a Judge automatically becomes what is legal, then "legal" is a subjective term. A person can thus do illegal things and retroactively make them legal- so why worry about what is legal now, rather than simply making it legal later?

A precedent is not law, it is merely a precedent. Some other judge found this interpretation to have merit, so it warrants examination and consideration. No more, no less. It certainly does not apply retroactively to previous crimes. You should worry about what is illegal now, because the law at the time of the act is what's applied. If something wasn't illegal when you did it, you;re good. If something was illegal when you did, but is ok now, you're boned. This to is enshrined in the US Constitution.

The only two views which remain are intentionalism and literalism. I reject intentionalism partially because intentions are inherently unclear things, and partially because it means people obey persons rather than a set of rules. Only literalism remains.

I'm sorry, I'm just having so much trouble taking you seriously when you claim we should have a perfect, immutable and simple law. The world changes, people change. We struggle today with some problems the Framers knew well, and many they couldn't have possibly imagined, while so many issues that seemed world-consuming at the time are long settled and forgotten. The Framers knew they didn't have a perfect law that would always work, that's why they included a process for changing it.

For what it's worth, I oppose judges distorting the Law in order to combat injustice because by doing so they are actively violating the rights of everybody in their society to understandable law. The reasons I consider this uncompromisable are similiar to the reasons utiltarianism is rejected by so many philosophers, including ideas about "clean hands".

Again, if you're a judge, interpreting law is what you do. That is your job. I really appreciate the idea that the law should be simple enough for a layman, but I don't see how it's practical with a society as large and complex as ours. I completely reject the idea that there is no middle ground whatsoever between an informed citizenry and a judiciary that works. Perhaps a better education could communicate at least the broad strokes to everyone without getting into the nuance of exceptions, clauses and case law. Oh wait, we already do that.

[Ahriman238]

1- Protection of the laws. Education is not a matter of protection. Besides, if the facilities really were Seperate but Equal it would be a different matter.

Education is absolutely, crucially, a matter for protection. A free and appropriate public education is nothing less than the birthright of each and every citizen, and something they pay for through taxes.

I was merely discussing the legal question from an intentionalist viewpoint.

Fair enough.

a- Stuff case law. It doesn't make sense to use case law either as an intentionalist or as a literalist.

And we all know there are only two valid and irreconcilable views on law?

b- As I said above, I'm not actually an intentionalist but was merely pointing it out. From an intentionalist perspective you might be right, but as I said it was under duress. Still, although not certain I would consider it a plausible argument that given how much racism there was when the Amendment was created that it's drafters wouldn't care.

Context matters. We'd just fought a bloody Civil War, the most destructive conflict in our history and it wasn't going to happen ever again. There's a clause of the 14th banning any public official or military officer who betrayed his oaths through rebellion from ever again serving a position of public trust.

If the Supreme Court had said that the facilities were not in fact equal and had ordered the relevant state governments to alter them so that they WERE in fact equal, that would be a different question.

A very different question. But the NAACP and Brown's argument was that Separate cannot be Equal. If a black man cannot share a sidewalk with a white man, nor a lavatory, a waiting room or a school he is not equal even if his bathroom was as good as any. Because one man can go where he chooses, act as he likes within the bounds of law and reason, and the other cannot.

But it grows late, and the rest can wait for morning.

[Terralthra]

Terralthra:

1- Protection of the laws. Education is not a matter of protection. Besides, if the facilities really were Seperate but Equal it would be a different matter.

So, let me get this straight. You think that laws which allow a black person to pay equivalent taxes to the white person living next door (as schools are paid for by property taxes, and Brown moved to a mostly-white neighborhood), but being forced to have their children bused back to a segregated, low-quality school in another neighborhood/town, solely on the basis of their race, is being "equally protect[ed] under the law"? Really? That's your argument?

2- Normally I would say that such pragmatic factors could take a hike, but the Fourth Amendment is an odd case as it uses the inherently vague term "unreasonable". I am opposed to such language in a Constitution as constituting an injustice, but since it is there even I have to admit that judges will end up having to define what is meant by "unreasonable".

Laws affect real people in the real world. Saying you don't care about pragmatic factors is essentially saying you don't give a fuck about law.

[loomer]

I said it in the other thread as well. Carinthium, please educate yourself by reading the works of some actual jurists. Holmes is a very good start for this sort of thing, and one of the most influential jurists of the 20th century. As it currently stands, you seem to be misunderstanding the role of the supreme court when it decides a law is invalid.

Our system is fundamentally reliant on the idea of the common law. It's our inheritance as British colonies (and yes, that includes America. I know you're an Aussie like myself, but all of America except Louisiana is a Common Law jurisdiction (Louisiana being civil due to its French and Spanish history, but also governed by the common law precedents of superior courts. It's a fun match.)) Inherent in this tradition is the notion that the common law is eternal and unchangeable (or changeable only in certain ways).

When the supreme court of a state or nation rules that a law is invalid, they do not declare that the law is bad. They rule that it was never a law to begin with. Judges in our system (well, ostensibly. Realistically, they do, see Holmes for a great explanation of why) do not make law. They do, however, interpret law - and that means that it falls to them to determine when basic principles of the common law have been trodden on (enough to make a law invalid - see Blackstone, who actually says that it doesn't make the law invalid. Rather, that law simply never was law to begin with and thus cannot be invalid.)

With this as a basic cornerstone of our legal system, you can't just say 'stuff case law' or 'judges are above the law and this is wrong'.