Yes, but that same statute also says that the *Deputy Clerk* can issue the license, in addition to the Clerk. Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.100(1)(c). In such cases, obviously, the "authorization statement" in question becomes that of the Deputy Clerk -- *which the State's official form acknowledges when it provides in the statement for the prospect that the Deputy Clerk, rather than the Clerk, might issue the license*. Another way to look at it: Because KRS § 61.035 states that “[a]ny duty enjoined by law . . . upon a ministerial officer, and any act permitted to be done by him, *may be performed by his lawful deputy,*” references in the Code to duties imposed upon the Clerk can all be read to add the implicit "or the Deputy."
I very much doubt that Kevin, or any other reasonable person, believes that Kim Davis actually authorized the licenses issued on Friday, or that any member of the public understands her to have done so. Assuming that's right, I'm really not sure why we're still debating it. On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Walsh, Kevin <kwa...@richmond.edu> wrote: > David, > > Sure. The two most pertinent provisions are Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.100(1)(a) > (requiring the prescribed form for marriage licenses to include "an > authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license") and Ky. > Rev. Stat. 402.100(3)(a) (requiring the prescribed form to include a > marriage certificate stating "the name of the county clerk under whose > authority the license was issued"). > > Kevin > ________________________________________ > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of David Cruz [ > dc...@law.usc.edu] > Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:24 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: What's happening in the Kim Davis case > > Kevin, before I attempt any elaboration of your first follow-up question > below, can you say what provision of Kentucky law you would cite as at > least seeming to contain a requirement that a marriage license must be > issued “under the authority of” some county clerk? I apologize if I’m > being obtuse about that, but please do walk me through it slowly. Thank > you. > > David B. Cruz > Professor of Law > University of Southern California Gould School of Law > Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 > U.S.A. > > > From: <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>> on behalf of "Walsh, Kevin" < > kwa...@richmond.edu<mailto:kwa...@richmond.edu>> > Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics < > religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> > Date: Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 4:56 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> > Subject: Re: What's happening in the Kim Davis case > > I asked "Is there a county clerk under whose authority these licenses were > issued, or not?" > > If the answer is "no, but it doesn't matter to the validity of the > licenses because ...," I am asking because I don't understand what comes > after "because." > > If the answer is "yes," I am wondering what the name of the county clerk > is, if not Kim Davis. > > David's premise seems to be that the answer is in Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.035, > but I don't see it. > > > > On Sep 12, 2015, at 7:33 PM, David Cruz <dc...@law.usc.edu<mailto: > dc...@law.usc.edu>> wrote: > > Why is it relevant, given the Kentucky law already aptly quoted by Marty, > whether or not there is “a county clerk [as distinguished, I guess Kevin > Walsh is asking, from a deputy county clerk] under whose authority these > licenses were issued”? > > David B. Cruz > Professor of Law > University of Southern California Gould School of Law > Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071 > U.S.A. > > > From: <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>> on behalf of "Walsh, Kevin" < > kwa...@richmond.edu<mailto:kwa...@richmond.edu>> > Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics < > religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> > Date: Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 4:06 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> > Subject: RE: What's happening in the Kim Davis case > > Brian Mason is a deputy county clerk. Is there a county clerk under whose > authority these licenses were issued, or not? > > [Note: I originally sent this before ND threw a touchdown pass to pull > ahead of UVA a few minutes ago, but am resending now after being notified > it was too long. Go Irish.] > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
