Here is the argument liberals are using to put Kim Davis in jail, in proper logical form:
All public officials who do not enforce existing law should be prosecutedThis syllogism is perfectly logical; that is, if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. But are all the premises true? Is it really true to say that "All public officials who do not enforce existing law should be prosecuted"? If it is, then the liberal using the argument has a problem.
Kim Davis is a public official who does not enforce existing law
Therefore Kim Davis should be prosecuted
Ted Cruz made an excellent point the yesterday. He said, "Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare?"
So let's keep the same logical structure of this argument and the same major premise (the one about public officials) but replace the minor premise and draw the new conclusion:
All public officials who do not enforce existing law should be prosecutedNow if the first (or major) premise is true and the second (or minor) premise is also true (which it certainly is), then the liberals using this should be asked why it is, if they think that Kim Davis should be prosecuted, they don't also think that Obama should be prosecuted.
President Obama is a public official who does not enforce existing law
Therefore President Obama should be prosecuted
But Cruz has apparently forgotten about an even more relevant example, one that has to do with the marriage issue itself. On Feb. 4, 2011, the Obama administration announced that it would no longer be enforcing the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Where were the people in the folks now so concerned with public officials doing their jobs then? Funny, but I can't recall them calling for Obama to resign or face jail time.
If the highest public official in the land is within his rights to refuse to enforce the law on marriage, then is Kim Davis not be within her rights to do the same thing?