Throwback Truths: Show Us The Law or Free Kim Davis

At the Institute on the Constitution, we believe that safeguarding our future begins with understanding and reinforcing our foundations. That’s why we’ve created Throwback Truths — a series that revisits classic video presentations from Michael Anthony Peroutka, founder of IOTC. These timeless messages encourage us to reflect on who we are as a nation and the principles that define true liberty.

In this edition, we revisit Peroutka’s remarks from a rally held in support of Kim Davis — a county clerk whose imprisonment sparked national debate about the Constitution, conscience, and the limits of judicial power.

Michael Anthony Peroutka had the honor of addressing a rally in support of Kim Davis, the elected Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. Davis had been jailed by a federal judge for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — a command she believed violated both her religious convictions and the legal framework of the Constitution.

While many speakers at the rally focused on the moral argument — that rights come from God and that no government has the authority to grant permission to violate His law —  Peroutka reminded the crowd that Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states:

“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…”

If all lawmaking power is given to Congress, then none is left for the courts—not even the Supreme Court. According to Peroutka, courts exist to render opinions in specific cases and controversies; they do not have the authority to create law. Therefore, he argued, no actual law exists that Kim Davis has violated, and there is no legal justification for her continued detention.

This interpretation is not isolated. Peroutka pointed out that presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, as well as public figures such as Glenn Beck, David Barton, and Senator Rick Santorum, have echoed this argument. The situation with Kim Davis has prompted a national conversation about the limits of judicial power and the proper constitutional role of the courts.

For years, courts have used clauses such as the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to justify decisions that, in effect, create national policy. Peroutka argued that such usage amounts to an "end run" around the Constitution’s clear limitations on federal authority. He presented a hypothetical: if Congress had passed a law requiring county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, such a law would still be void under the Tenth Amendment, as marriage regulation is not among the federal government's enumerated powers.

So, Peroutka asked a critical question: How can the courts enforce a law that Congress itself could not constitutionally enact?

The controversy surrounding Kim Davis has shined a spotlight on this very issue. If a law exists requiring her to issue same-sex marriage licenses, where is it? Who voted for it? Who signed it into law? What are its terms?

Peroutka’s challenge is simple: show us the law—or free Kim Davis.

This case has brought renewed attention to constitutional principles that have long been overshadowed by judicial overreach. It underscores the need for Americans to understand the true structure of their government and to demand adherence to it.

As we reflect on Michael Peroutka’s message, we’re reminded that preserving liberty requires more than passion—it demands principle. The case of Kim Davis is more than a headline; it’s a constitutional moment that challenges us to reconsider the role of government, the authority of the courts, and the courage it takes to stand for truth.

At the Institute on the Constitution, we invite you to revisit these truths not just as history, but as a guide for today. Because understanding the foundation is the first step in defending it.