Posted on 05/10/2015 9:59:34 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson says the United States should rethink the notion that a president must enforce laws the Supreme Court declares constitutional.
Carson said Sunday “we need to discuss” the court’s long-held power to review laws passed by Congress. That authority was established in the 1803 landmark case Marbury v. Madison. […]
Carson has said a president is obliged to carry out laws passed by Congress, but not what he called “judicial laws” that emanate from courts. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
This guy is radical.
He is putting the US under God.
Immoral laws or pronouncements from the court are not to be followed.
Has Ben ever won an election?
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Constitutional determination might best be handled by the Senate. If the Senate were reformed and the power of majority and minority leader diluted.
A power shift on this level could further serve to reduce the power of the major parties overall.
It would depend on how it was addressed.
“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” —Andy “By God” Jackson to Worcester v Georgia, 1832
I support it.
I guess that makes me “radical” as well.
The Court is ruminating on gay marriage. This is a no-brainer.
Unless the robed priests have decided that God’s laws are immaterial.
Then, all bets are off.
The Constitution was a Form of Governance. It set the methods of ruling for centuries. What many people miss is the election of our first “formless” politician. The creature in the White House is the first to simply ignore the form and structure created by the founders and followed until 2008. Spengler pointed out that the fate of the United States is to become “Formless” like the Central American powers where various individuals rise govern (more or less)and then go. We are entering the “Formless” phase.
If Congress had the backbone, they could put the SCOTUS back under their power, by deciding what cases went to the SCOTUS and what cases did not, according to the Constitution.
BUt they don’t, so they won’t. And they haven’t in 200 years.
They’d have to have morals first.
The constitution ... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. Thomas Jefferson
The constitution ... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. Thomas Jefferson
Agreed. Let's get to it.
Article V bump!
I agree with Carson. It doesn’t make since that nine politically appointed judges can over rule 535 elected office holders.
Another problem is that 100 of those are elected.
It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law. …Off-topic, but all the unaccountable appointed positions in the European Union are “justified” in their being “independent”.
Really? So he just gave Zero the right to disobey any ruling from the Court ever? Is that what you want?
I suppose then you’d also think it cool that a president ignored Heller? Or Citizens United? Sauce for the goose.
Nice to see one glimmer of light break through Carson’s fog.
However, both he and the interviewer still showed their dangerous ignorance of the subject.
I’m reading through the transcript of the interview right now, and what I see so far is appalling.
WALLACE: Finally in the area of these remarks, just this week, you said that the president must carry out a law passed by Congress, but you said he doesn’t necessarily have to pass what you called a judicial law — which raises the question: Do you believe that the president must observe a decision by the Supreme Court?
CARSON: Well, what I said is the president doesn’t have to agree with it.
WALLACE: No, of course not. But does he have to — but does he have to enforce it?
CARSON: Well, Dred Scott, a perfect example. You know, the Supreme Court came up with this and Abraham Lincoln did not agree with it. Now, admittedly, it caused a lot of conflict and eventually led to a civil war, but we’re in a better place because of it.
WALLACE: But does the president have to carry out a Supreme Court ruling?
CARSON: The way our Constitution is set up, the president or the executive branch is obligated to carry out the laws of the land. The laws of the land, according to our Constitution, are provided by the legislative branch.
WALLACE: But, sir —
CARSON: The laws of the land are not provided by the judiciary branch. So —
WALLACE: But, sir, since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, we have lived under the principle of judicial review which says, if the Supreme Court says this is the law, this is constitutional, the rest — the executive has to observe that.
CARSON: And I have said, this is an area we need to discuss. We need to get into a discussion of this because it has changed from the original intent. And —
WALLACE: So, you’re saying this is an open question as far as you’re concerned?
CARSON: It is an open question. It needs to be discussed.
It’s obvious that neither Wallace nor Carson has ever actually read Marbury, at least with the reading comprehension of a fifth-grader.
In fact, the substance of Marbury completely blows away the idea that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution. The summation of the decision, in brief, is: ‘We have to follow the Constitution in order to keep our oaths, and so does every other officer of government, in every other department.’
Marbury is in no way a judicial supremacist opinion. It clearly says that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
It is NOT, as Carson claims, an “open question.” No “discussion” about it is required or acceptable. If the Constitution of We the People is not supreme, there has been a coup d’etat.
.....
From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.
26Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
27The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: ‘I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.’
28Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him.
29If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
30It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
31Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
32The rule must be discharged.
There is no legitimate equivalency between following the Constitution in fulfillment of the oath and actions which are clearly in violation of that oath.
FDR threatened to pack the court with new justices. Also, his internment of Japanese-Americans, there was nothing constitutional about that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.