Posted on 09/06/2015 5:42:36 PM PDT by Whenifhow
Gov Huckabee interview on ABC News
HUCKABEE: I think it’s -- again, it’s a very different equation altogether because this is a redefinition. Marriage is not defined in the federal Constitution at all; it’s a matter for the states. And applying the Fourteenth Amendment to the equality of men and women and their relationship in marriage is totally different than redefining marriage.
And I think what we’ve seen here is the overreach of the judiciary. This, if allowed to stand without any congressional approval, without any kind of enabling legislation, is what Jefferson warned us about. That’s judicial tyranny.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m not sure I follow your reasoning, sir. This is exactly the same. In both cases, you have the Supreme Court saying --
HUCKABEE: No, it’s not.
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- that state laws further the Constitution, don’t further the Fourteenth Amendment.
HUCKABEE: George, can you cite for me what statute Kim Davis would be required follow in order to issue a same-sex marriage license in Kentucky when her state specifically says, by 75 percent of the voters, that marriage means one man, one woman? Can you cite the statute at the federal or state level that she’s supposed to follow? Even the very form that she fills out specifically lists a male and a female. Does she have the authority just to scratch that out and create her own?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Doesn’t she have to the duty to obey a legal order from the court?
HUCKABEE: Well, you obey it if it’s right. So I go back to my question. Is slavery the law of the land? Should it have been the law of the land because Dred Scott said so? Was that a correct decision? Should the courts have been irrevocably followed on that? Should Lincoln have been put in jail? Because he ignored it. I mean, that’s the fundamental question. Do we have a check and balance system? Do we have three equal branches or do we have one supreme branch, not just the Supreme Court? That’s the fundamental question. And, George, this is a bigger issue than this one thing. This goes back to the larger issue of whether or not what we’ve learned in ninth grade civics is even still operative. And why people are so angry across the country not just on this issue but on others is that the ruling class has thumbed their nose at the very constitution. You’ve got Democrats who ignored the law when it was the law to have traditional marriage.
Gavin Newsom in San Francisco as mayor performed same-sex weddings even though it was illegal. Did he ever get put in jail? He most certainly did not. You have Barack Obama and Eric Holder, when he was Attorney General. They ignored the rulings of DOMA. Did they get put in jail for ignoring the law? They most certainly did not.
So when is it that liberals get to choose which laws they support, but a county clerk in Kentucky who, acting on her Christian faith, is criminalized, jailed without bail, because she acted on her conscience and according to the only law that is in front of her.
Continue reading transcript below
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-mike-huckabee-john-kasich/story?id=33558640
STEPHANOPOULOS: And Governor Mike Huckabee joins us now.
Governor, thank you for joining us this morning. I know you're going to be going to Kentucky on Tuesday as a part of demonstration and support of Kim Davis. But there are some dissenting voices in the conservative movement. I wanted you to respond to something from Rod Drayer (ph) in "The American Conservative."
He says that, "The Supreme Court makes a ruling we don't like, we are obliged to obey the law or be willing to suffer the consequences of disobedience. What we cannot do and what the government cannot permit is open defiance of settled law."
He believes this is going to backfire on the religious liberty movement.
What's your response?
MIKE HUCKABEE (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, he would have hated Abraham Lincoln because Lincoln ignored the 1847 Dred Scott decision that said black people weren't fully human. It was a wrong decision. And to say that we have to surrender to judicial supremacy is to do what Jefferson warned against, which is, in essence, surrender to judicial tyranny. We had so many different presidents, including Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln -- there were other founders like Hamilton, Adams -- who made it very clear that the courts can't make a law. The Constitution is expressly clear that that's a power reserved to Congress.
When the courts have a ruling, then it is incumbent on Congress to codify that into law and specifically delineate what that means. That hasn’t happened, George.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But how is this different then from Loving v. Virginia back in 1967? Of course that was a Supreme Court ruling that struck down bans on interracial marriage. If a clerk at that time had said my religious beliefs forbid me from issuing this license, would you support that?
HUCKABEE: Well, it is incredibly different situation because --
STEPHANOPOULOS: How so?
HUCKABEE: -- what the Supreme Court did in Loving -- no, it’s not the same, George, not even close. Because in Loving you still had a marriage which was a man and a woman, and it was equal protection. But it didn’t redefine marriage. What’s -- the Supreme Court did in June --
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you didn’t have laws implementing -- (CROSSTALK)
HUCKABEE: This is why -- STEPHANOPOULOS: You didn’t have laws implementing the ruling then either, so would it have been OK to defy the Supreme Court in that case?
HUCKABEE: I think it’s -- again, it’s a very different equation altogether because this is a redefinition. Marriage is not defined in the federal Constitution at all; it’s a matter for the states. And applying the Fourteenth Amendment to the equality of men and women and their relationship in marriage is totally different than redefining marriage.
And I think what we’ve seen here is the overreach of the judiciary. This, if allowed to stand without any congressional approval, without any kind of enabling legislation, is what Jefferson warned us about. That’s judicial tyranny.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m not sure I follow your reasoning, sir. This is exactly the same. In both cases, you have the Supreme Court saying --
HUCKABEE: No, it’s not.
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- that state laws further the Constitution, don’t further the Fourteenth Amendment. HUCKABEE: George, can you cite for me what statute Kim Davis would be required follow in order to issue a same-sex marriage license in Kentucky when her state specifically says, by 75 percent of the voters, that marriage means one man, one woman? Can you cite the statute at the federal or state level that she’s supposed to follow? Even the very form that she fills out specifically lists a male and a female. Does she have the authority just to scratch that out and create her own?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Doesn’t she have to the duty to obey a legal order from the court?
HUCKABEE: Well, you obey it if it’s right. So I go back to my question. Is slavery the law of the land? Should it have been the law of the land because Dred Scott said so? Was that a correct decision? Should the courts have been irrevocably followed on that? Should Lincoln have been put in jail? Because he ignored it. I mean, that’s the fundamental question. Do we have a check and balance system? Do we have three equal branches or do we have one supreme branch, not just the Supreme Court? That’s the fundamental question. And, George, this is a bigger issue than this one thing. This goes back to the larger issue of whether or not what we’ve learned in ninth grade civics is even still operative. And why people are so angry across the country not just on this issue but on others is that the ruling class has thumbed their nose at the very constitution. You’ve got Democrats who ignored the law when it was the law to have traditional marriage.
Gavin Newsom in San Francisco as mayor performed same-sex weddings even though it was illegal. Did he ever get put in jail? He most certainly did not. You have Barack Obama and Eric Holder, when he was Attorney General. They ignored the rulings of DOMA. Did they get put in jail for ignoring the law? They most certainly did not.
So when is it that liberals get to choose which laws they support, but a county clerk in Kentucky who, acting on her Christian faith, is criminalized, jailed without bail, because she acted on her conscience and according to the only law that is in front of her. STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the most memorable statements ever made by a president on separation of church and state was a quote from John F. Kennedy to the Baptist ministers back in his campaign in 1960. Let me play a bit of that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN F. KENNEDY, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATESTEPHANOPOULOS: When if the time should ever come and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible, when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office. (END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Would you make that same statement in your candidacy for president?
HUCKABEE: I can't see any circumstance in which I would be required to violate my conscience and -- and the law. And if so, I think maybe there is a point at which you say either I'll resign or put me in jail. But what I want to go back to is that...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But let me -- before you do... HUCKABEE: -- if we...
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- before you do, though... HUCKABEE: (INAUDIBLE).
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- let me ask you a follow-up on that, because I've just...
(CROSSTALK) HUCKABEE: OK.
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- for one situation, because the federal government now recognizes same-sex marriage for tax purposes. Health, Social Security and death benefits go to same-sex couples.
So would you resign rather than carry out those policies?
HUCKABEE: Well, when you say the federal government recognizes it, what statute under which do they recognize it?
They do it by decree, but there is no Congressionally elected -- or voted upon statute. George, let me... (CROSSTALK)
HUCKABEE: -- let me give you an example. When I was governor, we -- no, let me finish this, because it's very important.
When I was governor, we had a Supreme Court case on school finance that said we were inadequate and inequitable. They ruled. I read the ruling. I agreed with it. I knew it was right.
But I didn't just sit out at my desk and start writing new checks to school districts. We had to go back to the legislature, come up with a school funding formula. It was passed. I signed it. And then we ordered the Department of Education to send checks. We are bypassing the process when we have one branch of government acting as it has authority over the other two. And what I'm coming back to -- and I -- I think people are missing this -- either we live under the rule of law, which is a three branch, checks and balances system of government, or we end up with what I think was so powerful when Lincoln said this -- and I want to read this.
He said, "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the instant they are made, then in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of this imminent tribunal." We there -- we either are a people of government, a people of law, and we are a nation of the people, or we are a nation under the power of the Supreme Court, which is what...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes.
HUCKABEE: -- the dissenting opinion of Roberts and Scalia so powerfully said.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Huckabee, that's all we have time for this morning. Thanks very much.
HUCKABEE: Thank you. Great to be with you.
The video below is Matt Staver, Kim Davis’ lawyer on Fox today 9-6-15
5:16 Minutes
No Resolution In Sight As Kim Davis Refuses To Back Down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrATwruvlJY
Video from the rally on Sat Sept 5 2015
6:57 Minutes
Michael Peroutka at the Kim Davis Rally 09/05/15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otxuM6RdvvM
Actually neither. We have three separate branches, with separate powers, but they are not intended to be equal. Congress, when unified, has the ultimate power. They can impeach the others. They can limit the jurisdiction of the supreme court by statute. They can defund. They were intended to be more powerful because they directly represented the people and the states. The other two branches are a check on Congress, but not equal.
> Doesn’t she have to the duty to obey a legal order from the court?
The judge who imprisoned her for contempt of court ordered her to violate law, which she refused to do. The judge’s order was illegal. Illegal orders must not be complied with.
We sure wouldn’t know this given the nature of the Congress now have.
The judge who imprisoned her for contempt of court ordered her to violate law, which she refused to do. The judge’s order was illegal. Illegal orders must not be complied with.
_________
Agreed! And Huckabee made that point. Check out the video from the rally on Saturday in post #2.
Here is the rally info:
Tuesday at 3:00 PM ET....Ya’all come on over...
Kim Davis supporters have been calling, emailing, and using social media to ask, “What can I do to help Kim?” Liberty Counsel has already heard from pastors who are sending buses of supporters to the rally on Tuesday. If you are near Kentucky, here is a great opportunity to stand against judicial tyranny and the unlawful imprisonment of Kim. Join us on
Tuesday, September 8, at 3:00 p.m.!”
Tues., Sept. 8, 2015 at 3:00 PM ET
Carter County Detention Center
13 Crossbar Road, Grayson, KY
You beat me to it. The court can order you to obey a law, but in Kim Davis case there is no law to obey. The judge is a tyrant and should be impeached.
I support Mrs. Kim Davis and admire her stand on “right and wrong” and refusing to put her name on the bottom of the marriage papers that clearly state one man and one women. I see that the lefties are already digging into her personal life, e.g. “she’e been married 3 times, and she had 2 children out of wedlock, etc, etc.” Also there is a muslim air line stewardess that was fired for refusing to serve Alcohol because it’s against her religious beliefs, of course CAIR has already filed a suit and knowing our humble government, I’m sure they will turn themselves inside out to accommodate her... she is after all a muslim and we can’t infringe on any of their religious beliefs. And I surely want to know what will happen to a judge out in Washington State on the left coast who has refused to wed homosexuals, surely he will go to jail as well......but I’m not going to hold my breath. Mrs. Davis broke NO LAW, period! I just have a feeling that this situation is going to grow some very long legs.
I support Mrs. Kim Davis and admire her stand on “right and wrong” and refusing to put her name on the bottom of the marriage papers that clearly state one man and one women. I see that the lefties are already digging into her personal life, e.g. “she’e been married 3 times, and she had 2 children out of wedlock, etc, etc.” Also there is a muslim air line stewardess that was fired for refusing to serve Alcohol because it’s against her religious beliefs, of course CAIR has already filed a suit and knowing our humble government, I’m sure they will turn themselves inside out to accommodate her... she is after all a muslim and we can’t infringe on any of their religious beliefs. And I surely want to know what will happen to a judge out in Washington State on the left coast who has refused to wed homosexuals, surely he will go to jail as well......but I’m not going to hold my breath. Mrs. Davis broke NO LAW, period! I just have a feeling that this situation is going to grow some very long legs.
I know Huck’s poison here on FR but he’s doing good work on this.
Huck is the only one doing more then talking. Where are all the rest of the candidates that say they support Kim? Other than Huck we just get talking points. Screw that.
I know Huck’s poison here on FR but he’s doing good work on this.
_______
Huck made some great points in the interview AND he did not let George cut him off at the end. The last part of what he said is SO important about how the process works after a judicial ruling.
quote from the transcript:
let me give you an example. When I was governor, we — no, let me finish this, because it’s very important.
When I was governor, we had a Supreme Court case on school finance that said we were inadequate and inequitable. They ruled. I read the ruling. I agreed with it. I knew it was right.
But I didn’t just sit out at my desk and start writing new checks to school districts. We had to go back to the legislature, come up with a school funding formula. It was passed. I signed it. And then we ordered the Department of Education to send checks. We are bypassing the process when we have one branch of government acting as it has authority over the other two. And what I’m coming back to — and I — I think people are missing this — either we live under the rule of law, which is a three branch, checks and balances system of government, or we end up with what I think was so powerful when Lincoln said this — and I want to read this.
Huckabee sure has this one right!
It’s not going to help, Huck. Next year isn’t going to be your year.
We most definitely do NOT have 3 CO-EQUAL branches.
Congress is primary. SCOTUS is last.
http://www.creators.com/conservative/joseph-farah/lesson-for-a-constitutional-scholar.html
Huckabee plays a mean bass and is straight up hardcore on almost all issues.
His pardoning of scumbag felons is problematic but logical in terms of how his brand of of Christianity influences him.
DAVIS NEEDS TO BE RELEASED IMMEDIATELY.
Any Candidate not on board that train by tomorrow is going to have a serious problem.
That's exactly right. Thank you.
The Federalist #78
“Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.”
— Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist #78
The Huckster!
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.