Posted on 12/04/2015 6:56:03 AM PST by Isara
Presidents don't make laws, or decide which laws to enforce or not enforce, either. Lincoln may have correctly believed that the courts should operate within the confines of the Constitution but, like the current occupier of the presidency, he did not adhere to the constitutional limits of the executive branch and that conversation should be had as well when discussing judicial limitations.
Not directly.
George: "..... Was Lincoln right to defy the court on that, and would you, as president, do that with the Obergefell decision?"
Cruz: "Lincoln was absolutely right. I agree with President Lincoln and courts do not make law. That is not what a court does. The court interprets the law, applies the law, but courts don't make law....."
OK, that’s what I thought. It would be quite a headline if he stated it directly.
Exactly. An Extreme Court could declare “geometric equality,” that square are equal to circles in every way, and no one would be obligated to honor the opinion in the least.
I'd be very leery about believing ANY of the push polls published over the past several years. This might sound like conspiracy convention talk, but MOST of the "news" today is fake, if not in the facts, then in the SPIN of the facts and omissions.
Consider that not one state was able to roll back a marriage amendment that they passed, usually by large margins. Not even California, where the marriage redefinitionists cancelled plans to do just this out of lack of support.
Marriage vandals could not win at the ballot boxes, the ULTIMATE polls, and so had to rely on a relatively tiny, carefully installed oligarchy to do what polls would not support.
Yep.
Or, as I like to say: If the court declared up to be down, and down to be up, when you go ahead and jump off eighty foot cliffs, the rocks at the bottom won’t care what the court says or thinks.
Hey I agree. My own faith doesn’t recognize civil divorce and remarriage as legitimate. But to the state in the modern era marriage has always only ever been whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority think it is at any one time, it doesn’t have any other way to define it.
But many rightly complain about judicial over-reach but don’t think about the probable eventual universal acceptance of ‘gay marriage’ either by state legislature or popular vote.
Freegards
Right but irrelevant. Courts do dictate law and by the same token the Executive branch nullifies laws by refusing to enforce, or selectively enforce them. We need Governors to stand up and refuse the illegal mandates that come down from the Fed and until they do it doesn't matter. We are subjects bound by the whims off the king not citizens.
Maybe not obligated but they could be forced.
Yes, but obviously that "pure prescient genius" is not perfect. And it probably never can be.
To state the obvious, that the powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people is in fact genius, were it not subject to any "interpretation" to the contrary. That is what "opinion" means. Then potential chaos ensues.
An extreme example would be a state which is entitled to define marriage as anything it chooses. The impact on adjacent states which has different rules is certain. That was exactly what was intended.
A further extreme example is if a state chooses to define a gay union as marriage by popular consensus, is it empowered generations later to rule that they are not? Would that invalidate the previous "marriages" or maintain them, but prohibit future ones?
That these contradictions are never debated for the record is a major (unavoidable) fault in our system.
But debating those pitfalls is always useful. Just as obvious is the context of the subject discussed, at the time the document was created. It is not an impossible task to determine what that context was, both in language and accepted behavior. Some implicit foundation existed, and were considered explicit, even if unstated.
The immutable Bill of Rights reinforces that assumption. It is not subject to modification. Otherwise, the mythical Constitution as a suicide pact would be inevitable.
This discussion is fascinating, and certainly overdue, and the tyranny of the judiciary is but a small part of it.
Yeah, they could force auto makers to create square wheels, all in the interest of “equality.”
“A further extreme example is if a state chooses to define a gay union as marriage by popular consensus, is it empowered generations later to rule that they are not?”
Yes, that can happen. Legislatures are sovereign. Laws passed by a previous legislature can be enhanced or nullified by a future legislature.
“We need Governors to stand up and refuse the illegal mandates that come down from the Fed and until they do it doesn’t matter.”
Conservative/patriot legislatures can pass the proper laws to give a governor the power to resist federal intrusions on the rights of states. IMO, conservatives waste too much time trying to change the criminal fascist syndicate occupying Washington via elections. We elect so-called conservatives to DC and they betray us.
Cruz is correct, and this is why he has what it takes to be President.
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.