Posted on 05/07/2015 7:36:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Via TPM, I did not foresee “let’s revisit Marbury v. Madison” emerging as a minor theme of the primary. But between Carson and Huckabee it’s already a hot race to see who can pander the hardest to social cons over the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. Huck ante’d up recently with this comment:
In Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King, Jr. makes the case there comes a time when people of conscience have a moral obligation to practice civil disobedience against “unjust laws.” Do you agree with that? For example, is there anything a court could try and impose upon you as a president that you morally would refuse to comply with?
Dr. King’s letter quoted extensively St. Augustine, who developed the doctrine of just and unjust laws. And the necessity to not abide by unjust laws, which as Augustine and King both concurred, “Are not laws at all.” Court decisions that defy the Constitution, or the laws of nature or nature’s God, do not constitute a legal or moral obligation to comply. In addition, the Constitution doesn’t recognize a court—any court, including the Supreme Court—as having absolute power to make a law. In fact, the false doctrine of “judicial supremacy” is in itself unconstitutional, and defies the balance and separation of powers clearly outlined in our law. Unless the people’s representatives pass enabling legislation and a president signs and agrees to enforce it, there IS no law.
Not true, and it’s politically silly for him to take that tack knowing that he may eventually face a national electorate that now supports gay marriage on balance. Even worse, the prospect of another governor from Arkansas creating a constitutional crisis by refusing to enforce a constitutional ruling of the Supreme Court has earned him comparisons to Orval Faubus even among righties, including George Will just last night on Fox News. The Federal Marriage Amendment was never going to happen but at least it’s a procedurally orthodox response to SSM being legalized. Huckabee trying to reinvent the wheel about presidential duties following a Fourteenth Amendment ruling is … not orthodox.
But Carson’s competing for the same voters and can’t be outdone, so here you go.
“First of all, we have to understand how the Constitution works. The president is required to carry out the laws of the land, the laws of the land come from the legislative branch,” Carson said on Tuesday. “So if the legislative branch creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has a responsibly to carry it out. It doesn’t say they have the responsibility to carry out a judicial law. And that’s something we need to talk about.“
That’s why I said “hints” in the headline instead of “vows” — even an amateur pol like Carson won’t explicitly commit to refusing to enforce a Supreme Court decision, although that’s clearly what he’s implying. Makes me wonder how he and Huck would approach Supreme Court rulings on subjects more mundane than whether gay marriage should be legal coast to coast. If Court rulings are really just advisory opinions about how the president should behave, then we were all way, waaaaay too invested in that ObamaCare mandate decision a few years ago. Obama already feels free to ignore Congress when it suits him. Let’s encourage him to ignore SCOTUS rulings that he doesn’t like either, I guess.
Not surprisingly, the other formidable social con in the race has a much stronger legal background than Huckabee or Carson and is tailoring his solutions to gay marriage accordingly, with a procedurally sound (albeit still doomed to fail) attempt to amend the Constitution.
Sorry dude, but the President does not get to pick and choose what laws to enforce...
Mixed feelings about this as a president who doesn’t enforce a law or one that zelously enforces a specific law isn’t doing our system of government justice.
A president should ideally enforce (through the attn general office) all laws as equally as they can.
Shouldn’t be able to. That is certain.
Obama defies existing law and a Judge's order on illegal immigration.
HotAir’s been going a little soft on some issues lately. Or is it just me? It could be.
Anyways, my man is Cruz. I agree with him the most on the most issues.
RE: Mixed feelings about this as a president who doesn’t enforce a law
So, it is a law because the Supreme Court says so, and not because it was legislated?
Sorry dude, but whether the occupant of the White House gets to pick and choose what laws to enforce depends on skin color. The usurper gets to make that choice, and Ben Carson has the same level of melanin. Shouldn’t that permit Dr. Carson to be just as lawless as the communist thug?
His 2nd amendment stance already killed his chances whether he rearacted or clarified. He’d still make an excellent addition to the WH staff tho...
That’s true, according to our Constitution,
but I’d sure like to see ‘bammer’s tactics shoved right back down the left’s collective throat.
[ RE: Mixed feelings about this as a president who doesn’t enforce a law
So, it is a law because the Supreme Court says so, and not because it was legislated? ]
Well, we do somewhat live under Judicial Tyranny....
I loathe the supreme court meddling in things they shouldn’t be, but should the executive branch then counter more tyranny with even more tyranny????
For over 200 years....Presidents have picked and chosen laws to enforce or to skip. Nothing new here.
Early in American history, the President and Congress interpreted the constitution much more than the Court—it was more concerned with constitutional interpretations concerning its own operations. The current judicial tyranny is mostly due to congress failing to live up to its responsibility to govern.
The Supreme Court does not get to make laws.
Well O’ led the way on this but I suspect that unlike O’ Carson would be fighting against his bureaucracy.
Speaking from a guy who says we don’t need guns to defend ourselves?
The President is perfectly within his constitutional powers, should a state or local case about this issue reach SCOTUS, to tell his AG to just sit this one out.
Same thing goes for abortion.
And that's about all the President can do on his own regarding either issue.
Obama and Holder excluded of course
I don’t really see how Carson and Fiorina, in as the lone black and female, really help the white, male GOPe as they think they will.
Fiorina is actually good in these contexts, but IMO they both come across as tokens, which tends to backfire more than help.
What law would he not be enforcing? The SC decision would be based entirely on state-level legalities, as the cases involve state laws or state constitutions banning homo marriage. If the SC tries to say the Fed judges stricking it down are correct, there’s still no Fed law that the President would be involved in enforcing.
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.