[mylife]

Precedent has been set.

Why attack our own?

[Road Glide]

“’Precedent has been set.
Why attack our own?”

Old saying:
“Two wrongs don’t make a right”.

Ever heard of it?

[so_real]

Precedent has been set. Why attack our own?

#1) If we don't hold ourselves to a higher standard, we appear as hypocritical to those with no standards -- and rightfully so.

#2) It is not an attack to encourage our good men and women to attain offices they are rightfully eligible to hold, and discourage them from seeking offices they are not.

[Springfield Reformer]

Because breach of the law is not binding precedent. True, over the course of time, a law can be so completely ignored that it has no practical effect. For example, it is against the law to play cards on Sunday in Alabama. Good luck getting that one enforced. But it is still valid law.

And that’s the point. “Rule of law” means we treat everyone equally under the law and don’t make exceptions except by legal means (amending the Constitution, for example). I am not taking a position on the Cruz eligibility question. What I am saying is it delegitimizes all our lofty claims to be upset over Obama’s flagrant disregard of the law we say we cherish, if we turn around ourselves and disregard that same law for one of our own. That is devolving to a nation of men, not laws, and such lawlessness is the taproot of tyranny.