Posted on 05/07/2015 7:36:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
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.