On the bright side, did you ever think you'd see the day when not one, but two Republican presidential candidates would actually sound - in public! -like listeners of a certain weekend radio program that is destined to explode on the national scene?
First Huck....:
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. [emphases added]
....then Dr. Carson:
“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.“
On the not so bright side, do either of them really mean what they're saying? About Huckles I have my doubts, but I think the good physician is probably sincere, which only serves to illustrate that Huck is a pro and Carson is a rank amateur. Or you could say that their spot-on candor on the unconstitutionalism of Judicial Review reveals that both men know they have zero chance at the GOP nomination, much less the presidency itself, and so feel free to say what they really believe, unencumbered by any political considerations. Kind of a variation on the "scales fall from their eyes once they leave office" phenomenon.
On the dark side, check out Allahpundit's balking and citations of same from across the political spectrum. Chief Justice John Marshall's 1803 usurpation in Marbury v. Madison is, indeed, unconstitutional, but it's also been entrenched and growing cancerously for the 212 years since. Rolling it back, as with every other aspect and facet of the federal government, will be the work of generations, the iffy result of near-future collapses, and will not be aided by electable conservative presidential contenders being too explicitly candid about what the Constitution actually states. Which is why it's no biggie that Gomer and the Doc are doing just that. Might even provide cover for Governor Walker to win and then do more than just talk about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment