When “the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution is egregiously wrong,” the president should refuse to follow it.
Those two statements were made roughly 60 years apart. The first is from segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace (D). The second was made by two liberal professors this month.
What if "Conservatives" are in the minority? In my opinion, we have no duty to obey/follow unjust laws. There is much precedent for that. That is why I choose to be "peaceful" rather than "law abiding." However, to paraphrase the meme, do you want civil war? Because this is how you get civil war...
ReplyDeleteMaybe Ray Ban Joe's public statement about "To Take On Government 'You Need F-15's And Maybe Some Nuclear Weapons" might be the foundation for these progressives feeling froggy and pressing Joe to stomp on the constitution.
DeleteWhy not, bogside? It's not like Joe's got that much time left as pResident or on the green side of the grass.
DeleteRick, If he croaks the Dems will have him burried in his Corvette with some classified documents. Then he'll win in 2024 because the election process is corrupt worse than 2020 and he'll roll out as an Obama sockpuppet hologram thanks to Gates & Zuckerberg created A.I.
DeleteThe path described here is one where the second shot heard round the world takes place.
ReplyDeleteI regularly ignore and resist any federal law or order I find unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteSo democrats haven't changed in at least 60 years, although we know its been longer.
ReplyDeleteJust like the Dems tried to ignore Brown v Board of Education all those years.
DeleteI fully agree with that second statement. The courts do not have any special constitutionally specified duty to interpret the constitution and determine if a particular act is in conformity.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, the exact opposite is true. EVERY member of congress, as well as the judges and the president, have taken an OATH to obey protect, uphold, support etc (I'm fuzzy on the exact wording.) the constitution. That in turn implies that the president has not just the right, but the DUTY to ignore unconstitutional "laws".
Now if any of those bastards would uphold their oath. Or if enough of the citizens would uphold THEIR oath to throw the bastards out when they don't, we wouldn't be were we are now, would we?
John G
John G, look up Marbury versus Madison. It established the precedent of the Supreme Court's judicial review. The SC is supposed to interpret the constitutionality of laws, but they often use pretzel logic to do so. Roe V Wade was one of those times, as is the "anchor baby" idea.
ReplyDelete