Tag Archives: Election 2016

Op-Eds

Can the President Ignore the Supreme Court?

Leave a comment
U.S. Supreme Court building.
U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Ben Carson is the longest of long shots in the Republican Party’s 2016 presidential nomination contest.  A distinguished neurosurgeon, Carson captured the hearts of many conservatives with his comments at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast, in which he positioned himself as pretty much the exact opposite of US president Barack Obama.

We won’t see him onstage accepting his party’s nomination next summer. He’s one of those interesting combinations — political novice and snappy-answer gadfly — who just can’t compete in the money and endorsements game and usually end up finding they don’t connect very well with voters, either.

But those same difficulties also liberate him to pose tough questions and step on the third rails that more experienced politicians carefully avoid. Like this one:

Is the Supreme Court really constitutionally empowered to review laws passed by Congress, veto those laws if it deems them unconstitutional, and order the president of the United States to act accordingly?

It’s a good question, albeit one most people considered long settled. Carson brought it up on Fox News Sunday. “The laws of the land, according to our Constitution, are provided by the legislative branch. The laws of the land are not provided by the judiciary branch …. We need to get into a discussion of this because it has changed from the original intent. It is an open question.”

The Court first set aside a law as unconstitutional in 1794. In 1804 Chief Justice John Marshall formalized that power in Marbury v. Madison.

Ever since, with few exceptions (Andrew Jackson ignored the Court’s ruling against forcibly moving the Cherokee; Abraham Lincoln ignored Chief Justice Taney’s Civil War ruling that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus), presidents have generally acknowledged the Court’s authority.

I’ve heard reasonable arguments that the framers intended to empower the Court to review statutes for constitutionality, and that they didn’t. It’s worth considering the plain text of Article III of the Constitution, which empowers the court over “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.”

Since the Constitution declares itself “the supreme Law of the Land,” it seems to me that the justices can’t avoid weighing subordinate laws in light of that “supreme law” and setting aside those which violate it. If they’re not, per Article III, empowered to do exactly that, what’s the purpose of an independent judiciary?

While the Constitution does not itself mention “checks and balances,” the framers did. They set the Supreme Court on an equal level with Congress and the presidency for a reason. The three branches restrain each other. Not always and never perfectly, but the Court has on many occasions proven itself a worthy last resort in defense of our liberties.

When it comes to restraining government, I’d much rather see the power of the imperial presidency curtailed.  Hearing him pose this question makes me glad that Carson, who seems to style himself a George W. Bush style “decider,” will never have the opportunity to test his theory of the Court’s role.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

America’s Not Ready for Hillary

5 Comments
Before the release, American Secretary of Stat...
Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Hillary Rodham Clinton will not be the next president of the United States. She won’t even be the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nominee. Risky as it is to place one’s bets 18 months ahead of an election, I’m confident in those two predictions.

Why?

Well, the scandals, real and imagined, that have dogged her and her husband’s heels at every turn since the 1992 election cycle — from Whitewater to Vince Foster’s death to “bimbo eruptions” — don’t help.  Her handling of them helps even less, and the fuse is burning down on a big one: A forthcoming book by Peter Schweizer on the Clinton family foundation’s finances.

The charity is hard at work right now, massaging its old tax returns to correct “errors in reporting donations from foreign governments.” Good luck “correcting” what looks a lot like a straightforward $2.3 million bribe from Russia (with love) to then Secretary of State Clinton for approval of a sensitive uranium deal.

But it’s not financial hijinks, tall tales about Bosnian sniper fire, shrugging deflections of responsibility for American deaths in Benghazi, or even her Nixonian, and undeniably criminal, actions in controlling, concealing and destroying official emails as Secretary of State that sound the death knell for her presidential aspirations.

The real problem is that nobody seems to be able to think of any good reason why she should be elected president. Even among those Americans who are okay with politicians running their lives, there’s no great stampede on to let THIS politician run their lives. Maybe that’s because she so clearly relishes the idea.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is famous for being famous. “Power behind the throne” talk aside, she married a future president, rode his coattails to a safe Democrat US Senate seat in which she served without distinction (other than voting for the USA PATRIOT ACT and the invasion of Iraq, neither of which are exactly high points on a presidential resume these days), lost her “inevitable” 2008 Democratic presidential nomination to a freshman US Senator virtually unknown four years before, and kept the needle on her tenure as Secretary of State floating between lackluster and embarrassing.

America has a bad case of Hillary fatigue. And where her presidential ambitions are concerned, the affliction is terminal.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that the alternatives, Democrat and Republican alike, aren’t any better. Even the most allegedly “libertarian” of the pack, US Senator Rand Paul, seems a lot more interested in power than in freedom.

If we all write in “None of the Above” a year from this coming November, will the politicians leave us alone for four years? Of course they won’t. But we can daydream, can’t we?

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Note to Media: Please Stop Calling Rand Paul a Libertarian

7 Comments
English: United States Senate candidate , at a...
Rand Paul at a town hall meeting in Louisville, Kentucky during his 2010 campaign for US Senate. (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore/Wikipedia)

“They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross,” Rand Paul said in 2010 during his Republican primary campaign for US Senate, “but I’m not a libertarian.”

Paul prevailed, beating GOP establishment favorite Trey Grayson in the Republican primary and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway in the general election. Now he’s preparing a 2016 presidential campaign and everyone, Paul included, seems to want to forget that disclaimer.

But it was true then and it’s true now. Rand Paul is no libertarian.

What is he? Among other things, the poster child for adopting a strict “no backsies” rule in American presidential politics.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com puts his finger on the problem with Paul: “For the life of me, I can’t figure out what he really believes — where he really stands, especially when it comes to foreign policy.”

Paul wants to avoid war with Iran. No, wait, he’s for wrecking any chance of avoiding war with Iran. No, wait, he just wants to “negotiate from a position of strength” with Iran — by signing a letter telling the Iranians that the US can’t be trusted to stick to its agreements.

Paul supports “respectful” relations with Russia, because unlike other politicians he understands that the Cold War is over. No, wait, maybe it isn’t over after all. We need to “isolate” Russia and “punish” Vladimir Putin.

Paul supports eliminating foreign aid, including aid to Israel (because strings attached to that aid tie Benjamin Netanyahu’s hands). No, wait, let’s just freeze foreign aid at current levels. No, wait, let’s increase foreign aid to Israel.

Paul opposes US airstrikes on Islamic State forces. No, wait, he supports airstrikes on Islamic State forces.

Paul opposes abortion, except when he doesn’t. Paul opposes same-sex marriage, except maybe not. Paul opposes marijuana legalization, except when he thinks it might be OK.

Libertarians argue constantly over what it means to be a libertarian. I bet I’ve heard a hundred definitions. All of those definitions describe consistent defenders of liberty. None of them describes someone who always says whatever he thinks the crowd he’s talking to wants to hear.

Some of Paul’s defenders claim he’s a “stealth libertarian,” pretending to be a conservative — but that once he’s in White House, he’ll reveal his true principles. They’re selling a pig in a poke. Buyer beware!

What is Rand Paul? A politician. A chameleon. A pander bear. The 2016 edition of Mitt Romney (you may remember how that turned out for Republicans).

Rand Paul is many things, but one thing he’s consistently not is a libertarian. Please stop calling him that.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY