Here’s the second on this topic for today — as I said on the first one, a president must understand the U.S. Constitution — if they don’t, they have no business serving as the chief executive as outlined in Article II. Here is Steve Deace writing about what he calls the “Kim Davis saga“:
Given the unprecedented assaults the Left had already foisted upon the First Amendment in a post-Windsor/Obergefell world, all of the campaigns were already on notice that religious liberty was going to be one of the primary litmus tests of this primary. Yet even with that foreknowledge, it still didn’t stop several Republican presidential candidates from botching the issue already.
But the story of the Kentucky county clerk, who remains indefinitely incarcerated without a trial despite the fact she violated no actual law anywhere on the books, is the first real game-changing moment in this campaign. It has galvanized and radicalized the GOP’s still massive social conservative base, which was already engaged after a summer of macabre Planned Parenthood videos exposing the death merchant’s blood lust for dismembered baby parts.
…
Davis is the Left’s test case to see just how much statism we are willing to tolerate. Will we put up with our fellow Americans being thrown in jail for refusing to assent to the Left’s lawlessness on this or any issue? What if they decide tomorrow that the Second Amendment is now as irrelevant as the First Amendment? Do we just turn in our guns under threat of imprisonment? Pick a God-given right, any God-given right for that matter, and apply this particular paradigm to it.
What the Left is really testing here is our resolve, which then begs a series of questions every single GOP presidential candidate better be prepared to answer.
What are you willing to say no to? Is there anything these progressive justices could conjure up from the darkest recesses of their bowels and put to paper that we would disregard? Is there any affront to decency and liberty they could demand of us that we would refuse?
…
Some on our side would argue using the presidency as a check-and-balance against this renegade lawlessness plays right into it, but the exact opposite is true. To insist that both the executive and legislative branches finally fulfill their constitutional obligations, in the face of such a long train of abuses, is the precise way we restore the rule of law in our form of government. Playing by unwritten rules of false piety and decorum while the Left goes out there and ruthlessly breaks all of the actual written ones isn’t constitutional restraint. It’s constitutional malfeasance.
Read more: Conservative Review
Image credit: facebook.com.
