Ben Carson: Federal Government Doesn’t Have To Recognize SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling
[su_publirb]
The Supreme Court hasn’t even ruled yet, and Ben Carson is so nervous he’s already declared that the ruling can be ignored. Does this also apply if they refute gay marriage?
Carson said that the federal government does not need to recognize a Supreme Court decision on gay marriage because the president is only obligated to recognize laws passed by Congress, not judicial rulings.
“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. “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.”
He also added that members of the judiciary should have term limits in order to “adjust with the times.”
[su_facebook]
[su_center_ad]
William May 6th, 2015 at 2:09 pm
This has so far, been a banner week for GOP theatrics and general “clownery”.
granpa.usthai May 7th, 2015 at 12:40 am
WTF is the drunk driver lost in the tundra when you need her?
still driving around trying to find out who she is, eh?
Larry Schmitt May 6th, 2015 at 2:32 pm
It’s incredible that a man with so much education can be so stark raving stupid. He has no idea how the government works, and he wants to be in charge? How can he stop from laughing when he looks at himself in the mirror?
Suzanne McFly May 6th, 2015 at 3:16 pm
I don’t think he is stupid, but he is banking on the fact that many republican primary voters are.
Larry Schmitt May 6th, 2015 at 3:27 pm
It’s a natural assumption, based on the stupid things he says.
Suzanne McFly May 6th, 2015 at 3:59 pm
Definitely
tracey marie May 6th, 2015 at 3:37 pm
He is stupid concerning anything out of the operating room. His “knowledge” is based on his interpretation of the bible and how he feels it should apply to our country and it’s laws.
thinkingwomanmillstone May 6th, 2015 at 4:58 pm
They are not mutually exclusive. There’s plenty of stupid to go around in the republican party.
whatthe46 May 7th, 2015 at 12:07 am
well, aren’t they?
burqa May 8th, 2015 at 5:04 am
Indeed.
Carson is feeling his way in the dark, trying to figure out how to be idiotic enough to win the Right Wing Dunce Contest. So far he hasn’t even broken into the top 27 or so.
Maybe if he got a bonk on the head from a cartoon-sized mallet or something….
fahvel May 6th, 2015 at 4:12 pm
why do you suppose he has an education – all his statements suggest he was asleep at the wheel during what he calls school. The man is a ineffectual cypher.
Larry Schmitt May 6th, 2015 at 4:42 pm
He’s a doctor. He had to get at least one medical degree. That’s all I meant. He obviously didn’t learn anything that didn’t directly relate to his medical occupation. Most people would learn enough by accident to avoid saying most of the crap he has said.
granpa.usthai May 7th, 2015 at 12:35 am
oh yeah?
well all Albert was really good at was splitting atoms and theories about relatives and stuff.
You know how tiny an atom is?
well it ain’t all that big, but when it gets cut in two – it really grows
and Fast!
Maxx44 May 6th, 2015 at 2:42 pm
So, this clown who claims to represent the “rule of law” party, is already advocating breaking the law? You can’t make this stuff up.
Warman1138 May 6th, 2015 at 4:00 pm
Ben Carson wants to be a fearless leader sooooooo bad……. that’s exactly how he’s going about it…..badly.
David Lloyd-Jones May 6th, 2015 at 5:46 pm
Maybe run for Dog Catcher — on a platform of a local exception for rabid dogs.
-dlj.
granpa.usthai May 7th, 2015 at 12:30 am
by what authority?
David Lloyd-Jones May 8th, 2015 at 5:16 pm
Granpa,
Hunh?
Are you suggesting a Republican dog catcher wouldn’t pick and choose which dogs to run in?
Cheers,
-dlj.
John Carpenter May 8th, 2015 at 10:10 am
From the 9Marks blog where you revealed that you’re a totalitarian:
I didn’t make any “infantile insults.” I’m sorry that you don’t like being (correctly) identified as a totalitarian. The cure for that is that you stop being a totalitarian, not that you object to the identification. I suspect if you could have your way, you’d prohibit people from correctly identifying you.
First, the “law of the land” in the USA is the constitution which protects the “free exercise of religion”. That means that Christians (among others) cannot be compelled to do that which is contrary to their faith — like providing material support to perversion.
Second, the idea that “public access” laws apply to homosexuals is false. They were originally devised to protect African-Americans against racism. No one chooses to be black; it is an inherent condition. Being identified as a homosexual, however, is a result of choosing to engage in homosexual activity. Someone else’s choice to engage in immoral behavior does not put on me the obligation to help them celebrate that choice.
Third, even if the constitution didn’t give freedom of religion and even if it wasn’t a choice to engage in homosexual activity that was the issue, in this case “public access” laws are still not being violated because the caker bakers (etc) are not refusing to serve the people but a particular event (a homosexual mock-wedding). A Jewish delicatessen shouldn’t be compelled to cater a Nazi banquet. It is people who have civil rights, not events.
Fourth, what you are really doing then, is misusing the laws (absurdly) in order to oppress people you don’t like, namely Christians.
didi May 8th, 2015 at 5:09 pm
What does your red herring have to do with the issue at hand namely whether a US president can ignore a ruling by the US Supreme Court which forbids the execution of a law? If you cannot stay on topic stay out of the discussion.
David Lloyd-Jones May 8th, 2015 at 5:14 pm
Yawn…
Any Jewish Delicatessen I know would be overjoyed to cater a Nazi banquet, assuming you could find any Nazis with two shekels to rub together.
If they didn’t you jus’ knoowww the largely Jewish ACLU would be all over their case.
-dlj.
majii May 6th, 2015 at 4:48 pm
Carson should have been one of my civics and U.S. history students. When I required my students to learn all parts of the Constitution, they complained and said it wasn’t necessary. One of my students who completed law school at Harvard returned to visit the school and told me that my in-depth focus on the Constitution helped him have some rudimentary understanding of the Constitution before he entered law school. Carson is an expert in performing brain surgery, but he earns a grade of “F” in civics and U.S. history from this former social studies teacher.
What makes his ignorance particularly offensive to me is that he spreads this misinformation with a straight face, convincing millions that a U.S. president is above the law when it comes to complying with decisions handed down by the Supreme Ct. An essential component/feature/principle of the American system of jurisprudence is the rule of law which states that no one in the U.S. is above the law. Carson should be reading “U.S. History and Civics for Dummies” instead of pretending that his opinions have the force of law. They don’t. He’s a damn embarrassment and doesn’t know it.
John Carpenter May 8th, 2015 at 10:12 am
First, the “law of the land” in the USA is the constitution which protects the “free exercise of religion”. That means that Christians (among others) cannot be compelled to do that which is contrary to their faith — like providing material support to perversion.
Second, the idea that “public access” laws apply to homosexuals is false. They were originally devised to protect African-Americans against racism. No one chooses to be black; it is an inherent condition. Being identified as a homosexual, however, is a result of choosing to engage in homosexual activity. Someone else’s choice to engage in immoral behavior does not put on me the obligation to help them celebrate that choice.
Third, even if the constitution didn’t give freedom of religion and even if it wasn’t a choice to engage in homosexual activity that was the issue, in this case “public access” laws are still not being violated because the caker bakers (etc) are not refusing to serve the people but a particular event (a homosexual mock-wedding). A Jewish delicatessen shouldn’t be compelled to cater a Nazi banquet. It is people who have civil rights, not events.
didi May 8th, 2015 at 5:15 pm
It is not up to you nor to legislators but to courts of law to define what “free exercise of religion” is. Got it? I doubt that.
Jaime Pereira May 11th, 2015 at 11:35 am
If there were any truth to your flawed fanatical christian logic, all business transactions would cease and the economy would collapse. You see, we are all sinners. In god’s eyes (yes, that goes in small caps) all sin is equal, therefore, if there was such a thing as sin, homosexuality would be no worse than stealing a paper clip, committing adultery or lying. Baking a cake or serving an adulterer, a cheat or a liar in a restaurant doesn’t, in any way shape or form, interfere with the waiter’s or establishment owner’s beliefs or their ability to exercise their religion, go to church or tithe. Neither does it happen when the client is a homosexual. By the way, you neanderthal nitwit, sodomy includes many things, and that means, amongst other things, anal and oral sex between heterosexual couples (or any other thing that it is unnatural), therefore, unless you live a boring sex life you are also a sodomite (at least), but you are without a shadow of a doubt a “sinner” like the rest of the world and therefore, you should also be denied service anywhere. “Christians” want to turn homosexuality in the worst of all sins. They want to put it in its own category because it butt-hurts their sensibilities, and they think it’s gross, so they want to be able to to discriminate. Lastly, I still don’t see why in this day and age, people cannot fathom the possibility of a genetic trait, such as sexual attraction towards the opposite gender, being changed and thus there being a possibility of at least some cases of homosexuals being born that way. In a world riddled with cases of children being born with cerebral palsy, Anencephaly, Autism, Conjoined twins, cleft palates, and even intersexed children, we should at least be open to such a possibility. Oh, but of course, we can’t do that because we have an archaic book of dubious origins which has been shoved down or throats as holy from generation to generation, and that is always better than reasoning and logic. If everyone was like you, dude, the wheel would have yet to be invented.
David Lloyd-Jones May 6th, 2015 at 5:45 pm
Yes, Doctor Carson. And what do you think about Plessy vs. Ferguson?
-dlj.
OldLefty May 6th, 2015 at 5:47 pm
It’s really sad that this guy has gone from a well respected icon to a clown.
ExPFCWintergreen May 6th, 2015 at 8:10 pm
Isn’t it a little early in the season to be reaching Peak Derp? I mean, there’s a lot of shekels this yahoo can still squeeze out of the rubes before he implodes.
Dwendt44 May 7th, 2015 at 6:04 pm
Ya there has to be a way for a candidate to make a bundle by running for president. Most of the 20+ Republican possibles should know they aren’t going to get anywhere close to the White House, unless they are taking a tour.
RenderMan May 6th, 2015 at 8:17 pm
I suppose I can agree with term limits for SCOTUS, but as for that other inane drivel… yeah, no.
allison1050 May 6th, 2015 at 8:35 pm
Alright so now we know he failed high school civics.
labman57 May 6th, 2015 at 9:01 pm
Carson is as clueless about the U.S. Constitution and how our government works as he is about foreign policy and world affairs.
Dr. Ben should stick to discussing neurosurgery. On all other matters, he is clearly out of his depth.
whatthe46 May 7th, 2015 at 12:04 am
i wouldn’t let that freak get near my toast with a plastic knife, let alone my body.
granpa.usthai May 7th, 2015 at 12:16 am
In the Old Testament Days he would be a witch.
whatthe46 May 7th, 2015 at 12:26 am
oooh you should send that to him. wait, black and a brain surgeon? yep. witch.
Dwendt44 May 7th, 2015 at 6:02 pm
More likely a slave.
whatthe46 May 7th, 2015 at 8:52 pm
i can’t stand that damn parasite.
Obewon May 6th, 2015 at 9:34 pm
Birther Ben on SCOTUS anointing George Jr in Bush v Gore: ‘Alito & C.J. Roberts you’re Fired!’ “…because the president (then Clinton42) is only obligated to recognize laws passed by congress, not judicial rulings.” VP Gore won more votes, so we’ll rollback GWB and bill Big Oil for W’s $18 T+ tab!
Ben never read or comprehended USA’s 4 page Constitution: “Article III. Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”-Article III proves early retired Carson is a functionally illiterate non compos mentis. https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag1_user.html
tracey marie May 6th, 2015 at 10:36 pm
you rock
Obewon May 6th, 2015 at 11:36 pm
TYVM:) New rules: Well if repub candidates could pass a 3 day psychiatric HC checkup, they wouldn’t be running as Republicans now would they! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uqjznmTp80
granpa.usthai May 7th, 2015 at 12:05 am
not too sure about that, Obie. Remember the Kow farmer in Nevada who says the Federal Government don’t exist to him?
Hirightnow May 6th, 2015 at 11:37 pm
Is the Republican Party PAYING this guy to act stupid, so they can point to him and say “He’s not qualified to be President, because…you know.“
whatthe46 May 7th, 2015 at 12:02 am
then they fail. its too late.
Chris May 6th, 2015 at 11:54 pm
I’ve said it before: Carson knows squat about government.
Ben, look up the history of Marbury v. Madison. This ain’t brain surgery.
granpa.usthai May 6th, 2015 at 11:59 pm
commence to Kow Farming and you can do whatever you dang well want to – even when the Federal Courts sez you can’t.
granpa.usthai May 6th, 2015 at 11:56 pm
must be something to what Ben is spouting. Federal Courts in Nevada has been letting Kriminal Trespassing Kows from Kliven Bundy’s Kow Farm run roughshod on MY land for dang near 50 year.
granpa.usthai May 7th, 2015 at 12:13 am
as for the upcoming ruling:
I don’t think religious beliefs/time honored tradition/Cain or Able’s sisters or anything else can possibly explain away EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL.
BUTT
we’ll see.
It’s not like the Supreme Court of The United States of America has been a rock solid supporter of the Constitution of The United States of America.
jybarz May 7th, 2015 at 12:51 pm
“It’s not like the Supreme Court of The United States of America has been
a rock solid supporter of the Constitution of The United States of
America.”
Wow! You’re good!
mrbigstuff May 7th, 2015 at 7:22 am
This house negro doesn’t have a clue about the Constitution written by men who didn’t think he was human
eyelashviper May 7th, 2015 at 9:55 am
Hard to believe that he is such a moron, but he may be. Pandering to idiots is more likely, and he knows full well that lying has no consequences and he will not be called on it by the media.
Anyone within range of his stupid statements who has taken civics will understand the stupidity of his comment, but sadly, most of his listeners are willfully ignorant, home schooled, and Goper.
jybarz May 7th, 2015 at 12:59 pm
Fckg IDIOT!
Dwendt44 May 7th, 2015 at 6:06 pm
The ‘T’ in Gohmert is silent.
John Carpenter May 8th, 2015 at 10:14 am
The end of slavery, the saving of the union, etc.
OldLefty May 8th, 2015 at 10:43 am
The end of slavery, the saving of the union, etc.
______
All the more tragic that the “Party of Lincoln” and union has become the part of Lincoln’s assassin and secession.
didi May 8th, 2015 at 4:59 pm
If all the laws that were ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court but are still on the books in various states were collated that book might be very heavy and hard to carry. The simple point is that these SC rulings mean that such laws cannot be executed by any government agency at any level and that includes the President. The US Supreme Court does not command a state or the Federal Government (DODT!) to remove a law from the books. It tells these governments that the law cannot be executed any longer. Only lawmakers can take unconstitutional laws off the books. Even when the SC rules for same sex marriage in June laws forbidding such marriages will remain on the books in at least Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi for many, many years to come. Mr. Carson you have just failed the “Presidential Wannabe Contest”. Your ignorance is so egregious that you ought to get out of that race before you spout even more nonsense.