Ben Carson

BrownArmy

Well-Known Member
Read what Carson actually said and not the rephrasing by that site. He was talking about judicial law vs. legislative law which is how the separation of powers is defined in the Constitution.

Here is what Carson said:

“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.”

Carson is saying that the President doesn't have to follow the Supreme Court if they invalidate same-sex marriage bans.

He's super-wrong.
 

oldngray

nowhere special
Here is what Carson said:

“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.”

Carson is saying that the President doesn't have to follow the Supreme Court if they invalidate same-sex marriage bans.

He's super-wrong.

Again you are attempting to add to what he really said.
 

Sportello

Well-Known Member
There is no such thing as judicial law which is what Carson pointed out.
No, that's not what he said at all. He said the the President can ignore SCOTUS rulings if he desires. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I'm pretty sure that is an impeachable offense.

I wonder how long it will be before some people are tossed out of the clown car that is the Republican Presidential race?

Just say you want more Bush and be done with it.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Just say you want more Bush and be done with it.

There's real opportunity of striking gold in a comedic minefield with the above but I think I'll resist and walk away.

It's really hard.....SORRY, sorry....didn't mean to say that. I'd better pullout.....oh geeze.....really, I didn't mean that either.

It's time I just shove....dammit!

I'm gone!
;)
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Here is what Carson said:

“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.”

Carson is saying that the President doesn't have to follow the Supreme Court if they invalidate same-sex marriage bans.

He's super-wrong.

If you are quoting Carson word for word, it would seem your understanding is correct and I would agree as well. Now having seen the video where he made this quote thanks to Breitbart, your understanding seems to me is dead on and looking at Breitbart's title of the piece, they reached the same conclusion as well.

But in defense of Carson's claim, read through Article 2 of the US Constitution and show where a President is authorized to submit to judicial authority. The authority granted in Article 2 if one care to even read it is rather limited truth be told and to the judicial branch in Article 3 the same is also true. Carson is correct as I read the Constitution and taking it at its word. However, we long ago stopped doing that and we now allow gov't free reign to do as it pleases, Constitutional limitations be damned, so in that context Carson's claim seems over the top.
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
No, that's not what he said at all. He said the the President can ignore SCOTUS rulings if he desires. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I'm pretty sure that is an impeachable offense.

I wonder how long it will be before some people are tossed out of the clown car that is the Republican Presidential race?

Just say you want more Bush and be done with it.

The bottom line is that this is a purely academic question since Carson will never be the GOP candidate.
 

Tired Driver

Sisyphus had it easy.
image.jpg
 

brett636

Well-Known Member

A cool story to say the least.

Look, we have all seen this playbook before. Use someone's religious beliefs to label them fool with low intelligence. Can't even you recognize how difficult that is given this man's accomplishments? Do you really think passing one chemistry class is what qualified him to become one of the world's leading pediatric neurosurgeons? Atleast with Ben Carson he dedicated his life and skills to improving and extending the lives of others unlike Hillary Clinton who has had an untold number of people killed wherever she was in charge.
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
A cool story to say the least.

Look, we have all seen this playbook before. Use someone's religious beliefs to label them fool with low intelligence. Can't even you recognize how difficult that is given this man's accomplishments? Do you really think passing one chemistry class is what qualified him to become one of the world's leading pediatric neurosurgeons? Atleast with Ben Carson he dedicated his life and skills to improving and extending the lives of others unlike Hillary Clinton who has had an untold number of people killed wherever she was in charge.

Carson is in no way, Qualified to run a nation.

He couldnt even write a book without plagerizing other peoples work.

How the GOP finds him suitable for office is laughable at best.

TOS.
 

Sportello

Well-Known Member
After Al Gore and John Kerry, the bar was lowered considerably.
I will have to respectfully disagree with you there. The bar was lowered way before that, and actually Gore and Kerry at least had an idea of how politics works. The problem with Carson is not that he not qualified, he meets all of the qualifications to be POTUS. The problem is he is uneducated in a political, historical sense.

Carson saying things like 'judicial law', prefaced by we 'have to understand how the Constitution works' is 'Palinesque'. Anytime someone tells me 'how the Constitution works' a flag is thrown. In carson's case, multiple flags were thrown.

When he was asked to name a Sec of Treasury he admired, he responded 'Andrea Mitchell's husband'. Nevermind how loathsome Andrea Mitchell is, her husband is Alan Greenspan. He was never Sec of Treasury, and he didn't even know his name.

He's not sure who is in NATO, is confused on how the government of Israel is structured and is confused on when Islam began.

Pediatric neurosurgeons may not make the best POTUS. He may not even be such a great neurosurgeon.
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
After Al Gore and John Kerry, the bar was lowered considerably.

You have to take anything TOS says with a grain of salt. I don't even bother to fact check it anymore because chances are very good it isn't true.

With that being said the main target of my previous post was towards Jones and his insistence on joining the small minded chorus of people who respond to believers as follows: "Ermegerd, he really believes in gerd! Hur Hur Hur Hur!!!" Its a sad group that I have to take pity on as they insist on inclusiveness of all beliefs and cultures with the exception of the beliefs and cultures they disagree with.
 
Top