Huckabee: Next President Must Obey ‘Supreme Being’ Instead Of Supreme Court

[GMDino]

http://freakoutnation.com/2015/05/mike-huckabee-next-president-must-obey-supreme-being-instead-of-supreme-court-on-gay-marriage/

Quote:Republican presidential candidate Mick Huckabee insisted on Sunday that the president of the United States would not have to follow a ruling that struck down bans on same-sex marriage because the Supreme Court was not the "Supreme Being."

"You seemed to indicate that as president, you wouldn't necessarily obey court rulings, even the Supreme Court," Fox News host Chris Wallace pointed out during an interview on Sunday. "We have operated under the principle of judicial review since the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803."

According to the GOP candidate, the United States would be operating under "judicial supremacy" instead of judicial review if bans on same-sex marriage were to be struck down.

"Presidents have understood that the Supreme Court cannot make a law, they cannot make it, the legislature has to make it, the executive branch has to sign it and enforce it," Huckabee said. "And the notion that the Supreme Court comes up with the ruling and that automatically subjects the two other branches to following it defies everything there is about the three equal branches of government."

"The Supreme Court is not the supreme branch," he added. "And for God's sake, it's not the Supreme Being."

Huckabee wondered what would happen if the Supreme Court ruled on "who was going to be the next president."

"We would say, 'Well, they can't do that.' Why can't they do it? They can't do it because it's not in the law," he opined. "We are sworn to uphold the Constitution and the law. And it has to be consistent and agreed upon with three branches of government. One can't overrule the other two."

There is a LOT in there to chew on...but I have a question:

If these guys think our laws are based on their god telling the founding fathers what to do...why would they want to change or ignore them?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-24-2015, 11:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://freakoutnation.com/2015/05/mike-huckabee-next-president-must-obey-supreme-being-instead-of-supreme-court-on-gay-marriage/


There is a LOT in there to chew on...but I have a question:

If these guys think our laws are based on their god telling the founding fathers what to do...why would they want to change or ignore them?

Am I missing something here, but if I understand things correctly the Supreme Court is not creating a new law, but judging whether an existing law in unconstitutional or not. Which from my understanding is exactly what they're supposed to do.

Am I wrong in my understanding?

[*bfine32*]

Didn't Carson pretty much say the same thing and folks said he didn't now what he was talking about?

Neither has said anything incorrect.

[Belsnickel]

(05-25-2015, 12:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Didn't Carson pretty much say the same thing and folks said he didn't now what he was talking about?

Neither has said anything incorrect.

Well, they did. The other two branches do have to follow rulings of the SCOTUS. However, what they can do if they disagree with a ruling is work together to make a constitutional law that gets the end result they wish to achieve. For everything that is done by one of the branches the other two have a way to work around them if they see fit, it's how it all works. But to say they can just ignore the rulings is ignorant.

[6andcounting]

Obama is the 'supreme being.'


:vomit:

[GMDino]

(05-25-2015, 12:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Didn't Carson pretty much say the same thing and folks said he didn't now what he was talking about?

Neither has said anything incorrect.

No...a lot of people said they were incorrect.

And unless God has some new tablets he wants to etch for Hucky boy we're gonna follow our laws and system rather his imaginary friend who only talks to him...

[Donnyho]

(05-25-2015, 09:22 AM)6andcounting Wrote: Obama is the 'supreme being.'


:vomit:

[BmorePat87]

(05-25-2015, 12:06 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Am I missing something here, but if I understand things correctly the Supreme Court is not creating a new law, but judging whether an existing law in unconstitutional or not.  Which from my understanding is exactly what they're supposed to do.

Am I wrong in my understanding?

Correct, but a common tactic of those who oppose the ruling of the Supreme Court is to suggest that they are "making laws" as opposed to striking down laws that violate the Constitution. They're deciding if bans are legal or illegal. No law will be made, but current laws could be erased which would then allow gay marriage.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-25-2015, 10:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Correct, but a common tactic of those who oppose the ruling of the Supreme Court is to suggest that they are "making laws" as opposed to striking down laws that violate the Constitution. They're deciding if bans are legal or illegal. No law will be made, but current laws could be erased which would then allow gay marriage.

That's what I thought. I couldn't even think of voting for a candidate who doesn't understand how our government works. Of course Huckabee is an overly righteous right wing religious zealot, which might help him in the primaries, but I don't think it'll help him in a general election. I'm not really worried about him.

[BmorePat87]

(05-25-2015, 12:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Didn't Carson pretty much say the same thing and folks said he didn't now what he was talking about?

Neither has said anything incorrect.

(05-25-2015, 08:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, they did. The other two branches do have to follow rulings of the SCOTUS. However, what they can do if they disagree with a ruling is work together to make a constitutional law that gets the end result they wish to achieve. For everything that is done by one of the branches the other two have a way to work around them if they see fit, it's how it all works. But to say they can just ignore the rulings is ignorant.

Matt got here before I could. Huckabee is incorrect is suggesting that the other branches do not have to follow a ruling. If they were to ignore the Supreme Court's ruling, they would be acting unconstitutionally.

Also, Huckabee's response to Wallace asking about when the Supreme Court ruled that segregated schools were unconstitutional was pretty off the mark too. He suggested that the only reason why it was ok was because the President and Congress agreed with it.

He even further embarrasses himself when he compared the Supreme Court coming out and declaring someone President to them overturning laws...




It should also be noted that Huckabee was indeed referring to gay marriage rulings when he said the courts are practicing "Judicial Supremacy". Prior to what the recording in the link above had him saying on the topic, he said “But we’ve lost our way morally. We have witnessed the slaughter of over 55 million babies in the name of choice, and are now threatening the foundation of religious liberty by criminalizing Christianity in demanding that we abandon Biblical principles of natural marriage". So he is very much wrong in suggesting that the Court ruling whether or not gay marriage bans are unconstitutional is "Judicial Supremacy" and not "Judicial Review", just as Carson was incorrect in suggesting that the Courts try to make laws when they do practice judicial review.

While the Constitution is our nation's highest authority, the Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the Constitution and ensuring that it is followed by the other two branches. There's a reason why it is the only branch at the federal level selected by the two other branches and not the people.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Who is "Mick"?

[*michaelsean*]

why do we have all these Huckabee threads? He isn't winning anything.

[GodHatesBengals]

So, as President, Ayatollah Huckabee will ignore any court rulings OR legislation he doesn't "agree" with.

Yes, yes... If only the country still operated the same as it did when our Founding Fathers (second only to GAWD) penned the Constitution, then America could continue to bask in the overwhelming wealth created by free labor (shhhh.... it's called slavery).

This guy is a ***** loon and always has been.

[BmorePat87]

(05-26-2015, 10:05 AM)michaelsean Wrote: why do we have all these Huckabee threads?  He isn't winning anything.

He put himself in the news a lot this last week.

Also, he did fairly well in 2008. He COULD surprise, though the field might be a little too congested with religious right people this time. Governors are always popular.

[fredtoast]

Running for President is the new way to get publicity for a book or audition for a job with Fox News.

Huckabee knows he can't win. He just wants to get more publicity.

[fredtoast]

(05-25-2015, 08:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: However, what they can do if they disagree with a ruling is work together to make a constitutional law that gets the end result they wish to achieve.

Or even amend the Constitution itself.

Amazing that a guy can run for President when he doesn't even understand the Constitution.

[Vas Deferens]

people getting worked up about where other people put their wieners. clearly the biggest issue this country needs to deal with.