TLP: "Support and Defend"

rand oath

So, the Pauls don't like government, we get that, even though they both have found it convenient to collect paychecks and socialized medicine reimbursements from the U.S. Treasury. But it's one thing to want change, another to advocate anarchy.

From Rand Paul's Senate website:
"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right," Sen. Paul said.
Elsewhere on the site, Paul posted the U.S. Constitution, which says in Article III (after vesting judicial power in "one Supreme Court" and other courts) that, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States" and treaties, maritime cases, "Controversies" and other things having quaint but annoying capitalization.

Wonder which sections of the Constitution he thinks are worth following.

The Lazy Paperboy

Some say he’s half man half fish, others say he’s more of a seventy/thirty split. Either way he’s a fishy bastard.


W.C. Varones said...

May I presume TLP supports the forced relocation of Japanese Americans into concentration camps because the Supreme Court approved it?

Certainly anyone who opposed forced internment must be "advocating anarchy."

There's a difference between agreeing or disagreeing with any particular decision and proclaiming that, by virtue of a decision one disagrees with, that the court is illegitimate.

I can disagree with the policy of internment and still accept that the Supreme Court found that the order establishing the policy met the constitutional requirement argued in the case -- that wartime national security outweighed certain individual rights. If I disagree with that or any policy or law, I am free to seek to change it. We have a system for that. You'd think a member of the U.S. Senate would be able to grasp the distinction.

W.C. Varones said...

I guess I missed the part where he proclaimed the court "illegitimate."

I don't know another way to read:

"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so."

W.C. Varones said...

I'd say he's precisely supporting and defending the Constitution by calling bullshit on a bad ruling.