Note that I held the same position when Pres. Obama was president: https://www.facebook.com/justinamash/posts/687388404633902 …https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/835144093223247873 …
-
-
Courts simply interpret Constitution and laws in course of deciding particular cases between specific parties.
-
So we get our own interpretation as to what is Constitutional & we can go by what we believe over the court's interpretation?
-
Each branch is responsible for upholding Constitution. If an actual case between specific parties arises, then court resolves.
-
So you are clearly not a "rule of law" guy - working in a body that makes laws - this is difficult to reconcile
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You seem to vacillate between "rule of law" and defending the constitution - whichever supports your position
-
No, I consistently uphold both. Courts don't opine on most laws. "Anything goes until SCOTUS opines" would threaten Rule of Law.
-
So explain how you uphold "rule of law" when you choose to not enforce laws that you personally feel are unconstitutional?
-
"Rule of Law" means that the application and execution of laws should not be arbitrary.
-
It's under your view that executive would act arbitrarily—unbound by Constitution except in rare cases where SCOTUS has opined.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
It's called reading and thinking.
@cabbageguy - 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.