By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Marks said:


Even with this law (which I don't think is really that bad, I must be missing the point) Paul is still a country mile ahead of any of his competitors. Obama will just be 4 more years of involvement in the middle east, debt spending (and debt ceiling raises), Patriot act, Obamacare and no change to the failing social security system...and Romney wouldn't be much better. 

The point is that the Supreme and Federal courts are the "last in the chain" of legal entities that are in place to protect the Constitution. This law removes part of their ability to do that by saying they can't rule on part of the First Amendment. That leaves no one above the state level with the ability to rule on that part of the Constitution. It's a terribly dangerous idea. Do you know who appoints state judges? The governor. And half the time, he hasn't even met that judge and doesn't really know a damned thing about them beyond what can be read on a piece of paper. Are those the people you want defending the Constitution?

It's akin to saying that the President can't use the military or move their assets in favor of allowing one governor to decide what to do with the armed forces. Does that sound like a good idea to you?




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/