GOP Candidate Ben Carson: A President Can Ignore the Supreme Court on Gay Rights

ben-carsonIt never ceases to amaze me how often Republicans claim to be all about the Constitution, while constantly proving that they don’t even understand the very basics of it. While there are clearly parts of our Constitution that leave the door open for debate and interpretation, the very structure of how our government is set up – as well as how the system of checks and balances work – is fairly straightforward.

And as most of us know, the main purpose of our Supreme Court is to serve as the judiciary branch of our government to interpret the rule of law and our Constitution. That way if a law is passed that might violate the Constitutional rights of Americans, there’s a branch of our government that’s there (in theory at least) to be an impartial interpreter of whether or not the law in question is, in fact, legal.

It’s what we’re currently seeing play out as it pertains to marriage equality and whether or not states have the right to ban gay Americans from marrying. Obviously the argument by many is that banning gay marriage is a violation of the Constitutional rights of gay Americans and the argument against marriage equality is typically just some unconstitutional gibberish. In several cases they’ve literally tried to argue that because two homosexuals can’t naturally reproduce, that should negate them from being allowed to marry. As if procreation has ever been a precursor to marriage for anyone.

And if all goes as most expect it to, in a few weeks the Supreme Court will once and for all put an end to state-level bans on same-sex marriage, finally opening the door for marriage equality in all 50 states.

Naturally, many Republicans aren’t exactly thrilled with that prospect.

But it seems newly minted GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson doesn’t believe that a president has to listen to what the Supreme Court says, even though our Constitution completely contradicts that statement.

“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. And that’s something we need to talk about.”

Granted, he is right in his assessment of how we pass laws – congratulations Mr. Carson for at least knowing that much. 

But what he completely fails to understand that our legislative and executive branches still can’t pass unconstitutional laws. They can pass Constitutional Amendments (which then means the Supreme Court can only interpret that amendment) but that’s far more difficult than just passing your run of the mill law.

So, unless there’s a Constitutional Amendment passed declaring same-sex marriage illegal, which isn’t ever going to happen, the president does have to abide by what the Supreme Court says.

And that’s not because a president chooses to – but because our Constitution says so.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • sherry06053

    Which is how the SCOTUS made it possible for our elections to be bought and paid for with the Citizens United ruling. THAT was partisan politics, which caused me to lose all confidence in them.

  • DavidHP1

    It would be nice if before people run for president if they understood the constitution on the powers of the office and the built in separation of powers between the three branches of federal government.

    • Flat Banana

      We have one in office who could care less about the constitution and how it works.

      • Beth Conrad

        Well you guys have been whining about impeachment for 6.5 years. Why not impeach if Obama is so guilty or is whining all your party can really do?

      • Flat Banana

        his replacement is just as bad.

      • Beth Conrad

        “his replacement is just as bad………” Funny how Republicans can never answer the question.

      • Flat Banana

        I did, my shortened reply should’ve been enough for you. Its also funny how liberals on here and media matters consistently turn things on other people especially when they have no answer or information to back it up.

      • Beth Conrad

        Nice word salad. When will your party be starting impeachment proceedings coward?

      • Flat Banana

        Once you stop badgering me dyke.

      • Beth Conrad

        That’s what I thought. LOL

      • Flat Banana

        You must’ve read something different along this extremely short path of comments, I never said I support impeachment unless you can point me to which of my five comments said that??