Why George Will’s Constitutional Logic Is Appalling

Posted by on May 10, 2015 4:13 pm
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories: Patriot Dispatches

Little Rock

Why? The short version is: because George Will doesn’t have any Constitutional logic. It is appalling that he doesn’t because he is a Beltway Boy. In the grand Establishment scheme of things, George is a Fixture. So for him to write an article attacking presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, an article dripping with loathing and sarcasm, and to base it on a premise that Huckabee doesn’t understand the Constitution, and then fail to articulate Huckabee’s lack of understanding, or even offer a counter to it, is appalling. The consummate wordsmith, Will ought to have been able to do better than this.

Plow through Will’s piece where his abhorrence at Huckabee’s overt evangelical Christianity is the centerpiece, but concentrate on what he analyzes as Huckabee’s Constitutional logic, contained here:

Huckabee told some conservative pastors that “he cringes whenever he hears people call a court decision ‘the law of the land.’” He added: “This is not that complicated. There are three branches of government, not one.” To radio host Hugh Hewitt, Huckabee further explained his rejection of the idea of “judicial supremacy, where if the courts make a decision” it is “the law of the land”: “No, it isn’t the law of the land. Constitutionally, the courts cannot make a law. They can interpret one. And then the legislature has to create enabling legislation, and the executive has to sign it, and has to enforce it. . . .[State legislatures] would have to create legislation that the governor would sign. If they don’t, then there is not same-sex marriage in that state. Now, if the federal courts say, well, you’re going to have to do it, well, then, you have a confrontation. At that point, somebody has to decide is the court right? If it is, then the legislation will be passed.”

“Constitutionally, the courts cannot make a law.” What about Huckabee’s understanding of the Constitution in that regard is flawed? Nothing. But it “appalls” George Will. And he doesn’t refute it. He only goes on to cite what happened historically when the rubber met the road, at Little Rock in 1957. He does so in part because it was a celebrated event and also because it continues Will’s theme of the evangelical, cornpone, hillbilly, unsophisticated culture of rural America. And because it allows him to pooh-pooh Huckabee’s reading of the Constitution as simplistic. Uh, George, the Founders coined the phrase “Keep it simple, stupid.”

But George gleefully recounts the resolution of the Arkansas event by telling how Eisenhower sent federal troops in and put Governor Faubus in his place. Yes, George, that is one way to resolve Constitutional conflicts, but here is the crux of the matter: not only do you fail to refute that if a legislative body does not accede to the demands of a court that it create or alter legislation, then the court itself has no power to write legislation and none exists, you apparently affirmatively posit that the homosexual marriage issue, which is the cause du jour, is on a par with the racial issue having to do with the segregation and denial of citizenship of olden times. And your assertion that the Constitution allows government intervention by force if the States and, presumedly, the People, do not kowtow to the wishes of one branch of the Federal Government, in a matter not of previous condition of servitude or denial of citizenship but of sexual desire, is appalling.

What George Will is saying is that if Governor Redneck stands in the courthouse door and says “By the laws of the State of Bumpkinia and under my authority as Governor of this state, We will not preside over and we will not recognize homosexual marriage in this or any other courthouse”, then it will be just all right for Barack Hussein Obama to send in the 101st, the 82nd, the Marines or any other force of his choosing to root out all opposition, said opposition basedon any stated religious OR Constitutionally logical grounds, based on the Supreme Court’s evaluation of a state’s laws or practices.

For Will to equate the civil rights struggle with sexual orientation (read sexual mindset) is appalling. And while he is not alone in his pronouncement of the backwardness of Mike Huckabee, as scores and scores of Social Democrats all across the land are saying the same thing, it remains that he answers not one point attributed to Mike Huckabee about the function of the branches of government according to the US Constitution.

The larger point, of course, is that not only in the matter of sexual orientation, but so many other social issues, the Constitution gives not one bit of authority to ANY branch of the federal government. So that, lacking a federal statute or a Constitutional article or amendment for the federal judiciary to cite or rule yea or nay on, in a matter presented by a petitioner WITH CONSTITUTIONAL STANDING, neither the judiciary nor the executive can by fiat direct the……..Fundamental Transformation of America.

What is it about George Will that prevents him from siding with Traditional America in matters so simple as who gets to write legislation and what jurisdictions are delineated by what government charters? He does doff the bow tie and put on his baseball cap to promote his affinity for the great national pastime by attending Senators’ games in the summertime. Wait……he made some snide remark in his piece about Huckabee only being a Fox News Channel employee and not even a Senator during the past eight years. Maybe that’s it.

Or maybe its as one of our patriot compadres related recently, this tidbit that I was previously unaware of – George Will is definitely not a Deist. Hmmm. Going back and re-reading his article, I begin to see the light.

For the record, Mike Huckabee is not my first, second, third, fourth or fifth pick for the presidential nomination, because though I agree with him on the separation of powers and States’ rights, and religious liberty, I still find fault with his judgement in other areas. But I Like Mike, just as I Liked Ike, even though back then I was a Democrat. Ike was not a hater and neither is Mike Huckabee. George Will’s treatment of him is…..appalling.

2 responses to Why George Will’s Constitutional Logic Is Appalling

  1. Why George Will’s Constitutional Logic Is Appalling | Grumpy Opinions May 10th, 2015 at 4:32 pm

    […] Crossposted at Unified Patriots […]

  2. vassarbushmills May 11th, 2015 at 7:39 am

    Amen, Bob. What joins Huckabee and Will at the hip is that neither utters a truth they say they believe that they aren’t willing to sacrifice at the altar of self-interest, if need be. Will just thinks his altar is more sacred, his status as member of the DC-elite his most coveted property, trumping Huckabee’s more puerile and profane, cartoonish characterization of Elmer Gantry. Will dislikes Christians, even Gantry-like ones, almost as much as ISIS, or Harvard even.. Once we know a man has this characteristic in them, we can’t believe a thing they say, for in the end, if push comes to shove, they will recant., with one exception… I do believe, if an ISIS swordsman stood over his neck, Huckabee would not recant. Will would have nothing to recant from, and would be caught in mid-sentence, protesting the unfairness of the charge, before the executioner just got bored and shut him up. It’s a different world out there, and neither seems to see it.

Leave a Reply