Back when Mitt Romney was running for president, I thought that questions about his personal views on abortion were not really relevant because the president cannot directly change the laws of the country; he would be required to enforce the established laws.
How wrong I was. We see today that the president gets to pick and choose which laws get enforced. We see that even attorneys general get to pick and choose what laws they will defend. Although the most heinous criminal must be offered competent legal counsel to defend them in a court room, the people of any state are not afforded such unless their attorney general chooses to defend their constitutional amendments or laws against attacks from minority groups.
How well are societies served by individuals who pick and choose which laws really should count and which ones should not count? Long live the law — except that one, that one, and maybe not that one .
- Disputes over specialized license plates...
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington
- My view: Chaffetz named ‘politician of...
- Jay Evensen: Cuba not likely to change...
- In our opinion: Water, a precious commodity
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the family put...
- Lessons from 'Christmas Carol'
- Letter: Monolingual minorities
- Charles Krauthammer: Democrats use... 78
- In our opinion: Police training should... 45
- Mike Lee: Change is coming to Washington 44
- In our opinion: Wood burning ban... 37
- Robert Bennett: More political... 36
- My view: Chaffetz named... 34
- Letter: Patriots or serfs? 33
- Susan Roylance: Definition of the... 31