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 .
- Dan Liljenquist: What we learned from the...
- In our opinion: Legislators need to better...
- My view: The solution to Utah's water problems
- My view: Get insurance out of health care
- My view: Is the Division of Water Resources...
- In our opinion: Why it's important to note...
- My view: 'Death with dignity' and assisted...
- Richard Davis: Do presidents have to be...
- Americans are skeptical that government... 58
- Richard Davis: Do presidents have to be... 54
- My view: Get insurance out of health care 45
- My view: Obama's veto won't save Obamacare 33
- In our opinion: Attempting to... 32
- My view: 'Death with dignity' and... 27
- In our opinion: Concerned voters a good... 23
- Trump and Sanders 22