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 .
- 10 things you never knew about the FBI
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah...
- In our opinion: The long-term outlook for...
- My view: Balancing personal conviction and...
- Robert Bennett: Hamas and its financial...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Re-enactment...
- Letter: Policy disagreement
- Mary Barker: The Romney I may have voted for
- Lawrence and Windsor won't trump Utah... 107
- Mary Barker: The Romney I may have... 72
- Stuart Reid: Translations of religious... 61
- Dan Liljenquist: Religious liberty and... 50
- In our opinion: History will remember... 46
- Letter: Breeding hate 44
- Letter: Policy disagreement 43
- My view: Balancing personal conviction... 41