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 .
- Why LDS Church's anti-discrimination stance...
- What one word best describes Barack Obama?
- In our opinion: Fix, don't repeal, Affordable...
- What The New York Times gets wrong about...
- Michael Gerson: America has enough problems...
- W. Bradford Wilcox: Yes, women and children...
- Letter: Antelope Island prison
- Jay Evensen: In fight over school funding,...
- What The New York Times gets wrong... 77
- In our opinion: Fix, don't repeal,... 70
- Michael and Jenet Erickson: Utah... 50
- In our opinion: It's time to end the... 42
- Mike Lee: Tax reform shouldn't penalize... 38
- In our opinion: Fairness for all in... 37
- Jay Evensen: Will Obama visit Utah? Do... 37
- In our opinion: It's time for Utah to... 27