Ben Carson: President Not bound by Supreme Court decision on marriage

[Zaac]

Carson: Not bound by Supreme Court decision on marriage -

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson doubled-down on his opposition to same-sex marriage on Tuesday by saying whoever occupies the White House won’t be bound by a Supreme Court decision in favor of gay nuptials.

Carson, who announced his 2016 candidacy for president on Monday, made the remarks during an interview with Newsmax TV, a conservative media outlet, when asked what action he’s prepared to take oppose a Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.

“First of all, we have to understand how the Constitution works, the president is required to carry out the laws of the land, the laws of the land come from the legislative branch,” Carson said. “So if the legislative branch creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has a responsibly to carry it out. It doesn’t say they have the responsibility to carry out a judicial law.”

- See more at: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015...rt-decision-on-marriage/#sthash.GAJUjE7s.dpuf

 

[InTheLight]

There is precedence. Andrew Jackson said this:

The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.

It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.

The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.

 

[Zaac]

So does that mean that states do not have to abide by SCOTUS rulings? Traditionally SCOTUS rulings seem to be adopted as the "new law" even if they are just opinions.

I wonder how many legislatures actually redo their laws to match the SCOTUS rulings?

 

[InTheLight]

So does that mean that states do not have to abide by SCOTUS rulings? Traditionally SCOTUS rulings seem to be adopted as the "new law" even if they are just opinions.

I wonder how many legislatures actually redo their laws to mathc the SCOTUS rulings?

I means that Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the US National Bank and he got away with it. (Popular opinion was on his side.)