| At a recent candidate forum put on by the Clark Fork Chronicle, Ernie Ornelas, candidate for sheriff, said he "would not enforce federal laws that usurp states' rights."
It made me wonder which laws Ornelas would choose not to enforce, and if the freedom to pick and choose which laws are valid applies to the rest of us or just Ornelas himself.
Anyway, there seems to be one overarching concept that is consistent among conservatives and unites their various factions. Perhaps we could call it the Kountry Kitchen Buffet-style Konstitutional interpretation.
Though the US and MT Constitutions make no reference to selectively applying laws and rights, it's somehow perfectly OK to pick and choose which rights are awarded and which laws to enforce? This concept is similarly manifested in the way many conservatives pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow.
For example, Lev. 25:44 states that indeed we may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. It appears that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Not sure what the distinction might be.
Or consider the former mid-level state government worker turned ED of the Republican party who NOW believes government is irresponsible-after he's had his turn at the trough.
The right to privacy? Sure, it's yours if you've got the right anatomy. The examples go on and on. Arizona anyone?
It has yet to be seen how voters will react to these kinds of selective interpretations of values, freedoms, rights, and laws. Personally, I haven't heard anybody clamoring for leaders who pick and choose what part of the Constitution applies to them and what applies to the rest of us. |
