In this week’s news about the 2016 election race, one of the many interesting sub-plots is an opinion-column fracas concerning constitutional interpretation. It started with an anti-Trump editorial in USA Today, continued with Mike Pence’s response to that editorial and, most recently, was perpetuated by Linda Greenhouse’s commentary on Pence’s article in the pages of the New York Times.
Pence’s argument in favor of Trump is that Trump “will appoint men and women who will strictly construe the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.” Greenhouse’s response to Pence is that conservatives are hypocritical to use that line because conservatives themselves now try to legislate from the bench.
To read the full article, posted October 17, 2016 at The Daily Caller, click here.
Subscribe
Never miss a post! Have all new posts delivered straight to your inbox.
Your article is correct. However it is basically a side argument. A true constitutional conservative candidate could make the argument very persuasively and I would believe and support them. Unfortunately the preponderance of evidence that we have been given on how a President Trump would govern gives no indication that he actually holds the views espoused by you or his running mate. He is in no way a constitutional conservative. That is true with or without his “list of judges” that is so frequently touted. His support of expanded eminent domain as a businessman and citizen is enough to disqualify him as someone who opposes the expansion of federal power from the judicial bench. Lastly he has on multiple occassions exhibited a high level of disconnect in beliefs between him and Mr Pence. So much so that it makes me feel that the positions espoused by Mr Pence would not be welcome nor honored in a Trump administration.
Louis, I do not trust that Mr. Trump understands the Constitutional issues very well, nor that he would uphold the Constitution. My article is not about Trump. And yes, there is quite a difference between Pence and Trump. Thanks for weighing in!