|Are there any Republicans left who understand the following?
1. The Constitution protects citizens' rights and freedoms.
2. The legislature makes laws, but those laws cannot infringe on rights protected by the Constitution.
3. The governor can issue executive orders, but those orders cannot infringe on rights protected by the Constitution.
4. When people disagree over whether a law or executive order violates the Constitution, the dispute is settled in courts.
If marriage equality is such an emotional issue that it short-circuits the conservative brain, let's put it in the context of a law many Republicans dislike: Iowa's smoking ban.
Some bar and restaurant owners believe the law adopted last year went too far in restricting their property rights, and they have challenged it in the courts. The smoking ban remains in effect pending the court challenge, just as the six couples who were plaintiffs in Varnum v Brien were unable to be married while their lawsuit was working its way through the judicial system.
I don't give the smoking ban opponents much chance of winning their lawsuit, but if the courts rule this law unconstitutional, then the law will be invalid and unenforceable. The will of the people, as expressed through the legislature, cannot supersede the constitution.
Drake University Law Professor Mark Kende points out that neither what Vander Plaats and Salier are advocating nor the latest amendment Rants is proposing pass constitutional muster.
Will any senior Republicans dare to state the obvious: that amending Iowa's Constitution is the only way to get around the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling in Varnum v Brien?
Are Republicans like Vander Plaats and Salier ignorant about how our system works, or are they just pandering to the conservative base?
Share your thoughts in this thread.