, , , ,

Through over two hundred years of American history:

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
….It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178]   So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty….

Yesterday, from Kurt Schaefer (r), via Twitter:


Kurt U. Schaefer ‏@KurtUSchaefer
We need an AG who will defend our laws and values, not bend to the out of control federal gov’t and Supreme Court. [….] 8:45 PM – 8 Jul 2016

Think about that for a second.

A few people already have thought about it and then responded to Kurt Schaefer (r) via Twitter:


Matt McCune ‏@MisterMcCune
@KurtUSchaefer are you saying as Missouri AG you wouldn’t enforce federal law & #SCOTUS rulings? #askingforafriend #movictory #midmoforward 8:52 PM – 8 Jul 2016


Ida Fogle ‏@damari19
@KurtUSchaefer You’re campaigning for AG on a promise to disdain federal law & disregard rulings of the Supreme Court? Interesting approach. 8:58 PM – 8 Jul 2016


Robert Crain ‏@stlrjc
@KurtUSchaefer Funny thing about “values”… they tend to vary from person to person. So when you say “our”, I assume you mean “my”. 10:22 PM – 8 Jul 2016

And they can be so changeable, depending on when and which primary election Kurt Schafer (r) wants to try to win.

Then again, $2,746,891.96 can help your primary campaign overcome a whole lot of stoopit.