Ben Carson: Maybe the executive shouldn't have to enforce laws the SCOTUS declares constitutional

Is Ben Carson brilliant? Absolutely. Anyone who can perform brain surgery on children is brilliant. Ted Williams was brilliant too. He knew more about hitting than anyone alive. And I'd argue that Tony Banks is brilliant as well, because of his use of chord changes, unusual time signatures and complex song structures. But just because your mind operates at a very high level, and you are able to pair it with a particular skill set to do a difficult thing that most people couldn't ever conceive of doing, that doesn't mean you can do every difficult thing that requires brilliance. So does the brilliant mind and impeccable skill of a neurosurgeon, not to mention a clear inclination toward conservative policy ideas, make Ben Carson presidential material?

If you're sure it does, then what, I ask, do you do with this?

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson says the United States should rethink the notion that a president must enforce laws the Supreme Court declares constitutional. Carson said Sunday "we need to discuss" the court's long-held power to review laws passed by Congress. That authority was established in the 1803 landmark case Marbury v. Madison. Carson was asked on "Fox News Sunday" whether the executive branch is obligated to enforce laws that the Supreme Court declares constitutional. "We need to get into a discussion of this because it has changed from the original intent," he said. Carson has said a president is obliged to carry out laws passed by Congress, but not what he called "judicial laws" that emanate from courts.

On the surface, this seems to border on incoherent. If he's saying we should rethink the concept of judicial review, good luck with that. If anything, I'd say we need stronger judicial review, given the Supremes' apparent distaste for tossing out blatantly unconstitutional laws like ObamaCare if they can possibly find a way to help it. If the judiciary can't nullify blatantly unconstitutional actions by Congress, then what protection is there against Congress going Fortney "Pete" Stark on us and simply deciding that the federal government can do whatever it wants?

---

Or is he saying that judicial review is fine, but that a president shouldn't have to enforce laws that the Supreme Court wrongly declares constitutional? Maybe he's talking about ObamaCare specifically here. Maybe he was thinking about the prospect of becoming president and being asked to enforce ObamaCare in the aftermath of Congress passing it and the Supremes allowing it to stand. But by what constitutional power would a President Carson have the discretion to simply not enforce it? The Supremes can't find a law constitutional unless Congress first duly passes it. And once they've done that, and a president has signed it into law, and the Supreme Court has declined to overturn it . . . what then? You can certainly sign a repeal, and that might be possible depending on the makeup of the next president. But that's not what Carson said. And what he did say makes no sense. Now the one possible defense of Carson is that the writer of this story was Charles Babington, who is a creature of liberal/Washingtonian/AssociatedPressspeak if ever there was one. It's entirely possible that Carson was dealing in concepts that Babington couldn't process in his dinosaur media mind. But my initial take from the quote I saw was that it's useful to remember that not every brilliant person can do everything with brilliance. If this is Carson's understanding of judicial review and how it works, boy, I don't know. I give him credit for actually caring about what the Constitution is supposed to mean. That's a lot better than electing politicians who spend their entire careers trying to find a way around it. But is it too much to ask that we find a nominee who both cares about the Constitution and understands it? I'm going to need some persuasion at this point to be convinced Ben Carson is that guy.