Separation from Reality

GOP canddiate for governor Bob Vander Plaats performs for Bill Salier on WHO radio, then puts out a press release. An excerpt:

Sioux City businessman Bob Vander Plaats said today his willingness to take a strong stand to protect the separation of powers and hold activist courts in check distinguishes him from at least one of his primary election opponents, former House Speaker Christopher Rants.

Vander Plaats said during the Jan Mickelson program on WHO Radio with guest host Bill Salier that he would sign an executive order banning same-sex marriages as part of an effort to give Iowans the right to vote on the issue. Rants, who has said he does not believe the governor has the authority to sign an order, would limit his attempts to using the bully pulpit of the office.

“With all due respect to Representative Rants, I believe that’s the kind of leadership that’s brought us from being the majority in the state to being the minority in the state,” said Vander Plaats, who defeated Rants by more than a two-to-one margin in a poll conducted last week by TheIowaRepublican.com. “”When you give complete power over to the Supreme Court, you’ll have tyranny not liberty.”

Noting that Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order that defied a Supreme Court decision, Vander Plaats added, “Executives need to lead. This is not about winning the office it’s about leading. That’s what separates me from anyone else out there.”

So, to review, Vander Plaats would protect separation of powers by destroying separation of powers. Christopher Rants is a squishy sissy  because he actually believes his oath of office. And taking civil rights away from people makes you like Abraham Lincoln.

I’ll give you a second to download that.

I like Vander Plaats, I really do.  But this tap dance for the fringe on judicial review, which any fifth-grade Iowa history student could see through in five minutes, is embarrassing.

11 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

11 responses to “Separation from Reality

  1. Christine Z.

    Vander Plaats is only using the same tactic that others like him have used to discredit anyone with a reasonable point of view.
    This plays well with the lowest common denominator who don’t mind eroding the Constitution, in order to destroy the rights of others by imposing their personal views on them.

  2. Iowa Cynic

    This guy has no business running a state. Never has. He was the sole factor behind my moment’s hesitation at voting against Culver last election.

  3. Ann

    Actually, Bob is not making the gay marriage decision for us and he is not going to make the court decide for the PEOPLE. He is letting the people VOTE. What is wrong with that. It is WE THE PEOPLE that decide. If Bob was overturning the law by himself and making law then it would be tyranny but he will let the people decide. I don’t care whether you are a Dem or a Rep. We should decide what our law is.

  4. tdorman

    Ann, he wants to nullify a supreme court ruling using an executive order, so, in fact, he would be making law all by himself. It’s unconstitutional, and he knows it. But it’s good fodder for the fringe, so he keeps selling it. The constitution clearly lays out an amendment process that leads to the vote you want. The governor has absolutely no part to play in that process. This isn’t about we the people, it’s about winning in a GOP primary.

  5. abregar

    Todd I think that you misunderstand the intent behind BVP’s plan. It isn’t to institute a ban on gay marriage. The order would play a stay on gay marriages forcing the legislature to take up the issue. The ball would then be in the legislature’s court as to what to do. They could either repeal the Iowa’s Defense of Marriage law, or they could pass a constitutional amendment by which the people would get to vote on. Your assumption that BVP would be making law is wrong.

  6. tdorman

    abregar, I think “would sign an executive order banning same-sex marriage” is pretty clear. No matter what his intent is, he simply does not have the constitutional authority to nullify, stay or delay an order issued by the Supreme Court. And you’re right, he would not be making law. He would be breaking the law.

  7. abregar

    I have to disagree with you Todd. He would simply be doing what the Supreme Court should have done in the first place, bouncing the issue back to the Legislative branch. Furthermore I went back to reread the Iowa Constitution and could not find anywhere that states the State’s chief executive could not stay a Supreme Court ruling.

  8. Christine Z.

    The idea that a group of citizens can vote to abrogate the rights of others seems obscene to me.
    Does this mean that we can vote against racial equality, or against any group we don’t approve of for religious or personal reasons?

  9. Pingback: Rants Tweets In « 24-Hour Dorman

  10. Pingback: Tuesday Column — A Bill of Goods « 24-Hour Dorman

  11. Owen

    How on earth could you possibly like Bob Vander Plaats? He’s wearing his religion as a badge, taking advantage of ignorance and using fear in his run for office.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s