[EternalVigilance]

Let’s say for the sake of the discussion that Jefferson and Lincoln’s actions were completely unconstitutional.

Two questions:

1) Would that change the truth of the two quotes I posted?

2) Would it justify a coup d’etat against our constitutional, republican form of government and the establishment instead of a judicial oligarchy?

[henkster]

What changes the "truth" is that I don't see Judicial Supremacy or judicial activism to be the same threat to our Constitutional Republic as an Imperial Presidency, which we now have. I found the quotes of two presidents regarding judicial power ironic when they were each guilty of overstepping the bounds of their office. That we have an Imperial Presidency by 0bama, who does not recognize any restraint on his power, is beyond doubt. We are likely to have a continued Imperial Presidency whether it is Trump or Clinton. I don't think either one has a particular reverence for the Rule of Law. To me the only difference is that I believe I will approve of how Trump exercises that power, much more than I would of Clinton's. That does not make the assumption and exercise of that power constitutionally valid.

And as illustration of this, think back to National Association of Manufacturers v. Sebelius and tell me you weren't hoping for an activist Court to strike down 0bamacare as unconstitutional. Today, take a look at the case of United States v. Texas, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court. Ask yourself: "What decision do I want to see from the Court?" As someone who posts here, the odds are pretty high you are hoping the Supreme Court will uphold the 5th Circuit decision enjoining the 0bama regime from pursuing the DAPA policy of blanket grant of legal status without Congressional authorization.

So if the Court rules in favor of Texas, and limits 0bama's power, are you going to rail against them as a "judicial oligarchy?" Or do you want them to rein themselves in, and allow 0bama to continue his Imperial Presidency unchecked?