[Borges]

It would seem a case of Civil War would be an exception that proves the rule. But the SC has the final authority to interpret the Constitution. That means they win the argument. There are bad decisions just like there are bad laws and bad Presidential appointments. The Republic gets by.

[jdhljc169]

****It would seem a case of Civil War would be an exception that proves the rule. But the SC has the final authority to interpret the Constitution. That means they win the argument. There are bad decisions just like there are bad laws and bad Presidential appointments. The Republic gets by.


I don't think it was for that reason and I may be wrong about Lincoln. I thought I had read it somewhere and will try to find. I did find an article with another example in it.

Jackson in 1932. I found this part in the article interesting. Thoughts?

"But what Hamilton is writing about is the lesser known check of the President over the Supreme Court as outlined in Articles II and III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is dependent upon the Executive Branch, as is the Congress, to "execute" their wishes. Nothing gets done unless the President agrees."

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/darr/050324

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

But the SC has the final authority to interpret the Constitution. That means they win the argument.

Only because that authority has been abdicated to it. If the executive does not enforce and Congress does not impeach the President for non-enforcement, then the Supreme Court has wasted paper. That is not anarchy, that is a minimum two branches, including at least one elected, sharing power rather than abdicating to an oligarchy in one branch. It is clearly envisioned in Federalist #78, Marbury v Madison and Andrew Jackson's response to Worcester v Georgia (1832) and was violated beginning with Dred Scot (1857). Plessy and Brown (especially its successors) are two legs of the same pair of pants.