Replies

That one sentence was what allowed the legal formation of a dictatorship out of a constitutional democracy.

Yes, it was a law. And the people allowed the formation of a dictatorship; the sentence was nothing without the inability of the people to see through its inherent danger.

As opposed to what, blind faith in the leader? Seriously, if you don't want to rely on the law, what are you suggesting we use?

I would suggest that a chief executive and hundreds of legislators could do nicely most of the time without the "help" of the professional pettifoggers on the bench when it comes to national security.

Judges rule on the laws written by congress, if you have a problem with the law, take it up with them. For a judge to ignore the law as written by congress is the epitome of judicial activism.

Judges make law, as well. I remember Lenny Bruce's observation that the US is run by judges and that elected officials are merely clerks. I would hate to see that come about, in the event it hasn't already done so.

I know exactly what you mean by judges ignoring the law; I was especially impressed of late by the SCOTUS failing to protect private property.

That could potentially result in bloody battles between the national guard and federal marshals.

Please forgive me, but this point is a bit of a stretch. I could believe that a member of the legal profession, and I'm not directing this at you since I don't know your area of expertise, might actually buy into this. But there is no chance of this sort of fairytale occurring; the Marshals are not likely to have the bloated sense of self-importance necessary to engage in this madness.

"I would suggest that a chief executive and hundreds of legislators could do nicely most of the time without the "help" of the professional pettifoggers on the bench when it comes to national security."

So you basically disagree with the central tenet of three separate but coequal branches of government as laid out in the constitution. There is no exception in the constitution for "national security" and I do not think that was an accident. Considering the state of the nation just prior to it's signing, national security was most assuredly on their minds.

" Please forgive me, but this point is a bit of a stretch."

I would hope it never came to that, but no sadly, it's not a stretch. The branches of government only exist in the context of the Constitution. The scenario you laid out where the President and Congress "ignored" the judiciary, in it's most extreme form, would be best described as an overthrow of the legitimate U.S. Government.

The correct process in cases where the executive was found by the judiciary, to be in violation of the law, assuming congress approved of his actions, would be for congress to change the law after the fact and refuse to impeach. There is no provision for "ignoring".

"I could believe that a member of the legal profession, and I'm not directing this at you since I don't know your area of expertise, might actually buy into this."

No offense taken, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a software programmer, similar only in our fussiness over details.