Replies

"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.

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"

There is no mention of "judicial review" either, and it was discussed by the framers of the Constitution according to this source.

Do you seriously believe that the founders intended the Judiciary to have the last word? The Judiciary, whether designating Dred Scott as property or overturning honest elections, has become the last refuge of the lunatic fringe. The Constitution itself gives power over the Judiciary to the Legislative branch. As I recall, the SCOTUS avoided major overhaul by FDR only by doing deals in Congress.

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.

This is becoming a "chicken or the egg" argument. But for the sake of discussion, the Congress is empowered to impeach justices, pack the Court, and make law overturning decisions. Based on this I must conclude that the Judiciary has been afforded "coequal" status at the pleasure of the Legislative.

There is no provision for "ignoring".

Based on my observations above, I would say that there is provision for much more than "ignoring." Yes, I am mindful of the Judicial branch's role in protecting the minority; but it was never intended to cripple the majority. This last point, IMHO, is probably where most discussions on this topic will ultimately arrive. We will not resolve it.