Posted on 08/03/2007 9:36:12 PM PDT by bubman
“If you’re arguing that the woman and the Black Dems are unacceptable because of their political positions, then I can agree about that.”
Well gee, thanks, that’s mighty white of you after trying to pin me as a racist misogynist.
“But why don’t you judge a Mormon on the same grounds?”
I do judge them on the same grounds of morality.
“You’d prefer a “commie” or a “socialist” to a Mormon?”
Let’s phrase this another way. I’d prefer an outright communist or socialist over a polytheist false prophet who believes he’s becoming a god. At least with the commie and socialist we know exactly what we are getting and can fight accordingly. But anyone who follows a carnival act/crystal gazer/adulterer/secessionist/king/bank fraud/tinpot general/grifter like Joseph Smith is not someone I’d trust the future of the nation with.
No Temple Recommend for YOU!
And what's wrong with that? I'd prefer that we all post items for our own candidates rather than wasting our time doing the Dim's work for them by attacking the Pubbies. After all, one of these guys is going to be the party's candidate. Then what? You going third party? That only assures us that Shrillary will win ! ! !
Yes, the President and Congress have a duty follow the Constitution in everything they do. I also agree with you that Congressmen passing suspect legislation in the anticipation that the court will strike it down is also disgraceful.
But that does not mean they can simply ignore a SCOTUS decision. You have provided zero support for that assertion thus far.
Sorry, but not a single one of your quotes says the President has the authority to defy a Supreme Court decision.
________________________________________________
I disagree. The oath is to uphold the Constitution, not the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. If the two conflict it is the sworn duty of the President to uphold the Constitution. Research it a little, I think you’ll find that many Presidents have played games of “chicken” with the Court on issues. It’s one way to keep the Court in line. Similar to the pissing matches between Congress and the President over who controls foreign policy. I’m not saying it should be commmon, but when you remove even the thought of it, you diminish the President’s and Congresses duty to the Constitution.
The oaths you quote don't say that.
Furthermore, to defy a court decision would itself be a violation of the Constitution. All judicial power rests with the court. The president does not have the power to usurp it if he feels the court is misusing it.
Research it a little, I think you’ll find that many Presidents have played games of “chicken” with the Court on issues.
Perhaps, but there hasn't been a single time in history where the president defied a decision.
Worcester vs. Georgia. Jackson ignored the Court as did the State of Georgia. It’s not common but it’s there in a direct conflict between the two branches.
Also Roosevelt, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant changed or attempted to change the number of Supreme Court justices when they disagreed with the Court.
The power of the Congress to remove jurisdiction from the Court also indicates the duty of the Congress (if the Court can’t hear the case, who decides on what is Constitutional or not? . . . Congress and the President).
Realize that the current ascendency of the Court in the popular mind over the President and Congress has been promoted by the schools and the media in an era with largely liberal courts. You will see this reverse in the media if there is ever a conservative court, and suddenly the duties of the President and Congress to the Constitution will be rediscovered and the argument won’t sound as alien to you.
Worcester vs. Georgia. Jackson ignored the Court as did the State of Georgia. It’s not common but it’s there in a direct conflict between the two branches.
Also Roosevelt, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant changed or attempted to change the number of Supreme Court justices when they disagreed with the Court.
The power of the Congress to remove jurisdiction from the Court also indicates the duty of the Congress (if the Court can’t hear the case, who decides on what is Constitutional or not? . . . Congress and the President).
Realize that the current ascendency of the Court in the popular mind over the President and Congress has been promoted by the schools and the media in an era with largely liberal courts. You will see this reverse in the media if there is ever a conservative court, and suddenly the duties of the President and Congress to the Constitution will be rediscovered and the argument won’t sound as alien to you.
Ad hominem attack? You're joking right?? Is this the bait and switch method when you're unable to substantively respond to the post?
I graduated with honors from a respected, accredited law school whereas it is apparent by your utter lack of citation to legal authority and the asininity of your arguments that you obtained your legal education from a mail order company.
You have provided no citations to any constiutitonal jurisprudence to support your inane assertion. On the other hand, I provided several citations, beginning with Marbury and continuing down to the last term of the Supreme Court. Obviously, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Let me simplify:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803)
That the task of interpreting the great, sweeping clauses of the Constitution ultimately falls to us has been for some time an accepted principle of American jurisprudence.
Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 108 S.Ct. 2687 (1988)
In the last term, Chief Justice Roberts stated:
Chief Justice Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), grounded the Federal Judiciary's authority to exercise judicial review and interpret the Constitution on the necessity to do so in the course of carrying out the judicial function of deciding cases. As Marshall explained, "[t]hose who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule." Id., at 177.
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 126 S.Ct. 1854 (2006)
Let me simplify further. You mail order lawyers claim that Congress' passage of the law in 1862 outlawing slavery in the territories and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation effectively freed the slaves in supposed derogation of the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857). If, as you claim, these actions were a legitimate exercise of their constitutional authority, there would have been no need for the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments since the President and Congress had, in your warped view, already accomplished the purpose of these Amendments.
Finally, you continue to ignore the elephant in the room. I have repeatedly commented that if your asinine position were embraced, it would have allowed Clinton to repudiate the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore and issue an executive order requiring all votes in Florida to be counted. It didn't occur because Clinton, thankfully, didn't possess such power as President.
You signed up to FR very recently....I've three questions....if you don't mind.
Are you a Mormon?
Do you work for the Romney campaign?
Where did you go to law school?
Principled people run tape while sayin they aren't?
It was the lowest thing I've seen an interviewer do since Connie Chung interviewed Newt's mom.
Weak. You didn’t deal with a single argument I posted.
That doesn't excuse the poor behavior of this radio host, and it doesn't change the fact that Mitt handled him well.
Try to get the law repealed.
What is the duty of the Congress if the President jails people for speech and the Court upholds it?
Pass a law forbidding the president from doing it.
In this interview, he showed that he has a nitwit side to him.
I'm not a Romney supporter, but there are real issues this guy could have tackled. He should have left the comments/questions about Mormonism alone.
The State of Georgia ignored it, not Jackson. The court could have ordered Federal Marshalls to enforce the decision, but it never did. It is a most disgraceful episode in the history of constitutional law, but it does not support your contention that the president can defy a decision he doesn't like.
If the court had ordered marshalls out to enforce it, and the Jackson had refused, then you would have a point. But that's not what happened.
It’s not common but it’s there in a direct conflict between the two branches.
Of course, there's conflict, but not the kind of conflict you speak of, i.e. the president defying the court.
Also Roosevelt, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant changed or attempted to change the number of Supreme Court justices when they disagreed with the Court.
As far as I can remember, they only threatened to do it, but never actually went through with it.
Nevertheless, even if they had done it, it still wouldn't support your assertion that a president can simply defy a court decision.
Packing a court, and defying its rulings, are not the same thing.
The power of the Congress to remove jurisdiction from the Court also indicates the duty of the Congress
Removing jurisdiction is not the same things a defying a decision.
You don’t get it, do you? Your personal opinions/arguments mean nothing. What matters is the actual text of the Constitution and Constitutional jurisprudence. As I have repeatedly shown, neither remotely support your asinine assertion that the President can repudiate a Supreme Court decision. More importantly, you have not identifed any text from the Constitution that supports your assertion nor have you cited any constitutional jurisprudence to support your assertion.
It is obvious you have no formal legal education; an indvidual who had a formal legal education would not spout the inane assertions that you do. My Constitutional Law professor was a former Solicitor General under Reagan who argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court. His reputation as a Constitutional scholar was excellent. I feel very comfortable with my education on this subject. You, on the other hand, ought to ask for a refund from that mail order company.
Don’t forget the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education which held that “separate but equal” was unconstitutional.
Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy both understood that this decision was a final and authoritative interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court and federalized the national guard to enforce the Supreme Court pronouncement in both Arkansas and Alabama.
More ad hominem. You basically quote Marbury vs. Madison as if though that removes Presidential perogatives regarding enforcement of the law, which is his perogative. Where a court holding is opposed to the Constitution, the President’s oath states that his duty is to the Constitution; it does not mention the Supreme Court’s opinion at all. If you are saying that no President has ever ignored the Court, or altered it because of a disagreement on the Constitution, you are wrong. See Jackson, see also Abraham Lincoln, and a slew of administrations that have altered the size of the court or threatened to over holdings of the Court. It’s raw power and public opinion when things get down to brass tacks on an issue. Not neat and clean at all.
So you went to Brigham Young Law School, and studied under Rex Lee, since you would have crowed about Harvard if you had attended. As I said, my legal edumacation is at the more prestigious institution, since such things seem to matter to you. You’ll have to knock off the claims to a superior education and find more support than Marbury v. Madison, which a good High School student should know of at least in general terms.
Original jurisdiction only applies in a few areas for the Supreme Court. The rest can dissappear in a single statute if Congress so chooses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.