The speech you cite, especially taken in the context of actual history that followed 1857, supports my case, not yours.
Lincoln also cites another case that proves your all-encompassing claim that no executive has dared defy the Supreme Court and actually decide constitutionality for himself.
Lincoln:
Why this same Supreme court once decided a national bank to be constitutional; but Gen. Jackson, as President of the United States, disregarded the decision, and vetoed a bill for a re-charter, partly on constitutional ground, declaring that each public functionary must support the Constitution, "as he understands it ." But hear the General’s own words. Here they are, taken from his veto message:
"It is maintained by the advocates of the bank, that its constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be considered as settled by precedent, and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power, except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the bank might be based on precedent. One Congress in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another in 1811, decided against it. One Congress in 1815 decided against a bank; another in 1816 decided in its favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the States, the expressions of legislative, judicial and executive opinions against the bank have been probably to those in its favor as four to one. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me."
I drop the quotations merely to remark that all there ever was, in the way of precedent up to the Dred Scott decision, on the points therein decided, had been against that decision. But hear Gen. Jackson further—
"If the opinion of the Supreme court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the co-ordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the executive and the court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others."
Again and again have I heard Judge Douglas denounce that bank decision, and applaud Gen. Jackson for disregarding it. It would be interesting for him to look over his recent speech, and see how exactly his fierce philippics against us for resisting Supreme Court decisions, fall upon his own head. It will call to his mind a long and fierce political war in this country, upon an issue which, in his own language, and, of course, in his own changeless estimation, was "a distinct and naked issue between the friends and the enemies of the Constitution," and in which war he fought in the ranks of the enemies of the Constitution.
I have said, in substance, that the Dred Scott decision was, in part, based on assumed historical facts which were not really true; and I ought not to leave the subject without giving some reasons for saying this; I therefore give an instance or two, which I think fully sustain me. Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the majority of the Court, insists at great length that negroes were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States.
proves = disproves
You are stuck on stupid. Each branch of the government derives its powers from the text of the Constitution.
Article III of the Constitution creates and empowers the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and declare federal and state legislation to either be constitutional or unconstitutional when the constitutionality of such legislation is challenged.
There is no text in the Constitution that empowers the President to repudiate pronouncements made by the Supreme Court.
As I previously stated (and which you ignored), your specious analysis is completely undermined by enactment of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. If your argument had ANY weight, these Amendments would have been completely unnecessary if the President had the Constitutional authority to repudiate pronouncements made by the Supreme Court.
Imagine the anarchy created by your position and the lack of certainty and confidence it would engender in the government.
For example: Suppose in 2000 Clinton had declared the Supreme Court pronouncement favoring Bush to be in violation of the Constitution and signed an executive order requiring each ballot in Florida to be counted in direct contravention of the decision reached by the Supreme Court. Such action would create anarchy and that is what you would create by implementing what you advocate.
As I have previously stated, it is obvious you have no formal legal education. You may be able to bamboozle some Freepers with your pseudo-legal babble, but not me or anyone else who has an understanding of Constitutional Law. Now stop making a fool of yourself.
Prior to Jackson, SCOTUS had ruled that the Constitution allowed for a national bank. It did not rule that the Constitution required a national bank. Therefore, by vetoing national bank legislation, Jackson in no way was defying any court decision. All he was doing was preventing the national bank's charter from being renewed, and that in no way went against the SCOTUS decision.
If Jackson had really believed what you believe about the ability of the president to defy a court decision, why did he wait for the Bank's charter to expire? According to your interpretation of the constition, he could have simply declared the bank unconstitutional and taken Federal Troops to shut it down by executive order. Why didn't he do that?