But in President Jackson’s message announcing his veto of the act renewing the Bank of the United States there is language which suggests that the President has the right to refuse to enforce both statutes and judicial decisions on his own independent decision that they were unwarranted by the Constitution.
President Jackson didn't defy any SCOTUS decision with that veto.
The best you can do is point to "suggestive language" in his statement. Forgive me if I'm not impressed.
The idea next turned up in a message by President Lincoln justifying his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus without obtaining congressional authorization.
What court decision did this defy?
103 And counsel to President Johnson during his impeachment trial adverted to the theory but only in passing.
Okay, so to support your theory, you have "suggestive" language by President Jackson, as well as the counsel of President Johnson's adverting to it "in passing."
Yeah, that's really solid evidence. /sarcasm. On the other side, we have the language of the Constitution itself, plus 230 years of SCOTUS precedent.
I think it's obvious to any objective observer who wins this argument.
SCOTUS can act to guarantee a Republican form of government under the Constitution, so it can grab jurisdiction if it wants to if a claim is made that the courts are legislating in a State. Doubt they would in this environment, but they could, and it would have been interesting. Can’t think of a better test case actually.
Yes, it would have made for an interesting failure.
Well, I’ve made the points I have to make. I don’t think you can deny the President’s duty to defend the Constitution or that there could be a circumstance when this places him in opposition to the Court. As Justice Jackson wrote, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” echoing Lincoln regarding the suspension of Habeus Corpus when criticized by the Chief Justice, “Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?”
Anyway, you know the Constitutional basis for Presidential defense of the Constitution itself, the ability of Congress to limit the Court and who decides Constitutionality if jurisdiction is removed, the types of circumstances where Presidents have suspended Constitutional protections in wartime, a situation where the President has not enforced a ruling of the Court outside of a time of war, and the reasoning of those who say this can in extreme circumstances be exactly the right thing to do . . . That’s all I’ve got for you. ; )