Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gephardt vows to ignore the constitution
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90124,00.html ^

Posted on 06/23/2003 11:26:27 AM PDT by AlextheWise1

Edited on 04/22/2004 12:36:41 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day," Gephardt said.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; dickgephardt; dicktator; dictator; dncuberalles; gephardt; littledick; meinkampf; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: AlextheWise1
No, he is just articulating what everybody else does in practise. The supreme court ignores the constitution in most of it's decisions, the congress does not hesitate to ignore the constitution when it writes new bills, and the president doesn't hesitate is signing patently unconstitutional bills into law. At least Gephardt is being open about his lack of support for the constitution. I think it's refreshing.
41 posted on 06/23/2003 1:19:27 PM PDT by fifteendogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meenie
Everybody in the federal government ignores the constitution, what else is new.
42 posted on 06/23/2003 1:22:19 PM PDT by fifteendogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JmyBryan
It's a tough question - with whom should the final authority to decide Constitutionality reside?
43 posted on 06/23/2003 1:42:59 PM PDT by m1911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: m1911
I vaguley remember reading that (some of?) the framers considered the Presidential veto the way to determine constitutionality of laws. They somewhat naively believed that the POTUS would be beyond partisanship, given he represented all the States.

Anyone know more on this?
44 posted on 06/23/2003 1:50:31 PM PDT by JmyBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JmyBryan
At the Federal level, it should work as a three way veto, IMHO. The SCOTUS becomes the final arbiter because by Congress passing and the Pres signing, they have shown that they consider a law Constitutional. The SCOTUS's only way is to rule on the law, although I think some adjustment to the tradition of waiting for a case to bubble up through the courts could use some work, but I haven't really thought it through.

When it comes to ruling on State laws, things are more difficult because the SCOTUS becomes the only Federal power involved.
45 posted on 06/23/2003 2:02:20 PM PDT by m1911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: AlextheWise1
Eugene Volokh thinks this quote is so outlandish that Gephardt may well have been misquoted. I don't, but then, I'm utterly cynical about the Democratic Party and everybody in it.


"We'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does": Daniel Levine points to this remarkable quote from Rep. Dick Gephardt, one of the Democratic presidential candidates:
The [University of Michigan] case was a main topic of discussion Sunday at a candidate forum sponsored by Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition.

"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day," Gephardt said.
The quote is so shocking that I think he may have been misquoted, or quoted out of context -- it's surely happened before. But if he was quoted in context, then this thinking is a very good reason not to elect him. If anyone has more details on the quote, I'd love to hear them.

46 posted on 06/23/2003 2:15:43 PM PDT by The Hon. Galahad Threepwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Hon. Galahad Threepwood
I forced myself to watch this yesterday on Cspan and the tape is there today. This was a direct quote and was not out-of-context.

The question on affirmative action was addressed to Kucinich. He said, "...If the Supreme Court goes in the other direction, if the Supreme Court goes in a direction of failing to understand this nation has such a distance to go on matters of affirmative-action, then what I will do as president of the United States is to write a series of executive orders that will enshrine affirmative action in housing, in education, in every area of our economy. It’s time for America to stand affirmatively...

Not wanting to miss the chance to address the Rainbow Coalition on the issue, Gephardt chimed in:

I attended the University of Michigan law school. I graduated in 1965. We had about 350 students in the class. We only had one African-American student in that class. His name is Harry Edwards. He’s on the D.C. court of appeals. I filed an amicus curiae brief in this case as a graduate of the University of Michigan law school opposing the president’s position. Since we have had - since we have had affirmative-action, after I left the school, in the last classes since affirmative-action came in, we’ve had 30 and 40 and 50 minorities in each class. Now you just gotta ask yourself what has that meant to improve America? It’s been a gigantic improvement in America because we are giving everybody an equal opportunity. I join with Dennis, when I’m president we’ll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day.

47 posted on 06/23/2003 2:33:13 PM PDT by Mudbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mudbug
I sent Volokh a pointer to your post.
48 posted on 06/23/2003 2:39:19 PM PDT by The Hon. Galahad Threepwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: AlextheWise1
What a stupid freaking idiot. This guy has been in Congress how long and he doesn't know the President can't do that? This is one sorry crop of candidates. They're the Nine Dwarves and they're all Dopey.
49 posted on 06/23/2003 4:14:51 PM PDT by MattAMiller (Down with the Mullahs! Peace, freedom, and prosperity for Iran.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rebel25
Sure could've fooled me. Holding people incognito without letting their families know where they are at, no attorneys, no habeus corpus. This is Constitutional? Whose Constitution, Nazi Germany's?
50 posted on 06/23/2003 4:55:58 PM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: AlextheWise1
He's getting desperate now!
51 posted on 06/23/2003 8:28:57 PM PDT by Arpege92
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AlextheWise1
Is he insane? Perhaps, but he is also a communist.
52 posted on 06/23/2003 8:32:23 PM PDT by ladyinred (The left have blood on their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AlextheWise1
The democrats will be the first ones that throw down the illusion that we live under the Constitution.
53 posted on 06/24/2003 5:47:05 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AlextheWise1
When I'm president.......

Fortunately, when Dickie's Presidident, pigs will be flying.

54 posted on 06/24/2003 6:42:02 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AlextheWise1
Gephardt should be delivering milk, door to door, in St Louis, Mo. Unfortunately milk is no longer delivered in wagons pulled by a jackass.
55 posted on 06/24/2003 6:53:28 PM PDT by F.J. Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Hon. Galahad Threepwood
Wow! Today this was national news. Earlier in the same event, Gephardt made some outrageous claims about N. Korea - and the wonderful deal Clinton and Perry had brokered. Think you should also send those along? Naaah - not timely enough, but still outrageous.

Best FReegards.
56 posted on 06/24/2003 7:29:54 PM PDT by Mudbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: AlextheWise1
He should ask Sandra Day O'Connor to be his vice-president. She can teach him how to issue edicts and impose his individual will in spite of the Constitution.
57 posted on 06/25/2003 2:57:18 PM PDT by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mudbug
Gephardt had to back down. Gephardt Clarifies Affirmative Action Statement.
58 posted on 06/25/2003 2:58:03 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: AlextheWise1
"Dickie" to over-rule the Supreme Court! Wow! So much for equal division of powers!
59 posted on 06/27/2003 2:43:03 PM PDT by Graewoulf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JmyBryan
So am I
60 posted on 06/28/2003 9:54:14 AM PDT by Dahlseide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson