Gephardt vows to ignore the constitution

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90124,00.html ^

[Dahlseide]

For once Gephardt said something, a portion of which, I agree with. Co-equal branches? Let the three duke it out in defense of the clear intent of the constitution - the real one not the living one.

[Ohioan]

While John Marshall stepped in and asserted the concept of Judicial Review, it was a bit of an overreach. What should, however, be recognized in my opinion, is that there is an inherent element of what Marshall established, in the very act of considering a case, brought based upon a legislative enactment. Obviously, the Justices are bound by their oaths of office--just as Congress and the President are bound by their oaths of Office. Thus, if the Justices believe that to enforce or apply a law would violate the Constitution, their oaths require them to decline to apply such a "law."

Such refusal would be tantamount to what has taken place since Marshall. The refusal would be a precedent, and if followed faithfully, would be tantamount to a pragmatic invalidation of the "law."

But note, here: The Congress and President are bound by the same oath. Consequently, you have multiple checks on the application of Government. Even as the Supreme Court--or for that matter, any local Court--is honor bound upon their oaths, not to enforce or apply legislation believed to be unConstitutional; so too the President is honor bound not to apply any legislation he deems to be unconstitutional--and not to apply a judicial decision that has the effect of making new law, if he feels it to be in error. (This is not an issue with the Rehnquist Court, which has not been legislating. But it was very much an issue with the Warren Court, which clearly did.)

Of course, Congress has no business passing legislation that is unConstitutional in the first place.

The bottom line is that if Washington were full of men of honor, we would not have most of the laws that are in the United States Code, today.

As for Gephardt or Kucinich ruling by decree? The day after either of them is elected, will be the day that every forewarned patriot takes such action as may be appropriate--with "Committees of Correspondence" to coordinate what is needed. We should be very glad for that "forewarning," because it will also give us all plenty of time to discuss these matters with family members in the armed services, to make sure that everyone understands what the newly elected intends, etc..

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Graewoulf]

Since two of the nine democrats running for the Presidential nomination for their party support the idea that a sitting President can over-rule THE NINE SUPREMES by issuing executive orders, it seems fitting that we explore the legality of such an idea.

Following such an Executive Order, would THE NINE SUPREMES file their own injunction against the President, or would that injunction be filed by the Attorney General?

Could impeachment proceedings be initiated if the President ignored the filed injunction?

We hear a lot about "checks and balances" in our Republic form of government, but what does the law actually specify on the use of Presidential Executive Orders relative to overturning a Supreme Court decision?

Are Presidential Executive Orders specified in the US Constitution?

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

Executive orders aren't mentioned in the Constitution, but since they're really just orders from the Presdient to his subordinates, their legality depends on whether what he's ordering is legal.

An order to ignore a Supreme Court ruling would result in a genuine Constitutional crisis.

Of course the President could be impeached and removed, if Congress saw fit to do so. On the other hand, Congress could also use its power to regulate the courts under Article III to resolve the crisis in the President's favor.

If Congress chose not to act, I have no idea how such a crisis would play itself out.

(Incidentally, Gephardt's backed off on his "executive order" claim.)

[Graewoulf]

Thank you for your replys to my questions.

Since you seem to write with authority, I have one more question: Is your phrase "genuine Constitutional crisis" code for the doctrine of "No Governing Authority?"

[Graewoulf]

Was this Gephardt quote allowed to be broadcast or printed by "The Media" in your hometown in the Socialist Republic of California?

If so, where in the broadcast, or what page did "The Media" put the quote on?

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

I don't know how much authority I have, but as far as I can see, the Constitution doesn't lay out any rules for such a conflict between the President and Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court rules that Executive Branch acts are illegal, and the President ignores the ruling, the Constitution doesn't say who wins. How does the Court enforce its orders when the guy who runs federal law enforcement is the one flouting the orders?

That's why it would be a Constitutional crisis (unlike the Clinton impeachment and Senate trial, which was dishonestly labeled a "Constitutional crisis," but which actually followed established Constitutional procedure).

The issue would probably fester until Congress took one side or the other, or until the next election, when the people could decide.

[Graewoulf]

Then Algore may have re-invented something afterall: "There is no governing authority."

[lainie]

If the judicial and exec branches are truly equal, then there is no one governing authority, other than the states (the original parties to the agreement known as the Constitution).

p.s. I am aware of this stupid Gephardt quote but haven't seen it talked about much either way in La-La Land.

[Wondervixen]

That was in front of a Black crowd of Jesse Jacksonites over Affirmative Action.

Today, in front of an Hispanic community, Gephardt was heard to say "And when I'M President, I'll do executive orders to give Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona BACK to Mexico!"

[Graewoulf]

It is always interesting to have a long campaign for President. Eventually the "gut-feelings" of a candidate will be revealed by his/her words or actions. "Dickie" has showed us how he would react, rather than how he would lead. He reminds me a lot of Jimmah Carter -- very scary.

[Oceanus]

How is this news? The Democrats have been ignoring the Constitution for decades.

[Graewoulf]

The news is that when a democrat reveals how he/she would react in an unlawful manner, "The Media" ignores it.

If we at FR keep our mouths shut, then we are no better than a flock of sheep.

We must speak out EACH time "The Media" does not hold the democrats to the same standard that they hold Republicans.

[Graewoulf]

It is to late to apologize.

If the GOP/RNC has a video clip of "Dickie's" quote, then it will make an excellent campaign TV ad for the Republicans in 2004!

[lainie]

But, a chief executive writing executive orders isn't acting in an unlawful manner, necessarily.

[Graewoulf]

It is unlawful if the Exec. Order overturns a decision by the Supreme Court.

[lainie]

No it isn't. Why do you think so? They're co-equal. And as described correctly earlier, executive orders only apply to the president's staff and subordinates anyway.

[aristeides]

When Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court's ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, Andrew Jackson won. When Abraham Lincoln ignored Chief Justice Taney's ruling in Ex parte Merryman, Abraham Lincoln won.

[Graewoulf]

Then where is the check and balance if the final authority on the law of our Republic, which is the Supreme Court, can be overturned by a Presidential Executive Order?

In a truly co-equal society one could choose to obey the law according to THE NINE SUPREMES, or to obey the law according to President "Dickie." It would make for interesting arrest warrants and trials. Everything (including lawyers, judges and jurys) would have to be in duplicates, of course.

[huck von finn]

Two of them said this?! Gephart and who else?