[Mr. Silverback]

I think we will need this president, or the next one, to have a Lincoln moment.

There are links to further information at the source document.

If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Mike Darancette]

As Hamilton argued the Federalist #78 the federal judiciary will be the 'least dangerous' political branch under the Constitution because it has neither 'purse' nor 'sword.'

[antiRepublicrat]

Both Jefferson and Lincoln believed courts were capable of violating the Constitution and undermining constitutional government.

Unfortunately, too many these days forget that the other two branches are equally capable of doing so. Our legislators and presidents have no problems enacting laws they know are unconstitutional so they can curry favor with their constituents, and complain later that the "activist court" overturned the laws.

[AZRepublican]

The Supreme Court sole purpose was to decide defined disputes, not interject itself in Republicanism. States can roll over an play dead at the snap of the courts fingers whenever the rights they retained under their compact is disparaged, and they can also decide for themselves whether the court has invalidated their compact and ignore the court. They are certaintly under no obligation under the Constitution to give up their retained rights simply because the court says so.

Its like with this federal court ruling with Arizona punishing the state $500,000 a day because of aliens lack of english education funding. Arizonia is perfectly within its rights to say they are under no obligation to fund english only and that they are the final arbritrator in the matter under their constitutional comapct.

[AMHN]

Watch: the Democrats next move...

Possible scenario: GOP gets Roe v Wade overturned (or at least thrown back to states)...Dem's win back Presidency with radical Hillary or Dean type (1% possibility). Dem President refuses to acknowledge the overturned Roe v Wade.

History: They've learned (and lost).

[Defiant]

This is something that needs to be explained to the American people. Too many people assume that if the Supremes say it, even if you disagree, you have to go along with it. That is not necessarily the case. The checks and balances of the Constitution include the fact that the Supreme Court has no way of enforcing its edicts. It is not the ultimate authority on the rights of the other two branches, they are.

This is a revelation to most people, because we are so used to blind obedience to the Supreme Court.

Let me give you an extreme example to prove the point, and then a more specific example from today's headlines. The Constitution give the President the right to veto legislation. Suppose he does, and the Congress falls two votes short of an override. The Supreme Court then declares that the 2/3 requirement need not be followed, because it is archaic, or some such justification. Must the President accept the Supreme Court's decision?

The Constitution is capable of being read and understood by non-lawyers. When the Supreme Court clearly violates the Constitution, must its dictates be followed? Or was our system set up intentionally so that the branches could decide for themselves what the Constitution says? I believe the latter, and that when the Supreme Court opines, it does so with authority, but not always absolute authority. When it encroaches on the legislative or executive powers, it can and should be ignored or battled.

Now, another example. Suppose that we are at war. A war authorized by Congress. Further suppose that the Supreme Court has 5 justices who are against the war, and decides to interfere. They order the President not to attack the enemy, claiming that it would violate the due process rights of American soldiers to risk their lives in a dangerous mission. Or they claim that an attack would violate international law, which we must uphold, based on the Nuremburg precedents. The basis for the ruling is not important to this hypothetical, just that they make a ruling that tells the President how to exercise his powers as commander in chief of the military.

The President would have a duty to ignore the ruling, and exercise his power as commander in chief. He could perhaps explain why he is ignoring the Supreme Court, as it would be important to explain such a momentous decision to the people. But ultimately, it would be up to him to decide whether the Supreme Court could restrict his powers.

If the Congress doesn't agree, they can impeach him. It would be an impeachable offense to ignore a proper ruling of the Supreme Court on a matter of law rightly in its purview. If the voters don't agree, they can vote him or his party out at the next election. AND, if the Supreme Court does these things, its members can also be impeached, for violating their duties to the Constitution. Those are the checks and balances, and they can work, if applied properly. Blind obedience does not allow any check to the Supreme Court, and it has gotten used to that blind obedience, pushing its limits ever farther.

Maybe we need a good impeachment, of someone who has admitted that he does NOT follow the Constitution in his rulings. Paging Justice Breyer.

[IronJack]

Since the Court has no executive authority of its own, if the Chief Executive chose to defy it, to whom would it turn for enforcement?

[SF Republican]

In Vidals book on Lincoln there is a story where the Supreme Court is after Lincoln and he says in effect - Although I swore an oath to the Supreme Court Justice, it was not really to him, it was to the Constitution.

[edsheppa]

Mr. Colson proposes that the Executive arbitrarily ignore Supreme Court decisions with which it disagrees. He has said some pretty dumb things, but this ranks way up there. By logical extension of his argument, since the Executive and Legislative branches are also co-equal, the president should similarly ignore legislation which he dislikes.

Yes, it is a problem that the Courts are so far removed from popular control that the governed cannot be said to have given consent, but to replace the Rule of Law by Rule of the Executive would only make it worse. What is needed is that the people or their elected representatives be able to overrule these egregious Court decisions.

[Tarkin]

Generally I don't really think that it's a wise policy (to ignore courts that is), vide Orval Faubus and Little Rock or Janet Reno and Elian. The person who ignores the courts will always think that HE is right and that the ruling was wrong/unconstitutional/meaningless etc. Unfortunately such reasoning and ignoring the courts would easily lead to anarchy.