Abelian Sea
o_O
Faithfully executing the Office involves a lot of things INCLUDING the obligation (the oath) to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."
He can only do that faithfully if he adheres to what the Constitution commands.
And the constitution PLAINLY commands that he execute the Laws. And we are talking here of a properly legislated and Court-upheld law.
The extreme situation we're imagining here, where a veto has been overridden and the Court supports the law but the president believes it to be blatantly unconstitutional, is a case where the President CANNOT fulfill his entire Oath.
There is, in such a situation, a conflict within the Oath itself: executing established statutory law (part of "execute the Office") versus not violating some other part the constitution (part of "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution").
[situation]
Now, then, tell me. In that scenario (no changing it): what SHOULD the President do? What would YOU do?
Should: Remand himself from the impossible situation; resign in disgust.
Would: I'd be strongly tempted to do the same as you would: tell the system to kiss off. May as well: since my ass would be getting fired shortly anyway (2/3rds united Congress + Court backing = screwed recalcitrant prez), I may as well keep my balls.
The thing that would give me pause, would be whether such a blatant act of defiance against the system would actually result in relevant armed conflict; i.e., I'd have to consider how strongly the military felt about it (would a significant portion of them side with me to the point of obeying my orders in defiance of statutory law?) and how the citizenry at large felt (would a significant portion of them side with me to the point of revolting?).
If being defiant, as opposed to resigning, would lead to a real breaking of the government, or bloodshed, I'd have to think long and hard about whether the issue was really worth it.
Last edited: