Should Supreme Court Decisions Be Ignored???

[PoliticalChic]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

 

[DGS49]

Well of course, this is settled law and questioning judicial review will get you nowhere.

But parenthetically one might recall that day a few years ago when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that the state's Constitution prevented discrimination in marriages between heterosexual couples and gay couples. There was absolutely no precedent for this decision; it was Judicial Activism writ large. That decision, coupled with the constraints on amending the Massachusetts Constitution (which took a minimum of two years to accomplish, once the tedious formalities were out of the way) GUARANTEED that "gay marriage" would be the law of Massachusetts for YEARS, and there was nothing that anybody could do about it. Furthermore, even if the Massachusetts legislature rebelled against the decision and amended the Constitution to ban gay "marriage," there would be a virtual army of people who had already been married in Massachusetts, whose status would probably be "carved in concrete" and never assailable again, either in Massachusetts courts or Federal. And taking it a step further, people married in Massachusetts, even if citizens of another state, would henceforth be married EVERYWHERE due to the Full Faith & Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

So if there were ever a case where the Executive had the right and the opportunity to challenge the infinite supremacy of the Judiciary over law, this was it. Governor Mitt Romney (now Senator of Utah) could have said to the state and county employees processing marriage applications, "Ignore this decision; we will wait until the legislature acts on the issue. But for now, the law remains as it has been for 200+ years." But HE DIDN'T DO THAT.

And the rest is history. Pity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Ultra-Liberal Thom Hartmann, admits that there is no basis for the misunderstanding implied in the word ‘supreme,’ as in Supreme Court.


“Thom Hartmann, the most popular progressive radio host in America (amazon)” writes:

“…the framers empowered the Supreme Court for two main reasons: first, to hear disputes between the United States and foreign countries, and between the individual states; second, to be the final court of appeals.



But nowhere does the Constitution explicitly say that the Supreme Court has the power to decide what is or is not “constitutional,” or to strike down (or make or modify) laws or policies for the United States.” “The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,” Hartmann, p. 24




7. John Marshall was at odds with Jefferson, who he mocked as "the great Lama of the mountains."(NYTimes)

This was because Jefferson recognized that the Supreme Court had become a threat to the idea of limited constitutional government.

"He worried that the Court had eliminated all checks on its power by misreading the clear messages of Article III and the eleventh amendment." "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution," Kevin R. C. Gutzman



Misreading??? Hardly. The Court stole the power, and the two real branches were fine with that.

The Constitution isn’t.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well of course, this is settled law and questioning judicial review will get you nowhere.

But parenthetically one might recall that day a few years ago when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that the state's Constitution prevented discrimination in marriages between heterosexual couples and gay couples. There was absolutely no precedent for this decision; it was Judicial Activism writ large. That decision, coupled with the constraints on amending the Massachusetts Constitution (which took a minimum of two years to accomplish, once the tedious formalities were out of the way) GUARANTEED that "gay marriage" would be the law of Massachusetts for YEARS, and there was nothing that anybody could do about it. Furthermore, even if the Massachusetts legislature rebelled against the decision and amended the Constitution to ban gay "marriage," there would be a virtual army of people who had already been married in Massachusetts, whose status would probably be "carved in concrete" and never assailable again, either in Massachusetts courts or Federal. And taking it a step further, people married in Massachusetts, even if citizens of another state, would henceforth be married EVERYWHERE due to the Full Faith & Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

So if there were ever a case where the Executive had the right and the opportunity to challenge the infinite supremacy of the Judiciary over law, this was it. Governor Mitt Romney (now Senator of Utah) could have said to the state and county employees processing marriage applications, "Ignore asthis decision; we will wait until the legislature acts on the issue. But for now, the law remains as it has been for 200+ years." But HE DIDN'T DO THAT.

And the rest is history. Pity.

It may be 'settled law,' but the more accurate title would be settled theft.

Either the Constitution is the law of the land, or, as Progressives believe....it isn't.

In no place and in no way is the Supreme Court authorized to surpass the two elected branches.



Case law, while ascendant today, is a bastardization of the Founder's views.
You may or may not be familiar with the work of these two 'thieves' of the law.


1. Progressives have altered the role of the Supreme Court in a dramatic way: no longer should its role be to apply law as written. Instead, it was the application of German social science to American law.

... law must leave "conceptions" and open itself up to social realities of the modern world.”…[endng]the backwardness of law in meeting social ends,…”http://www.drbilllong.com/Jurisprudence/Pound.html


2. [Roscoe Pound] was perhaps the chief U.S. advocate of sociological jurisprudence, which holds that statutes and court decisions are affected by social conditions; his ideas apparently influenced the New Deal programs of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt.Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions



3. Instead of following the Constitution, 'social justice' is to be pursued from the bench by following the dictates of unelected judges.....caselaw.

"Christopher Columbus Langdell ....Before Langdell's tenure, the study of law was a technical pursuit. Students were told what the law is. However, at Harvard Langdell applied the principles of pragmatism to the study of law. Now, as a result of this innovation, lawyers are taught the law through a dialectical process of inference called the case method. The case method has been the primary method of pedagogy at American law schools ever since. The case method has since been adopted and improved upon by schools in other disciplines, such as business, public policy, and education. Students such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. would ensure that Langdell's innovation would not go unnoticed. Christopher Columbus Langdell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There is no excuse for this corruption of jurisprudence except for a hatred of America, is simply proof of the adage "one only finds justice in the dictionary and the cemetery."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well of course, this is settled law and questioning judicial review will get you nowhere.

But parenthetically one might recall that day a few years ago when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that the state's Constitution prevented discrimination in marriages between heterosexual couples and gay couples. There was absolutely no precedent for this decision; it was Judicial Activism writ large. That decision, coupled with the constraints on amending the Massachusetts Constitution (which took a minimum of two years to accomplish, once the tedious formalities were out of the way) GUARANTEED that "gay marriage" would be the law of Massachusetts for YEARS, and there was nothing that anybody could do about it. Furthermore, even if the Massachusetts legislature rebelled against the decision and amended the Constitution to ban gay "marriage," there would be a virtual army of people who had already been married in Massachusetts, whose status would probably be "carved in concrete" and never assailable again, either in Massachusetts courts or Federal. And taking it a step further, people married in Massachusetts, even if citizens of another state, would henceforth be married EVERYWHERE due to the Full Faith & Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

So if there were ever a case where the Executive had the right and the opportunity to challenge the infinite supremacy of the Judiciary over law, this was it. Governor Mitt Romney (now Senator of Utah) could have said to the state and county employees processing marriage applications, "Ignore this decision; we will wait until the legislature acts on the issue. But for now, the law remains as it has been for 200+ years." But HE DIDN'T DO THAT.

And the rest is history. Pity.

"...and questioning judicial review will get you nowhere."

You may simply accept what you are told.....but the master that I serve is truth.

You will be able to find no error in any of my posts.

 

[Flash]

The commie states have been ignoring the Heller case big time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The commie states have been ignoring the Heller case big time.

Monday may be quite a day in Virginia....

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

Those are the famous words uttered by President Andrew Jackson in relation to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1832 decision in Worcester v. Georgia to strike down a Georgia law that imposed regulations on the comings and goings of white people in Native American land.

This ruling was foundational in establishing the general idea that Native Americans have some degree of sovereignty in their interaction with U.S. governments. The words and actions of President Jackson in relation to the opinion is a historic event exemplifying the ever present debate over state and federal power and the role of the courts in our modern times.” Remembering the Time Andrew Jackson Decided to Ignore the Supreme Court In the Name of Georgia’s Right to Cherokee Land




9. That was Andrew Jackson, father of the modern Democrat Party. And the Court backed away.

“The Court did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision, as had become standard.[5] Worcester thus imposed no obligations on Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce.[6][7] This may be seen as a prudential decision, for avoiding the possibility of political conflict between the Court and the Executive, while still delivering what appeared to be a pro-Indian decision.” Worcester v. Georgia - Wikipedia

“The fact remained, however, that in this case and in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), when it was ruled that the Bank of the United States was in fact constitutional, Jackson challenged the Court’s authority as the final arbiter. As president, Jackson believed that his authority to deem what was constitutional equaled the Supreme Court’s.” Andrew Jackson and the Constitution | AP US History Study Guide from The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History




Jackson was, or course, correct.

10. “. . some have argued that the President—in certain circumstances—has an independent power to interpret the Constitution, and a concomitant power to ignore or defy court orders if the President comes to a good faith conclusion that the courts have erred.” “Ex Parte Merryman: Myth, History, and Scholarship,” Seth Tillman



The pronouncements of the Supreme Court should be treated as the red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely a suggestion.

 

[Flash]

The commie states have been ignoring the Heller case big time.

Monday may be quite a day in Virginia....

 

[Flash]

The commie states have been ignoring the Heller case big time.

Monday may be quite a day in Virginia....

The problem with the gun right oppression is that the courts have been reluctant to apply strict scrutiny to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms like they do other individual Constitutional rights.

Because of that the commie states have got away with ignoring the Constitution.

I am hoping that because the Supremes have agreed to hear this recent New York case about restricting firearms from being transported that they are doing it for the purpose of deciding the level of scrutiny the states must apply to the 2nd.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. One of the greatest miscarriages of justice, and proof of the fallibility of the Supreme Court, is the Dredd Scott decision, in which the Court (Taney) found that slaves are simply property.


The first Republican President ripped the court a new one. Then....the battle raged!



“On May 28, 1861, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney directly challenged President Abraham Lincoln’s wartime suspension of the great writ of habeas corpus, in a national constitutional showdown.

Lincoln then presented his famous response to Taney. “Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the Government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it?”

The President also confronted Taney’s opinion that only Congress could suspend the writ.

“Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power; but the Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it can not be believed the framers of the instrument intended that in every case the danger should run its course until Congress could be called together, the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion,” Lincoln argued.



After the Merryman incident, Lincoln suspended the writ in other situations, and he received approval from Congress in March 1863 to suspend the writ for the duration of the conflict when “the public safety may require it.”

Taney apparently remained bitter about Lincoln’s disregard for the Ex Parte Merryman decision until his death in 1864. Taney wrote a friend in August 1863 that he had no hope the Supreme Court would “ever again be restored to the authority and rank which the Constitution intended to confer upon it.”
Lincoln and Taney’s great writ showdown - National Constitution Center


If only Taney had been correct.

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. Queen Ann (Coulter) succinctly explains the role the courts plan vis-à-vis Liberals/Democrats:

1. If liberals could trust the voters, they wouldn’t need the Court to invent ludicrous ‘constitutional rights’ for them in the first place.
2. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court…A lot is at stake for liberals with the court. If they lose a liberal vote, they will be forced t fight political battles through a messy little system know as ‘democracy.’
3. When conservative judges strike down laws, it’s because of what’s in the Constitution. When liberal judges strike down laws (or impose new laws, such as tax increases), it’s because of what’s in the New York Times.

13. Of course, government school grads, having been treated like mushrooms….raised in the dark, and fed…manure…..are shocked that anyone would consider ignoring, refusing to comply, with the dictates of the nine black-robed, unelected ayatollahs.

This is because ignorance is coin of the realm for the victims of government schooling. They never read books, and certainly not the Federalist Papers.

Federalist #49:

“The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, none of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers; and how are the encroachments of the stronger to be prevented, or the wrongs of the weaker to be redressed, without an appeal to the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commissions, can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance?

There is certainly great force in this reasoning, and it must be allowed to prove that a constitutional road to the decision of the people ought to be marked out and kept open, for certain great and extraordinary occasions.”
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 49


Supreme Court???

"...superior to all others..."

Nope.

Not according to the Constitution.

 

[Tax Man]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

The answer is NO. The SCOTUS has the final say.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

The answer is NO. The SCOTUS has the final say.

Well, then you should be able to quote where the law of the land, the United States Constitution, agrees with you.


If you can't, you still serve a purpose: you are the sort of indoctrinated dunce that government school turns out.



Waiting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

The answer is NO. The SCOTUS has the final say.

I put a cork in your pie hole, huh?

'

 

[bodecea]

8. “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

Those are the famous words uttered by President Andrew Jackson in relation to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1832 decision in Worcester v. Georgia to strike down a Georgia law that imposed regulations on the comings and goings of white people in Native American land.

This ruling was foundational in establishing the general idea that Native Americans have some degree of sovereignty in their interaction with U.S. governments. The words and actions of President Jackson in relation to the opinion is a historic event exemplifying the ever present debate over state and federal power and the role of the courts in our modern times.” Remembering the Time Andrew Jackson Decided to Ignore the Supreme Court In the Name of Georgia’s Right to Cherokee Land




9. That was Andrew Jackson, father of the modern Democrat Party. And the Court backed away.

“The Court did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision, as had become standard.[5] Worcester thus imposed no obligations on Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce.[6][7] This may be seen as a prudential decision, for avoiding the possibility of political conflict between the Court and the Executive, while still delivering what appeared to be a pro-Indian decision.” Worcester v. Georgia - Wikipedia

“The fact remained, however, that in this case and in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), when it was ruled that the Bank of the United States was in fact constitutional, Jackson challenged the Court’s authority as the final arbiter. As president, Jackson believed that his authority to deem what was constitutional equaled the Supreme Court’s.” Andrew Jackson and the Constitution | AP US History Study Guide from The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History




Jackson was, or course, correct.

10. “. . some have argued that the President—in certain circumstances—has an independent power to interpret the Constitution, and a concomitant power to ignore or defy court orders if the President comes to a good faith conclusion that the courts have erred.” “Ex Parte Merryman: Myth, History, and Scholarship,” Seth Tillman



The pronouncements of the Supreme Court should be treated as the red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely a suggestion.

Holding Jackson up as some kind of positive example........

 

[PoliticalChic]

14. The Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by.


Article IV, section 2:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.




Somehow, judges have wormed their way around this demand that they rule only….ONLY…in consistence with the Constitution.

The overthrow of America began with Franklin Roosevelt and with Chief Justice Hughes’ famous aphorism that
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

No, it isn't.

He should have been jailed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

Those are the famous words uttered by President Andrew Jackson in relation to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1832 decision in Worcester v. Georgia to strike down a Georgia law that imposed regulations on the comings and goings of white people in Native American land.

This ruling was foundational in establishing the general idea that Native Americans have some degree of sovereignty in their interaction with U.S. governments. The words and actions of President Jackson in relation to the opinion is a historic event exemplifying the ever present debate over state and federal power and the role of the courts in our modern times.” Remembering the Time Andrew Jackson Decided to Ignore the Supreme Court In the Name of Georgia’s Right to Cherokee Land




9. That was Andrew Jackson, father of the modern Democrat Party. And the Court backed away.

“The Court did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision, as had become standard.[5] Worcester thus imposed no obligations on Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce.[6][7] This may be seen as a prudential decision, for avoiding the possibility of political conflict between the Court and the Executive, while still delivering what appeared to be a pro-Indian decision.” Worcester v. Georgia - Wikipedia

“The fact remained, however, that in this case and in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), when it was ruled that the Bank of the United States was in fact constitutional, Jackson challenged the Court’s authority as the final arbiter. As president, Jackson believed that his authority to deem what was constitutional equaled the Supreme Court’s.” Andrew Jackson and the Constitution | AP US History Study Guide from The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History




Jackson was, or course, correct.

10. “. . some have argued that the President—in certain circumstances—has an independent power to interpret the Constitution, and a concomitant power to ignore or defy court orders if the President comes to a good faith conclusion that the courts have erred.” “Ex Parte Merryman: Myth, History, and Scholarship,” Seth Tillman



The pronouncements of the Supreme Court should be treated as the red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely a suggestion.

Holding Jackson up as some kind of positive example........

I follow the instructions of the first Republican President, who said:

"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong." Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (October 16, 1854),


You might consider doing the same.




BTW....as you know, I am always right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

Those are the famous words uttered by President Andrew Jackson in relation to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1832 decision in Worcester v. Georgia to strike down a Georgia law that imposed regulations on the comings and goings of white people in Native American land.

This ruling was foundational in establishing the general idea that Native Americans have some degree of sovereignty in their interaction with U.S. governments. The words and actions of President Jackson in relation to the opinion is a historic event exemplifying the ever present debate over state and federal power and the role of the courts in our modern times.” Remembering the Time Andrew Jackson Decided to Ignore the Supreme Court In the Name of Georgia’s Right to Cherokee Land




9. That was Andrew Jackson, father of the modern Democrat Party. And the Court backed away.

“The Court did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision, as had become standard.[5] Worcester thus imposed no obligations on Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce.[6][7] This may be seen as a prudential decision, for avoiding the possibility of political conflict between the Court and the Executive, while still delivering what appeared to be a pro-Indian decision.” Worcester v. Georgia - Wikipedia

“The fact remained, however, that in this case and in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), when it was ruled that the Bank of the United States was in fact constitutional, Jackson challenged the Court’s authority as the final arbiter. As president, Jackson believed that his authority to deem what was constitutional equaled the Supreme Court’s.” Andrew Jackson and the Constitution | AP US History Study Guide from The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History




Jackson was, or course, correct.

10. “. . some have argued that the President—in certain circumstances—has an independent power to interpret the Constitution, and a concomitant ipower to ignore or defy court orders if the President comes to a good faith conclusion that the courts have erred.” “Ex Parte Merryman: Myth, History, and Scholarship,” Seth Tillman



The pronouncements of the Supreme Court should be treated as the red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely a suggestion.

Holding Jackson up as some kind of positive example........

I notice you couldn't find anything to dispute in the posts you emoticon'd.


Hope I taught you some things.

 

[PoliticalChic]

15. Jefferson wrote, about Marbury vs Madison, Marshall’s claim to judicial review, that it murdered the Constitution.


“If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se [suicide pact]. For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation.

The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.” Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18: Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane




The Founders had no such intention.

The Supreme Court should be no more than a sounding board, and adviser.

There's a simple answer as to why the two elected branches allow the pretense.