Trump is not the First President to Defy the Courts

[Thunk]

I don't need to wait for legislation...I have a pen...and a phone

 

[JLW]

Judges should stay in their own lane.

There is a concept called appeals. BTW, who decides the lane? Trump. LOL

 

[Moonglow]

Nor was Abraham Lincoln. It is nothing new.

Lincoln and Taney’s great writ showdown | Constitution Center

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.

constitutioncenter.org

On May 25, 1861, federal troops arrested a Maryland planter, John Merryman, on suspicion that he was involved in a conspiracy as part of an armed secessionist group. Merryman was detained at Fort McHenry without a warrant. Merryman’s attorney petitioned the U.S. Circuit Court for Maryland, which Taney oversaw, for his client’s release.

On May 26, Taney issued a writ of habeas corpus and ordered General George Cadwalader, Fort McHenry’s commander, to appear in the circuit courtroom along with Merryman and to explain his reasons for detaining Merryman.

Cadwalader didn’t comply with the writ and instead sent a letter back to Taney on May 27 explaining that Lincoln had authorized military officers to suspend the writ when they felt there were public safety concerns. Taney then tried to notify Cadwalader that he was in contempt of court, but soldiers at Fort McHenry refused the notice.

However, Taney noted that he didn’t have the physical power to enforce the writ in this case because of the nature of the conflict at hand. “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome,” he said. But Taney did order that a copy of his opinion be sent directly to President Lincoln.

Rulings by federal judges are not enforceable suicide pacts. Lincoln acted as he did to prevent sabotage of the United States Army supply chains, and that took precedence over preventing a circuit judge's ruling from being ignored.

Andrew Jackson did it before Lincoln and ran on fear of immigrants.

 

[Moonglow]

I don't need to wait for legislation...I have a pen...and a phone

Then you can doodle.

 

[Blaster]

There is a concept called appeals. BTW, who decides the lane? Trump. LOL

Trump has the power over this judge.

 

[JLW]

My mistake you are correct... but Jefferson ignored court rulings on many issues... so did Jackson... and so has a lot of presidents...

No, Presidents rarely openly defied the Supreme Court. They modified their actions to comply with Supreme Court Orders or found ways around them by changing the rational for the law, but extremely few, ever openly defied the Supreme Court because that would be blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[BackAgain]

There is a concept called appeals. BTW, who decides the lane? Trump. LOL

The Constitution.

 

[JLW]

Trump has the power over this judge.

No he does not. Federal Judges have lifetime tenure to avoid political intimidation.

 

[JLW]

The Constitution.

Who decides what is Constitutional? The courts.

 

[Blaster]

No he does not. Judge’s have lifetime tenure to a valid political intimidation.

Trump has the DOJ and FBI. How is that so called judge going to stop him?

 

[JLW]

Trump has the DOJ and FBI. How is that so called judge going to stop him?

So your argument is that Trump is above the law. Well, that argument destroys 250 years of constitutional law.

 

[Blaster]

So your argument is that Trump is above the law. Well, that argument destroys 250 years of constitutional law.

As President he is immune from prosecution.

 

[BackAgain]

Who decides what is Constitutional? The courts.

Says who?

I know. I know. The regular answer (which is most often true) is “the court.”

But, that’s not exactly what the constitution itself says, now is it?

Now, just for grins, let’s consider an unlikely example. Let’s imagine that the SCOTUS and lower courts collectively determined that the Constitution REQUIRES that all black peoples in America have no legal rights and must be immediately shipped to Africa.

I know that I, for one, would genuinely and seriously oppose giving any effect to such a “ruling.”

How ‘bout you?

 

[JLW]

As President he is immune from prosecution.

So, Trump is a dictator and do whatever he wants?

 

[Blaster]

So, Trump is a dictator and do whatever he wants?

I never said that.

 

[BackAgain]

So your argument is that Trump is above the law. Well, that argument destroys 250 years of constitutional law.

No.

And, again, the Constitution says that the President is the commander of this republic’s armed forces.

If the SCOTUS as the head of the tyrannical branch werenton”hold” that President Trump had to relinquish that role to some other person, would it be required that Trump step aside from his Constitutional duty to be the Commander in Chief?

Don’t strain yourself. Obviously, he would be obligated to ignore such a lawless “ruling.”

 

[BackAgain]

As President he is immune from prosecution.

That’s was not what SCOTUS held.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Andrew Jackson did it before Lincoln and ran on fear of immigrants.

Was it a "constitutional crisis?"

Did the nation survive?

 

[JLW]

Says who?

I know. I know. The regular answer (which is most often true) is “the court.”

But, that’s not exactly what the constitution itself says, now is it?

Now, just for grins, let’s consider an unlikely example. Let’s imagine that the SCOTUS and lower courts collectively determined that the Constitution REQUIRES that all black peoples in America have no legal rights and must be immediately shipped to Africa.

I know that I, for one, would genuinely and seriously oppose giving any effect to such a “ruling.”

How ‘bout you?

SCOTUS has made bad decisions that have been subsequently reversed by later Courts. It is important to note that many precedents of SCOTUS prior to the Civil War were also superseded by Constitutional Amendments.

As far as your hypothetical is concerned, yes I would be opposed to it as well. If there was enough outrage, the remedy is a constitutional amendment as they did after the civil war. The 14th amendment, for instance, took away the concept that a black person was 3/5th of a white person as per the original constitution.

It wasn’t done by EO but by Constitutional Amendment.

 

[BackAgain]

SCOTUS has made bad decisions that have been subsequently reversed by later Courts. It is important to note that many precedents of SCOTUS prior to the Civil War were also superseded by Constitutional Amendments.

As far as your hypothetical is concerned, yes I would be opposed to it as well. If there was enough outrage, the remedy is a constitutional amendment as they did after the civil war. The 14th amendment, for instance, took away the concept that a black person was 3/5th of a white person as per the original constitution.

It wasn’t done by EO but by Constitutional Amendment.

But getting the issue before the Court was clearly the goal.

And giving the judiciary a chance to correct its present misinterpretation of the meaning of the 14th Amendment is the desired objective.