Shots Across The Bow

I think you left out a couple of my other comments.

SINCE YOU ASKED RICH HERE IS MY THOUGHT

Indeed there was a time when the SCOTUS was an important non-political balance to the political executive and legislative branches. Their decision in the Florida recount did much to undermine that as has the increasing division based on Roe V Wade. The fact that Republican Presidents have used SCOTUS appointments to buy Christian conservative anti choice votes has also politicized the court. I understand Gepharts frustration and his sentiment. There is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about executive orders as long as they are constitutional. That usually depends on the language. If the court upholds a law the Presidents party wants defeated that party has a right to propose a different law or to challenge the law. Executive order is one way to possibly do that. For instance if SCOTUS ruled a woman could not have an abortion because the state she lived in passed a law prohibiting it or leaving the state to obtain it; a doctor might be charged with violating the law by performing the proceedure. The President could pardon the Doctor by executive order. None of that is unconstitutional or illegal.

I notice the rest of the left is linked - myself being the sole exception. Why is that?

Bubba, I took that statement as the definitive section, since the rest was speculation on your part.
You said, "But if it had anything to do with the Supreme Court helping Bush with his little coup or Bush loading the bench with more wingnuts or how the GOP controlled White House, Congress, and Supreme Court are shredding the Constitution along with all its checks and balances in their sinister quest to dismantle the New Deal, Camelot, and the Great Society, then, gosh, I can't say as I blame him."

Since the quote didn't have anything to do with those things, I considered that bit off topic, and didn't include it.

You went on to say,"So don't ask me any more dumbass questions about any dumbass remarks made by any dumbass Democrats, lest ye be reminded of your own guy's brilliant oratory (scroll down to "he may be a fool"), OK?" Since your link was to Tbogg, and I disposed of him separately, I didn't see the need to include your endorsement of his mistaken analogy.

Bisides, I think you summed up my feelings about Gephardt very concisely in that one sentence. Why mess with a masterpiece?

Barry, there is a very good reason why I didn't link to you.

I'm an idiot.

Sorry, not sure how I missed linking, but I took care of it, and even gave you a friendly plug.

Now, to your argument

There is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about executive orders as long as they are constitutional.

Circular logic is fun, but ultimately meaningless. Yes, if the executive order is constitutional, it's valid. However, that isn't what Gephardt said. He said that if he felt the Supreme Courts ruling was wrong, he'd fix it with an executive order. Since the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional, use of the executive order to countermand a SCOTUS decision is a breach of the separation of powers.

The scenario you pose is intriguing, since it plays in a gray area. Presidential pardons are considered inviolate. If a sitting President chose to issue a blanket pardon for all past and future violations of a law, he might be able to effectively circumvent a Supreme Court decision, at least throughout the duration of his term. I'm not a Constitutional scholar by any means, but off hand, I think it might fly.

Any constitutional scholars out there want to take a stab at this one?

No matter how I scrutinize it, I just don't see it as a definitive policy statement.

Everyone knows you can't arbitrarily overrule the Supreme Court, even by Executive Order. Gephardt might as well have been announcing his intentions to sprout wings and fly off the roof.

>>>He wasn't taken out of context, or speaking off the cuff, but announcing very clearly that if elected as President, he would overrule Supreme Court decisions by Executive Order.

There are damaging things a President could do using Executive Order, to be sure, especially damaging to the other Party's projects. However, He Can Not overrule the Supreme Court. Therefore his promise/comment/bravado is meaningless as a policy statement or intention or whatever.

>>>After all, Gephardt is running for President. He's been a leading light of the Democrat Party for quite sometime. Certainly if his view of running the country through Presidential fiat were not part of the Democratic mindset, then he will be denounced, right?

My reaction was to roll my eyebrows, say,
"Goofball - you can't do that" and go on... I don't really think anyone has considered Gephardt as serious Presidential material - Democrat or otherwise - for a good while. Every presidential election year he puts out his shingle, making the rounds, and he's largely tolerated because we're used to him.

He's Pat Paulsen with media coverage.

Maybe that's the crux of it - he's not taken seriously as a Presidential Candidate anymore, so his remarks aren't taken seriously.

That being said - he may just get the Democratic nomination next year, but that's a reflection on the lack of other viable candidates running, and he's the equivalent of "None of the Above" because, again, we're used to him being around.

We'll see.

I see your point, but I'm not prepared to make light of any comment like that from a serious candidate for President.

As for whether or not he actually could do that, check out Barry B.'s comment. Seems to me to be a workable way to circumvent a SCOTUS ruling using the Executive Order.

Remember when Jimmy Carter pardoned all of the draft resistors that had not deserted? That was a clear overturning of draft law by Executive order I think.

"draft resistors that had not deserted"

Huh?

I remember Carter pardoning the ones who fled to Canada. Issueing a general pardon is not the same as overturning the draft law. It's also not an instance of a President contradicting a SCOTUS decision, since draft law came from the Congress.

However, it does illustrate that general pardons are feasible. It still begs the question of whether a general pardon could be issued for future actions.

Yes Rich Carter pardoned all draft resistors but not those that deserted. He originally said he would not pardon those that took up citizenship in another country.
I actually got him to change his mind on that issue. I was managing an musician in Montreal named Jesse Winchester who had gone to Canada from Williams College where he was a frat brother of William J Bennett. Jesse was from Memphis. Jesse became a legal landed immigrant, applied for citizenship and married a Canadian girl and had children. My argument to Carter was that becoming a citizen was the honorable thing to do and that those Americans that chose to become Canadians should be treated like all other Canadians or non-draft resistor who have become Canadians or citizens of other countries.
You ask how I got in a position to do that? Well my sound company with CDB and Marshall Tucker Band raised a lot of money for Carter and played at his inaugural ball. I met with one of his transition team in DC before the inaugural and spoke to him at the ball that evening. The next day in his address he pardoned all but deserters.
The supreme court had heard draft cases and upheld the draft laws. The pardons effectively negated the laws.

I was confused by characterizing deserters as draft resistors.