-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Some readers have interpreted my earlier post as a defense of the president’s position on the Defense of Marriage Act. It is not. I think Obama is wrong on DOMA’s constitutionality, is constitutionally obligated to enforce DOMA as long as it remains on the books, and that his Justice Department would be right to defend the law against dubious constitutional challenges. But I do think some conservatives are using a bad argument against Obama’s position: they are invoking the Supreme Court as the sole arbiter of what is constitutional.
The Supreme Court has seldom protected the Republic from any of the unconstitutional growth of the federal government since FDR’s Court-packing scheme. It has much more often struck down legitimate state and local laws on behalf of liberal social engineers, especially since the Warren Court. Accepting the notion that the Constitution means whatever judges say it means — and that the elected branches of government have no right to publicly express their independent judgements about the constitutionality of federal activities — won’t get conservatives where they want to go even if it is a convenient argument to make at this particular moment.
An intellectual exercise: Would you believe Obamacare was suddenly constitutional if the Supreme Court declined to overturn it? If the Court not only decided to overturn DOMA but issued a Roe v. Wade of gay marriage, would you believe the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution intended that result? Was the original Roe a correct reading of the Constitution? If you answered “no” to any of these questions, you’ll see why arguing that only the Supreme Court can decide what is constitutional is counterproductive at best.
View all comments (54) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/28/the-constitution-and-the-court
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Continuing Crisis
- Her Unrequited Letter
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
jharp| 2.28.11 @ 8:43PM
"But I do think some conservatives are using a bad argument against Obama's position: they are invoking the Supreme Court as the sole arbiter of what is constitutional."
Who is the final arbiter, Rush Limbaugh?
News flash. If the SCOTUS rules it's unconstitutional, it is. It says so in the Constitution.
God you people are stupid.
Dollface| 2.28.11 @ 10:18PM
jharp--where does it say that? According to the Supreme Court, in the 1850's people could be denied citizenship because of their race. In the 1890's, they said people of this same race could be citizens, but could also be discriminated against. In the 1950's, they said this race had to be treated equally. Later, they said this same race had to have "affirmative action" or preferential treatment to be considered equal. SCOTUS as you call them said all of these things. Only between Dred Scott and Plessy did the Constitution change. All the other changes were due to the makeup of the court. Now, who is stupid?
jharp| 2.28.11 @ 10:40PM
Yeah and black people are only 3/5's of a citizen. Right?
You're living in the past man. Get over it.
I've seen some stupid idiotic moronic garbage posted here but this one takes the cake,
The SCOTUS is now not the final arbiter of the constitutionality of a piece of legislation?
God you people are stupid.
Red Phillips | 2.28.11 @ 10:59PM
"News flash. If the SCOTUS rules it's unconstitutional, it is. It says so in the Constitution."
NO IT DOESN'T! Are you spoofing or are you really that clueless?
jharp| 2.28.11 @ 11:03PM
I am that clueless.
Please share with me who the final arbiter is?
I already guessed Rush Limbaugh. Is it Glenn Beck?
God you people are stupid.
Red Phillips | 2.28.11 @ 11:10PM
Here is a quick link to Article III of the Constitution.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article3
It is really quite short. You can read it in a minute or two. Please point out to me where it says the Supreme court is the final arbiter of constitutionality.
Then come back here and tell me who the ignorant one is.
jharp| 2.28.11 @ 11:36PM
And on what planet do you spend most of your time.
You are a complete effing retard.
There are many many things that aren't spelled out word for word so you ignorant conservatives can understand.
And it is you who is the ignorant one.
God you people are stupid.
Red Phillips | 3.1.11 @ 12:04AM
You said, "It says so in the Constitution."
I said no it doesn't.
I have provided you with a link. Please show me how you are right and I am wrong or apologize for your intemperate outburst. Amping up the name calling is no substitute for actually backing up your point.
The answer to your question is that there is no final arbiter, and that is as it should be.
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 12:10AM
For God's sake Red, don't be such a dumbass.
The SCOTUS clearly is the final arbiter. And if we don't like what they rule we can amend the Constitution.
Yes there is a final arbiter. It is the SCOTUS.
God you people are stupid.
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 12:17AM
"The answer to your question is that there is no final arbiter, and that is as it should be."
So just what is the role of the SCOTUS?
Just to offer their opinion.? And we can follow it or not? Whatever suits our fancy. Or is it up to Obama whether or not to adhere to their rulings?
I truly am amazed at the lengths of preposterousness and stupidity that you dumbasses have taken things.
It's a dark day in out country with friggin idiots like yourself being taken seriously by anyone.
God our country is stupid.
Red Phillips | 3.1.11 @ 8:55AM
"So just what is the role of the SCOTUS?"
The role of SCOTUS is just what it says in Article III. Nothing more. Nothing less. This isn't that difficult. All that is required to understand this is basic literacy.
Calling me names and amping up your intemperance does not change the fact that I have just schooled you. Quit embarrassing yourself.
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 10:37AM
"The role of SCOTUS is just what it says in Article III."
You are a fool.
And you should share with you wing nut buddies that the SCOTUS isn't the final arbiter of the constitutionality of a law.
They've been trying to get them to overturn Roe V Wade for as long as I can remember.
And here this whole time they've been approaching the wrong bunch?
God you people are stupid.
MikeBee| 3.1.11 @ 11:52AM
Actually J,
The founders of the U.S. Constitution intended that the individual states be sovereign entities unto themselves, and that the Federal government ONLY had the powers defined in the Constitution. With respect to the court system, the individual state supreme courts were the final word on constitutionality in their individual states. The Supreme Court was the final word on constitutionality for federal (limited) issues, only. So, you could have one state where DOMA was constitutional, and another where gays had the same rights as married couples.
The main problem with everyone's thinking today, is that we instinctively look to a Dictator. The higher one goes, the more power there is, right? No! The founders were very emphatic that the powers of the federal government were to be very few, and defined by the Constitution, and that the powers of the individual states could be many, but only relevant in that state.
All American American| 3.1.11 @ 11:56AM
Ding ding ding we have a winner!!! Well said!
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 12:49PM
"The founders of the U.S. Constitution intended that the individual states be sovereign entities unto themselves, and that the Federal government ONLY had the powers defined in the Constitution. "
The founders also thought slavery was just fine, women shouldn't be allowed to vote, and non landowners didn't get to vote.
And they were wrong on all three.
So I guess if Alabama wants to bring back slavery that is OK in your book? States rights? Right?
And if Illinois wants to ban certain firearms like say, handguns? States rights?
God you people are stupid.
MikeBee| 3.1.11 @ 5:46PM
J,
Exactly! The states were to be the testing grounds for ideas, which other states could use, if they worked. Alabama could declare slavery the law there, while the rest of the U.S. would see all Alabama's slaves leave the state (which is what happened when some Southern states declared slavery to be the law). Illinois could ban all firearms, and see itself overrun by criminals, while the rest of the U.S. laughed at the high crime rate in Illinois.
It was precisely because men and women were recognized by the Founders to be deficient, that they decided to limit the powers of the federal government. You point out that women weren't allowed to vote, and slavery was fine when the Constitution was written. These ideas have changed since the Constitution was established, through the amendment process (and a civil war). The Founders recognized that stupid liberals, if allowed, would attempt to force their crazy ideas on everyone, so they severely limited the powers of the federal government. In fact, if stupid liberal Democrats had had their way in the 1800s, slavery would still be the law of the land.
jharp| 2.28.11 @ 11:38PM
I'm sorry. I forgot to ask again.
Who is the final arbiter?
Is it really Glenn Beck?
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 12:05AM
I guess Red got too embarrassed to defend his own stupidity. I don't blame him. I'd hide too.
And I'm left wondering who the final arbiter is deciding the constitutionality of our laws.
Maybe it's Obama and Red wants it to be kept a secret.
God you people are stupid.
NoLib| 3.1.11 @ 2:42AM
Red's got a job, unlike a loser like you who is a cheap whore paid to troll Conservative websites.
I thank God and our Founders every damn day that we have the Second Amendment. Don't you just love it too, dumbharp?
BTW the 3/5 compromise was meant to protect the slaves be lessening the political power of democrat slave owners, moron. You're stupid.
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 10:39AM
"I thank God and our Founders every damn day that we have the Second Amendment"
I don't thank them every day but I support the second amendment.
Not 30 round clips for Glocks and I don't think you yahoos need to be carrying a concealed weapon just so you can feel tough.
NoLib| 3.1.11 @ 8:51PM
We carry concealed to protect ourselves from deranged freaks like you. Thank God and our Founders for the 2nd Amendment!
W. James Antle III | 3.1.11 @ 12:10PM
So there has never been a Supreme Court case you believed was wrongly decided? Dred Scott?
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 12:37PM
Of course not.
Bush versus Gore. Citizens United. Both were quite clearly wrong.
And guess what? They both stood. Now how can that be if the SCOTUS isn't the final arbiter?
You are every bit as ignorant as the other posters here.
And it serves no one for you to have these idiots believing that the SCOTUS isn't the final arbiter of the constitutionality of a law.
God you people are stupid.
W. James Antle III | 3.1.11 @ 1:21PM
A lot of things arguably serve no purpose, like trying to reason with a troll whose only argument is "God you people are stupid." But some things we do for the benefit of the adults in the room.
As you have just tacitly conceded, the Supreme Court can be wrong in its interpretation of the Constitution. All other federal officeholders also take an oath to the Constitution, so it is their duty to try make sure incorrect decisions don't stand rather than simply accept the whims of nine people in black robes.
Is that really so difficult to grasp?
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 2:09PM
What? That the SCOTUS is sometimes wrong?
Of course not. Only that isn't what you and these other dumbassses have claimed.
Whether they are right or wrong or whether you agree or disagree doesn't matter.
The SCOTUS is the final arbiter.
To claim otherwise is stupid.
Mike Rogers| 3.1.11 @ 8:08AM
Actually, if a bad law encroaches on powers reserved to the states, the states may decide to reject such a law. The supreme court, as part of the Federal government, does NOT have the final say on states rights. More below.
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 10:41AM
"if a bad law encroaches on powers reserved to the states, the states may decide to reject such a law. The supreme court, as part of the Federal government, does NOT have the final say on states rights. More below."
Do you mean like states can ban abortion?
God you people are stupid.
jharp| 2.28.11 @ 8:54PM
"you'll see why arguing that only the Supreme Court can decide what is constitutional is counterproductive at best."
You idiots are hilarious.
Why don't you just be blunt.
When the SCOTUS agrees with us conservatives it is the law of the land.
When they don't agree with us conservatives they are not the sole arbiter.
And the ignorant teabagging dumbsh*ts will buy it.
"Keep your government hands off my Medicare"!
God you people are stupid.
tonypal| 3.1.11 @ 12:24AM
You would think a real man would spend less time on TAS calling people names and more time working so he can pay for his deaf daughter's medical bills. That's right, I didn't forget how you whined like a bitch over the fact that no one at TAS thought it was their responsibility to pay for your medical insurance. So instead of whining like the little twat that you are, be a real man and a real father and earn a little extra money so your daughter can get the treatment she needs. First, you'll have to pull up your pants and clear the history on your computer so no one knows where else you've been lurking online today.
God jharp's a shitty sperm donor.
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 12:42AM
"You would think a real man would spend less time on TAS calling people names and more time working so he can pay for his deaf daughter's medical bills."
I have no medical bills you dumbsh*t.
My daughter got everything she needed and is kicking ass at a major university.
I just have this thing about my deaf daughter, and others like her, being able to buy health insurance since in the past we've been unable to do so.
You people really are as stupid as you seem. Amazing.
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 12:47AM
"you whined like a bitch over the fact that no one at TAS thought it was their responsibility to pay for your medical insurance"
And please share where I thought that anyone other than myself should pay for my and my daughters health insurance.
You can't. Because you made that up. Liar.
I'd like to be able to buy the same insurance that I am buying for my Congressperson. That's all.
Exactly what ObamaCare has done for me.
And it ain't costing you stupid rednecks a single dime.
NoLib| 3.1.11 @ 2:45AM
Red, would you say not so sHarp is an obsessive or a compulsive? Perhaps both?
Red Phillips | 3.1.11 @ 12:21PM
I would say that jharp is not as smart as he thinks he is and doesn't seem to recognize that he is spouting conventional wisdom about the Constitution (a product of our poor education system and agenda driven media) and not what the Constitution actually says, which sadly is far removed from the conventional wisdom. When confronted with what the Constitution actually says, it so shakes his world view that he resorts to name calling rather than argument.
NoLib| 3.1.11 @ 8:53PM
That's your personal opinion, I was asking for your professional opinion. :)
tonypal| 3.1.11 @ 8:19AM
"I just have this thing about my deaf daughter, and others like her, being able to buy health insurance since in the past we've been unable to do so." So in other words, you did whine like a bitch over the fact that TAS readers and others weren't willing to do your job and pay for your daughter's medical expenses.
God jharp's a shitty sperm donor.
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 11:12AM
"So in other words, you did whine like a bitch over the fact that TAS readers and others weren't willing to do your job and pay for your daughter's medical expenses."
No you dumbsh*t.
I think it is unAmerican to deny me and the daughter the opportunity to buy our own insurance. I have the money.
And most Americans agree.
And ObamaCare has taken care of that problem.
I'm gonna buy the same insurance that our Congress has.
Thank you President Obama, Congresswoman Pelosi, and Senator Reid.
NoLib| 3.1.11 @ 8:56PM
Yeah, Americans agreed with Obama so much they shellacked his garbage party in 2010--and will do so again in 2012.
That was even stupid for you.
bobmontgomery| 2.28.11 @ 8:54PM
Mr. Antle: I think we all realize that we have a sticky wicket here, and we probably all have a foreboding that the nation is close to having one as well. But I think we (conservatives) are talking past each other in some cases and (not intentionally) inserting words in each others mouths or, perhaps, in our own, unawares.
Any of us, official or ordinary citizen, can believe something about a law or a dispute. We can decide, in our minds, the constitutionality of a law. But we cannot decide, or capital J "Judge", with the effect of our judgement having real consequence, outside of our offices. Congress people who pass laws are the ones who , hopefully, say what they mean when they pass a law. A law is Constitutional if the Constitutional processes were followed when they passed it. Laws are passed by the people's representatives, not by the Judiciary or the Executive. If the law contains language that violates the Constitution, it is still incumbent upon the Executive and the Judiciary to follow the processes which were set up by the people, the Congress, and the states in convention to render that verdict. Bully pulpits can be used, but the powers have to be separate. And regarding your exercise: Of course, we want a certain outcome. But we have to accept the outcome and we have to follow the process. We know that you are not advocating for Obama's position. Heck, Obama is not even advocating for Obama's position. But there has to be a reason to have a Supreme Court, and it can't be to say what Congress meant when it passed a law - Congress can correct itself if it wants to. It has to be that the words, the language of the law result in a situation which is antithetical to the Constitution, in whatever respect. Original intent in re the founders is good policy. So is original intent as far as the people's lawmaking goes. Then, to say that the Supreme Court has seldom protected the Republic from the expansion of Big Fed is no damning indictment - what about a whole slew of Presidents and Congresses? Whether its the Supremacy Clause, or the Commerce Clause or any other clause, those advocating for Big State will always find a hook or a crook. But there are always other clauses, and even whole Articles and Amendments, which can be used in counterargument. The Tenth is right up there, isn't it? That's another thing I think is lurking in the background of our debates here. We conservatives want to be on the right side of the argument, the right side of history and also to preserve the Union and are fearful of where this is all leading. The other side has no fear.
NoLib| 3.1.11 @ 3:32AM
I'm starting to get to the point where I feel we have nothing to lose--I'm becoming more fearless everyday.
Moey| 3.1.11 @ 9:58AM
Very well said. Perhaps I am looking at the Supreme Court with 'rose colored glasses,' but I have always been taught that they are the final stop and that they interpret issue according to the US Constitution. I realize there is a vast difference between each Justice, but we need differences in order to represent all the people in this nation. I would hope in their deliberations that they are respectful (however loudly) as they listen to each others arguments and interpretation of issues. Now, if I am incorrect, then perhaps it is nothing more than a rubber stamp on issues that we feel are debated to the nth degree.
Mike Rogers| 3.1.11 @ 8:06AM
The states can decide, and are deciding, that federal laws which encroach upon those powers reserved to the states (and the people) are void and not to be enforced. While most are doing the polite thing and challenging the bad law(s) through the courts, in the final reading of the constitution, the Supreme court, as a part of the Federal government cannot be allowed to decide which powers may be arrogated to the Federal government.
In other words, duly passed laws of the several states may render the actions of the Federal government, which are outside of its enumerated powers, null and void and unenforceable within their borders. Some of those laws have (or will have) teeth declaring that Federal agents and their accomplices shall be guilty of felonies against the state for attempting to enforce the unconstitutional Federal law.
For those frothing at the mouth over such audacity, or claiming that such legislation is trying to restore slavery, please study the history of states nullifying the alien and sedition acts, and the FUGITIVE SLAVE ACTS. In the latter, several states told the Federal government that they would not act as slave catchers, and would arrest anyone who tried to enforce that bad Federal law.
Moey| 3.1.11 @ 9:45AM
the US Supreme Court is the final arbiter of Constitutional matter.
JPM| 3.1.11 @ 10:28AM
The Supreme Court is not "the final arbiter" of constitutional meaning. Nothing in the Constitution and nothing in the history of our constitutional practices supports that assertion. It is mass market, left wing claptrap designed to make us defenseless against judicially-approved tyranny.
The people are sovereign and we get the final say as to the meaning of our fundamental law. The first class of most Con Law courses is devoted to this simple point and it's sad that so many people are confused about it.
When the President believes a statute is at odds with the Constitution, it is not just his right to make that statute a dead letter by declining to enforce it, it is his duty. He is sworn to uphold the Constitution and he can't do that by violating it.
If, for example, Congress were to pass a statute requiring the confiscation of all privately-owned firearms should the President go ahead and confiscate the firearms? She would have to choose between ignoring the statute and violating her oath. Ignoring the statute is clearly the right choice, whether or not the Supreme Court acts to uphold it.
The problem with Obama's refusal to defend DOMA is that his constitutional argument is stupid. It's so stupid, in fact, that it raises a legitimate question about whether he is acting in good faith on a legitimate interpretation of the Constitution. The President clearly exceeds his authority when he lies about the Constitution to denigrate a statute he doesn't like. In this case, the practical consequence of his lie are too slight to justify impeaching him, so he'll get away with it, except to the extent it hurts him in 2012. But in theory, there's a real issue here.
When, like Obama, the President gets the Constitution wrong our elected representatives in Congress can impeach and remove him from office. We can also vote for someone else at the next election. That's how we get the last word.
All three branches of government interpret the Constitution. The one that persuades the people gets to be the final arbiter. That can be the courts, but it doesn't have to be and only a fool would argue that it does.
Not every consequential dispute is even susceptible to judicial decision. Various justiciability doctrines can keep an issue out of court indefinitely. The idea that the Supreme Court has the franchise on interpreting the Constitution wouldn't be workable even if it were desireable. People pushing that view are just gobsmackingly ignorant about our constitutional system. It shouldn't be possible to get out of grade school with such a flawed understanding of basic civics.
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 10:43AM
"the US Supreme Court is the final arbiter of Constitutional matter."
Not here is bizzarro world.
I think the Glenn Beck presentations have warped these gentlemens brains.
Either that or they are just plain stupid.
John Carnal| 3.1.11 @ 10:53AM
So who gets to decide?
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 11:35AM
"So who gets to decide?"
Can't seem to get an answer. I asked Red Phillips the same question 12 hours ago.
I figure it's either Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.
JPM| 3.1.11 @ 11:57AM
I just gave you your answer in small words that anyone should be able to grasp. The people get to decide.
Presidents, courts and Congresses all have to do their own jobs in accord with their own understandings of what the Constitution requires.
If Congress gets it wrong, the President can veto. In the event of an override or a law signed by a predecessor, the President can refuse to enforce unconstitutional statutes. If the President gets it wrong, the Supreme Court can say so, if and when some case calling for a determination of the point comes before it. The Court can't make the President do anything he doesn't want to do, but it can highlight his error for the rest of us. It can, of course, do the same thing when Congress and the President are wrong in concert. When the President and Congress disagree, Congress is free to impeach and the people can vote the President out of office. They can also vote for a new and different Congress if they take the President's side in a constituitonal confrontation.
Why is this so hard to understand. There's nothing terribly complex about it. It's sort of like a game of paper, scissors, rock. It's called "separation of powers" and you must have heard about it in grade school, even if you rode the short bus.
NoLib| 3.1.11 @ 9:06PM
Well said. It's depressing that most Americans don't know what "sovereign" means. Of course the buck stops with us.
Thomas Jefferson said it best, "People get the government they deserve."
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 12:14PM
"I just gave you your answer in small words that anyone should be able to grasp. The people get to decide."
God you people are stupid.
"If Congress gets it wrong, the President can veto."
The President can veto whatever he would like to veto you dumbass. It has nothing to do with the constitutionality of anything.
"the President can refuse to enforce unconstitutional statutes."
And who decides what is and what is not constitution you dumbsh*t. Unconstitutional statues are no longer the law you imbecile.
"When the President and Congress disagree, Congress is free to impeach"
You are a friggin moron.
There is so much stupidity and ignorance in your post that I ashamed that took the time to read it.
"The people get to decide"
Good friggin grief! Let me guess. Home schooled. And your Mom forgot the civics class.
JPM| 3.1.11 @ 1:26PM
Trying to teach you about the Constitution is like trying to teach my dog to play the piano. He just hasn't got the fingers for it. You plainly don't have the wit to grasp even the simplest point of constitutional law.
I wasn't home schooled. I have two Ivy League advanced degrees including a law degree from Harvard. I've been a law professor and an official in the DOJ in the course of my career. I edited a law review as a student and I've published in them since. Unlike you, I know exactly what I'm talking about. You should step away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself.
Vulgar, stupid and ignorant is no way to go through life.
All American American| 3.1.11 @ 3:46PM
Psssst, JPM? DFTT!
Some folks either don't get it or refuse to get it. In my experience its these folks who are so scared of freedom and what that means that they NEED their "betters" making the decisions for them.
I don't know why "States Rights" is such a dirty term? I mean think about it, CA could legalize drugs, gay marriage, give human rights to pets and livestock, and ban guns. Then all the kooky libtards could move there away from us scary redneck folks who just want to live without them trying to use the courts to shove their nonsense down the rest of the country's throats.
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 2:16PM
"I have two Ivy League advanced degrees including a law degree from Harvard. I've been a law professor and an official in the DOJ in the course of my career. I edited a law review as a student and I've published in them since"
Flipping hilarious. Our Harvard educated lawyers writings. And I quote.
"If Congress gets it wrong, the President can veto."
"In the event of an override or a law signed by a predecessor, the President can refuse to enforce unconstitutional statutes."
"If the President gets it wrong, the Supreme Court can say so, if and when some case calling for a determination of the point comes before it."
"The Court can't make the President do anything he doesn't want to do, but it can highlight his error for the rest of us."
"It can, of course, do the same thing when Congress and the President are wrong in concert"
"When the President and Congress disagree, Congress is free to impeach"
You have got to be the dumbest ass I had ever debated. The dumbest.
A Harvard lawyer?
God you people are stupid.
NoLib| 3.1.11 @ 8:58PM
Since when do you debate, moron?