Media Casualties Mount
Administration Split On Europe Invasion
Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire
Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan
Pot, Kettle On Line Two...
Allies Seize Paris
Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics
Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit
Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff
A New Beginning
My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
James Lileks Bleats
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Space Flight
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)
Nanobot (Howard Lovy)
Lagniappe (Derek Lowe)
Geek Press (Paul Hsieh)
Redwood Dragon (Dave Trowbridge)
Turned Up To Eleven (Paul Orwin)
Cowlix (Wes Cowley)
Quark Soup (Dave Appell)
Assymetrical Information (Jane Galt and Mindles H. Dreck)
Marginal Revolution (Tyler Cowen et al)
Man Without Qualities (Robert Musil)
Knowledge Problem (Lynne Kiesling)
Cut On The Bias (Susanna Cornett)
The Funny Pages
Cox & Forkum
Day By Day
Happy Fun Pundit
Amish Tech Support (Lawrence Simon)
Scrapple Face (Scott Ott)
Quasipundit (Adragna & Vehrs)
England's Sword (Iain Murray)
Daily Pundit (Bill Quick)
Daimnation! (Damian Penny)
Z+ Blog (Andrew Zolli)
The Kolkata Libertarian
Midwest Conservative Journal
Protein Wisdom (Jeff Goldstein et al)
Dean's World (Dean Esmay)
Yippee-Ki-Yay (Kevin McGehee)
Spleenville (Andrea Harris)
Random Jottings (John Weidner)
On the Third Hand (Kathy Kinsley, Bellicose Woman)
Inappropriate Response (Moira Breen)
Inadvertent Comic Relief
Warblogger Watcher (Cowardly Anonymous Idiotarians)
Other Worthy Weblogs
Ain't No Bad Dude (Brian Linse)
A libertarian reads the papers
Anna Franco Review
Ben Kepple's Daily Rant
Dropscan (Shiloh Bucher)
End the War on Freedom
Insolvent Republic of Blogistan
James Reuben Haney
Mind over what matters
Page Fault Interrupt
Sand In The Gears(Anthony Woodlief)
The Blogs of War
The Fly Bottle
The Illuminated Donkey
What she really thinks
Where HipHop & Libertarianism Meet
Zem : blog
Space Policy Links
The Space Review
The Space Show
Space Frontier Foundation
Space Policy Digest BBS
USS Clueless (Steven Den Beste)
Unremitting Verse (Will Warren)
World View (Brink Lindsay)
The Last Page
More Than Zero (Andrew Hofer)
Pathetic Earthlings (Andrew Lloyd)
Spaceship Summer (Derek Lyons)
The New Space Age (Rob Wilson)
Rocketman (Mark Oakley)
Site designed by
Not Just Presidential Politics
Dick Gephardt apparently did an oral-podiatral maneuver today, when he said (and according to C-SPAN, it's not out of context), "When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day."
That's absolutely pathetic. Either (1) Gephardt, despite all his years in Congress, has still failed to learn that you can't overturn a Constitutional decision by the Supreme Court with an executive order; or (2) Gephardt was in Full Pander Mode and hoped his audience wouldn't know better. Neither speaks very well for him.
There's actually a third possibility, perhaps unthinkable for law professors. Perhaps he simply doesn't accept Marbury vs. Madison (i.e., Glenn's option 1 is incorrect, because in fact a president can do so. The issue is whether or not he or she may...)
What does he mean!? ask the blog readers.
Simply put, the precedent set by MvM has been accepted, but only by common consent. It's never really been seriously challenged. There is no doubt that such a challenge would constitute a constitutional crisis of the highest order, and would have the potential to result in the fall of the republic as we know it. But that doesn't mean that a president couldn't issue it.
I ask: what would happen if it were? I suspect that it would strongly depend on the popularity of the president in question, and the particular issue on which such a challenge was made. If he had the support of the military, and popular support as well, such a challenge might well be successful, which would then raise the question, if not the Supreme Court, who is the guardian of the Constitution?Posted by Rand Simberg at June 23, 2003 07:17 PM
RE: Who is guardian of the Constitution.
All personnel who enlist in military service
That's true and irrelevant. Who is it that decides the Constitution is under attack...?Posted by Rand Simberg at June 23, 2003 08:39 PM
Right now the Appeals Courts act as gatekeepers to the Supreme Court. Just think of all of the Federal Govt. that would fall if a more expeditious route were available for citizens to directly file objections to the constitutionality of a law to a court of competant jurisdiction.
Most of the Federal Beauracracy is patently, absurdly un-Constitutional. Where the hell did they pull the Dept. of Education out of their ass, for instance? Enumerated Powers, hello? FDR shredded the 9th and 10th Amendments, and as the spending floodgates had preiviously been unleashed by the 16th, that just gave the money somewhere to go.
Full picking of each others pockets at the ballot box could now commence, and goodbye Republic.
I don't like the New Deal, I want the old one back. But too late, Ave Imperator and all that, without so much as a Romanus Civus Sum.
Ok, maybe we've got a bit of Romanus Civus Sum, as the US Govt. reserves the right to try anyone in the world under the death penalty for killing an American citizen, anywhere, but damnit, get the TSA off my back.
The Legions will of course ultimately decide when and how the Constitution is being attacked.
If President Gephardt literally did what he said he would do, there might be any number of people who will decide that the Constitution is under attack. Guys who command infantry battalions in the DC area will be very, um, influential. This is Banana Republic stuff, but that's the path he described. I don't think people will stand on ceremony once the President starts dictating.Posted by Dave Himrich at June 23, 2003 09:26 PM
Um, people? Gephardt merely stated overtly what has been going on since, I'm thinking, about 1934...Posted by Kevin McGehee at June 24, 2003 03:59 AM
Funny you should ask, Rand.
There is only one agency which could conceivably enforce the strictures of the Constitution on a government unwilling to obey them: the people in arms. Which makes the desires of so many power-seekers to disarm the populace rather easier to comprehend, doesn't it?
Time was, ordinary folks were presumed competent to read the Constitution and understand it, just as they were presumed competent to own firearms and know when it was acceptable to wield them. That was before 600 volumes of Supreme Court opinions displaced the nine pages of the document, of course.Posted by Francis W. Porretto at June 24, 2003 04:38 AM
I could go off on a nice little rant here about who really "owns" the law of the land -- lawyers or the people -- but I'm trying to avoid being more than a minor annoyance. For a change.Posted by McGehee at June 24, 2003 11:16 AM
Actually, Little Dick Gephart's comments are kinda refreshing. It's the first time in quite a while that I've seen a Leftists take issue with the idea that nine appointed and unaccountable geezers get to make and decide the law. The problem is that Little Dick has no problem with the Supreme Court making law ias long as it's the kind of law he doesn't have the guts and votes to get passed after an open discussion in a Democrat controlled congress. So if the nine geezers won't do it for him, then all he's saying is that it's just time to cut out the middleman.
Hmmm... who was the last candidate whose rhetoric scared a certain group of voters he was going to run rough shot over the constitution. Oh yeah Lincoln.Posted by Dr.Clausewitz at June 24, 2003 04:19 PM
Re: Dr. Clausewitz
I trust Dr. C is not looking forward eagerly to settling more Constitutional questions the way we settled them in 1861-1865. Because whatever Dick Gephardt is pandering to Jesse Jackson's crowd is not worth that kind of price to most of us.Posted by Dave Himrich at June 24, 2003 04:35 PM
Dick's just pandering. He's been pandering ever since he got elected to the Third District here in Missouri. That's how we knew it was election time, when Dick would come by with the pork. The rest of the time, he'd be jetting around the country or holed up in his North Carolina property.
At various times in his career, Dick's held just about every opinion on just about every issue. As Mark Twain once observed, "If you don't like Dick Gephardt's opinion, wait a minute."Posted by Christopher Johnson at June 24, 2003 06:17 PM
Francis Porretto is correct. The Constitution sets no final arbiter of the Constitutionality of any law or government act, nor any method (other than arguably the States' power to call a Convention) to correct an unconstitutional law or act. It was at the time presumed that each and every citizen had within his power the ability to judge such matters, or he would not be a citizen. It was further presumed that citizens would both own arms as far as possible, and organize themselves into a local militia so as to resist the intrusion of the government into areas not within the government's Constitutionally-granted authority.
It is this which makes (for example) jury nullification reasonable, private ownership of firearms necessary and Liberty possible. If the government (whichever branch) is the final arbiter, then the government has no accountability, since it can simply act as it wants and declare it Constitutional. If one would make the argument that the division of powers among branches of government precludes this, then I would advise studying why it is that so many innocent people get convicted.
Jeff, Jury Nullification goes back into English Common Law, where it was found that without it, the Govt. was free to tyrannize the populace at will, by writing the law as they wished and requiring jurys to convict based only on whether the law had been violated, not whether it was just.
This 'rule only on the facts of law' instruction to jurys has now become ensconced in American jurisprudence.Posted by David Mercer at June 27, 2003 09:31 AM
Post a comment