We’re a bit old fashioned in old Europe in so much we still have constitutional checks and balances and weird shit stuff like the Rule of Law.
So, I kind of just checking this sort of comment is mainstream in the USA, that maybe - because the US has a, umm unique system of govenment, it’s actually possible for a President to bypass Congress to do this?
The President can decide which laws to follow and which to ignore?
Andrew Jackson was famously supposed to have said “The Court has made its decision, now let them enforce it,” in response to a pro-native ruling the Supreme Court made. It didn’t actually happen exactly that way, but it does help to sum up the expansion of presidential powers under Jackson, and the lack of teeth in the judiciary.
Gingrich obviously wouldn’t ignore the court. He’s just using tough words to rally support from people who don’t agree with the progressive decisions the court has made. It’s political bluster.
I do believe Nixon said something along those lines, yes… 
And how about Lincoln? Didn’t he famously ignore the order of Chief Justice Taney in Ex Parte Merryman?
Why do you hate Abraham Lincoln, PrettyVacant?
Isn’t trying to hold together a fragmenting nation the sort of thing that calls for extreme measures?
I mean Newt would presumably do this for something of less magnitude than an all-out civil war. Although if he were elected, I’m sure a civil war wouldn’t be out of the question.
Well there we go - now Obama has carte-blanche from Gingrich to ignore any ruling vacating the Health Care bill, right?
:rolleyes: Yeah, lately. And, except for the Brits, you all pretty much learned every bit of that from America.
Well we were pretty much taught it by the Brits 
Absurd Constitutional crisis aside, where in the Constitution is the concept of judicial review?
Good question! It’s absurd to think judges should be left to decide matters of law! Why, if the framers didn’t specifically mention it, it must be because anyone can decide what the constitution means.
Is this a woosh ?
In terms of determining whether a law is Constitutional or not, why are people appointed to the bench in a better place to make the decision than people elected to Congress?
It’s a tougher question than you may intuitively think.
Have you read Marbury v Madison?
You really think that he best people to determine the constitutionality of a law are the people who wrote it?
Or better yet, let the President be the ultimate arbiter in what is constitutional?
Judges are almost by definition trained in the law. the other two branches need not be.
Reminds me of the old joke about the American tourist who asked when Magna Carta was signed:
‘1215’, said the official
‘Dang, missed it by 2 hours’
I wonder what’s conjured up in Gingrich’s mind when someone mentions ‘banana republic’.
No, but I did stay in a Holidy Inn Express last night.[sup]*[/sup]
Note, I’m not saying which is better, I’m pointing out that the question isn’t that easy.
Why aren’t the people who voted on a law qualified to decide if it’s Constitutional or not?
[sup]*Just kidding. I graduated from G’town law with Gadarene.[/sup]
Note to Europeans: It’s an election year. Ignore pretty much everything said into a camera or to a crowd.
Unless you are British this ‘old fashioned’ attitude is, what, 4 or 5 decades ‘old’ at this point? Less? 
(Yeah, I know that there are other parts of ‘Europe’ that have older traditions of that weird constitutional checks and balances and rule of law thingy, but it’s not exactly like the continent has been in lock step on this for the past few centuries. People in glass countries shouldn’t throw newts at anyone else, as you could put out an eye or something.)
Pretty much this. And it shouldn’t be a shock, since European elections (depending on the country) and politicians do, you know, exactly the same things and use the exact same kinds of over the top rhetoric as we backward Americans do.
-XT
It’s not a matter of qualifications, it’s a matter of checks and balances. Besides, if Congress was capable of deciding this, then it’s a non-issue. Any law passed is, by definition, constitutional.
Because we don’t observe the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy. And because it might be handy to have judicial review in place if Congress decides that redheaded gay Jewish people are subject to immediate deportation, or something.
Exactly.
There are three branches, but the idea that the judiciary would serve as a check on congressional authority to pass a law does not *necessarily *follow from the Constitution.
If it were within congressional purview, why wouldn’t a decision to vote on a law include elements of its Constitutionality? Further, since a lot of jurisprudence is based on discerning the intent of the legislature, why aren’t they in the best place to revist or express that intent?
(Note that the comment about qualifications was in response to a post, not a point in favour of congressional constitutional review.)