# Can the US President ignore the Supreme Court? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 19, 2012, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-president-ignore-the-supreme-court/609994 "2012-01-19T10:22:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Jim\_s\_Son](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19adc/32.png) [@Jim\_s\_Son](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_s_Son)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-president-ignore-the-supreme-court/609994/41 "2012-01-20T15:36:14Z")
In practice, Presidents don’t go around ignoring Supreme Court decisions. In 1974 when the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes he recorded of White House meetings, he did so knowing full well he would have to resign or be impeached and convicted. You don’t ignore the men (and occasional women) in black robes. But if one didn’t? That would be a major political crisis. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-president-ignore-the-supreme-court/609994/42 "2012-01-20T16:50:09Z")
> [@grude](#): > > On a more general note can rulings that laws are unconstitutional just be ignored? Sure if the conviction is appealed all the way up it won’t stand, doesn’t help you when you’re arrested. > > I can distinctly remember that the Dallas police department was arresting those without ID on them but that had committed no other crime, the Texas state supreme court ruled that this was not constitutional. The DPD responded that they would continue to arrest and charge people for it and that local DA had their back. > > So what happens eventually assuming its an issue people care about? Sometimes our memories are flawed. I’d like to see a cite for that-- I googled a bit and found nothing. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-president-ignore-the-supreme-court/609994/43 "2012-01-20T17:41:20Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Sometimes our memories are flawed. I’d like to see a cite for that-- I googled a bit and found nothing. I’ve been trying to find that cite myself 🙂 From what I remember it was an issue of interpretation of Texas’s stop and identify statue that requires one to identify themselves and give their address when asked by law enforcement. DPD claimed that since the law required an individual to identify themself and that without state issued ID there was no way to confirm their identity anyone who could not produce ID had violated the statute. The court disagreed and held verbally stating your name and address was sufficient, which is in line with other states and rulings. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-president-ignore-the-supreme-court/609994/44 "2012-01-20T17:48:15Z")
It looks like Texas does not have a [Stop and Identify Statute](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes) > [@](#): > > States with “stop and identify” laws > > Alabama Ala. Code §15-5-30 > Arizona Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, §2412 (enacted 2005) > Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. §5-71-213(a)(1) (loitering) > Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1) > Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902, 1321(6) > Florida Fla. Stat. §856.021(2) (loitering and prowling) > Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering) > Illinois Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14 > Indiana Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5 > Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1) > Louisiana La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A) > Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2) > Montana Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401 > Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829 > Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123 > New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2, §644:6 > New Mexico N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3 > New York N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) §140.50 (1) > North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (PDF) > Ohio Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 (enacted 2006) > Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1 > Utah Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15 > Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983 > Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §968.24 ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-president-ignore-the-supreme-court/609994/45 "2012-01-20T18:14:34Z")
Texas has a “failure to identify” law: > [@](#): > > Sec. 38.02. Failure to Identify. > (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information. > (b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has: > (1) lawfully arrested the person; > (2) lawfully detained the person; or > (3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense. > (c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an offense under this section is: > (1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or > (2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b). > (d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is: > (1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a); or > (2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (b). > (e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section 106.07. Also I found this post from a Dallas law enforcement officer on what I believe was the issue: > [@](#): > > gregthehand - some officers from my department still weren’t 100% clear on that rule either until a few years ago when we lost a court case regarding it. Trust me when I tell you it’s real clear now. > > That being said, I constantly run into officers from other departments who work off-duty jobs in our city, and they have the firm belief that they can require people to ID themselves under any circumstances. A court case that results in a huge monetary settlement will help educate them. However, as I’ve said before, most citizens don’t fully understand their rights so these issues very seldom get addressed. > > Most people are raised to believe that if someone in LE asks you to do something you’re required to do it. And almost 100% of the time they are correct. > **[Arrested for no DL or ID? - Page 2 - TexasCHLforum.com](https://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7055&start=15)** I wish I could find more sorry! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-president-ignore-the-supreme-court/609994/46 "2012-01-20T18:21:38Z")
OK, that looks like some folks who are unaware of the court decision, not folks who are intentionally disregarding it. And there’s a difference between “IDing oneself” and carrying ID. The former, which is what your cites talk about, just mean giving your name and address. Like I said, memories are sometimes flawed. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-president-ignore-the-supreme-court/609994/47 "2012-01-20T18:22:05Z")
From what I’m reading, that Texas statute applies to someone who has been “lawfully arrested.” ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-president-ignore-the-supreme-court/609994/48 "2012-01-20T22:43:04Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > From what I’m reading, that Texas statute applies to someone who has been “lawfully arrested.” the way I read it: If arrested, it is a crime no to identify yourself or if you give a false name. If you are witness to a crime, it is a crime to give a false name (but not a crime to refures to identify yourself). IIRC, there was a majo case somewhere in the southwest that made it to SCOTUS - the result was, if the police have a legitimate reason to need to ID you (in this case, the people were reported as fighting, and the officer wanted their names) the law can require you to ID yourself. Regardless, arresting a person for an invalid cause is grounds for a good lawsuit. Arresting a person for a reason you know the courts have said is invalid - will give the grounds for a good lawsuit not only against the employer but also the LEO personally. the problem with any defiance is - it escalates the situation. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-president-ignore-the-supreme-court/609994/49 "2012-01-20T23:09:18Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > But decisions whether a law is constitutional are a fundamental SCOTUS jurisdiction. I don’t believe you could remove any law from the right of the courts to rule on its constitutionality without altering the constitution. > > If I read Marbury right, it says that the constitution automatically gives SCOTUS the power to review laws and detemine if they fit within the constitution. Otherwise, what good is a constitution that can be overridden by the next law that comes along. That’s why there are constitutional amendments. I don’t think this can be correct. In probably the seminal jurisdiction stripping case, _Ex parte McCardle_, a Confederate of some sort (either a veteran or sympathizer) published some stuff the military governor of his district did not like. He was arrested and held without charge and etc, essentially meaning he was held in violation of common habeas corpus rights in the United States. After some back and forth the case went to the SCOTUS. The military was able to suspend habeas rights specifically because of a law that Congress had passed for Reconstruction. So the SCOTUS would be deciding directly if such a law could actually be effected and not violate the constitution. After the case had been kicked up to the SCOTUS, but before they could rule, the Congress removed appellate jurisdiction over habeas claims from the SCOTUS. The justices came out and essentially said, “we can’t rule on this matter because the power of the Congress to determine our appellate jurisdiction is essentially absolute, and our only function in such a case is to note we can’t rule on the matter.” The original jurisdiction is strictly defined as: > [@](#): > > In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2012, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-president-ignore-the-supreme-court/609994/50 "2012-01-21T00:47:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > ex Parte Merryman. That case is a great read. Taney appealed to somebody/anybody for justice because he was totally impotent to enforce his own order. It was not Lincoln’s finest moment. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2012, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-president-ignore-the-supreme-court/609994/51 "2012-01-21T13:44:15Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I don’t think this can be correct. In probably the seminal jurisdiction stripping case, _Ex parte McCardle_, a Confederate of some sort (either a veteran or sympathizer) published some stuff the military governor of his district did not like. He was arrested and held without charge and etc, essentially meaning he was held in violation of common habeas corpus rights in the United States. After some back and forth the case went to the SCOTUS. The military was able to suspend habeas rights specifically because of a law that Congress had passed for Reconstruction. So the SCOTUS would be deciding directly if such a law could actually be effected and not violate the constitution. After the case had been kicked up to the SCOTUS, but before they could rule, the Congress removed appellate jurisdiction over habeas claims from the SCOTUS. The justices came out and essentially said, “we can’t rule on this matter because the power of the Congress to determine our appellate jurisdiction is essentially absolute, and our only function in such a case is to note we can’t rule on the matter.” > > The original jurisdiction is strictly defined as: Good old Wikipedia: > [@](#): > > The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Presumably because the fellow was arrested by a military governor, a law suspending habeus corpus was covered by this clause. Read further in the wiki article about the battle between the executive and court over the right to suspend habeus, including the famous quote by the leading lawyer of the land, that the constitution does not actually grant the right to habeus corpus just because it says it cannot be taken away. Ah, lawyers. :rolleyes: Here too is a classic example of the OP’s question. The administration’s chief weapon was a fanatical devotion to… chasing down terrorists. However, they used weasel words and amended laws and stalling tactics to get around the Supreme Court, not outright defiance. SCOTUS, OTOH, was not so stupid and blindered as to order “open the floodgates, release all the terrorists tomorrow.” They recognized the issues involved and gave the administration the wiggle room to craft constitutional workarounds that allowed it to keep actual combatants in jail but did not remove all constitutional guarantees. Basically, everyone follows the rules and nobody gets hurt… Except the guys with stress position arthritis in Guantanamo. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-president-ignore-the-supreme-court/609994/52 "2012-01-25T06:02:48Z")
> [@Dreamadeidre](#): > > I hope this is not completely off topic but how complicated would it be for the American people to take back some of the power the politicians have gained over time. The best I can tell from history FDR seemed to be the start of a landslide of political power gains. I am not knowledgeable in politics at all. Technically, FDR was fighting against old power grabs by previous court decisions, in favor of popular movements like labor unionism and social democracy. The politicians of a previous era had taken power and wealth for special interests, FDR was actually trying to get some of it back, believe it or not. But parts of the New Deal were pretty intrusive by today’s standards. Note, _by today’s standards._ We live in a very pro-business climate today. > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Could congress take Constitutional law back to January 1803? > > Aside from upsetting tradition, what is\* legally \*wrong with that? There would be an identity crisis, but a Constitutional crisis? There would be a war. A war. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-us-president-ignore-the-supreme-court/609994.md?page=2)