At a meeting of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, Representative Gephardt was discussing the Supreme Court affirmative action decision. He said,
Does a promise to undermine the Constitution make Gephardt unfit for public office?
I’d say not. I think Gephardt actually understands and respects Separation of Powers. Probably he was just lying – pandering to his mostly black audience. If every politician who lied and pandered were forced to resign, there’d be nobody left.
However, it’s just sad that a national political leader would make such a foolish comment.
Not only is that a ridiculous statement, it’s mangled English (we’ll “do” executive orders) is worthy of GWB himself.
Of the many legit* Dem candidates, this guy disturbs me the most. He’s a blatant polulist, and one never knows what one is getting with that “philosophy”.
*Hint: I don’t consider Sharpton a legit candidate. He has zero chance of even getting the Dem nomination
He can resign right after Bush resigns for sending American troops to die under false pretenses in Iraq.
There’s nothing wrong with what Gebhardt said anyway. An executive order is a perfectly valid tool to fight a bad decision. The great thing about them is that they can be reversed by a new president. It’s called democracy.
I don’t know what Gebhardt was referring to but I would be ok with the POTUS passing a general amnesty for abortion providers if SCOTUS were to overrule Roe. That would be a perfectly ethical and even necessary use of executive powers to combat a bad SCOTUS ruling. An amnesty could also conceivably give congress time to pass an abortion rights act and make the SCOTUS ruling moot. The success of this tactic by the POTUS would be entirely dependent on public reaction. If it was perceived as a misuse of power the POTUS would be gone and a new one could send us back to coat hanger abortions and the anti-choice people would all be happy. It’s democracy, see.
I don’t believe the President can give amnesty for state offenses, can he?
Plus, Gephardt was talking about it in context of Affirmative Action. How could an EO undo a negative court ruling there?
I think this was bad form, but as has been said above, if a politician had to resign every time he demonstrated bad form, we’d be left with better government…and who’d want that?
It was Executive Order 11246, issued by LBJ in 1965, that established Affirmative Action in the first place. There’s absolutely nothing wrong in promising a clarified or refocused E.O. as a response to a Supreme Court decision. In fact, that would be an approriate response, and the very E.O. in question has been amended repeatedly. Additionally, the insinuation that this somehow promises to ‘undermine the Constitution’ is bogus, since the Constitutionality of actions taken in compliance with Executive Orders is testable in the courts (as the recent SCotUS decision illustrates).
I never could stand Gephardt. It’s not even about his political views, it’s just that he gets on my nerves, just like Rumsfeld. There ought to be a law banning them from showing their face in public, much less speaking.
Note that Gephardt made this comment before the SC handed down its decision. I interpreted his comment to mean that if the SC banned affirmative action, he would overrule the SC by Executive Order.
In 1990, the US Supreme Court handed down Employment Divison v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), which held that the government need not demonstrate a compelling interest when it passes a generally applicable law that incidentally infringes on religious belief or practice.
In response, in 1993, the US Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act The explicit intent of the RFRA was to overturn the decision in Employment Decision.
Was the 103rd Congress populated by anarchists and constitutional subversives? Or, instead, were they exercising their proper role in a governmental system based upon checks and balances - a system that applies with equal force to the judiciary?
Gephardt may have been talking out of his ass - indeed, IMO, that’s about all he ever does (and can he dye those eyebrows, please? I get nightmares about them). There may indeed be no way that a President may constitutionally overturn this particular decision.
But the concept of a President exercising his/her constitutional powers in such a way that limits or overturns a Supreme Court decision is by no means appalling, reprehensible, or even unusual. The Supremes have power, Congress has power, and the President has power. In many instances, those powers conflict and one of the three branches will be able to overrule the others. The judiciary is not immune - its determination is not binding on the other branches in all circumstances.
Remember that you wrote this. According to you and Dick Gephardt, Bush may use executive orders to overrule the Supreme Court should they declare Patriot Act unconstitutional.
Remember you agree with that policy. If a liberal can do it, a conservative can do it.
Yes, he should resign for either misspeaking or having a poor understanding of the law. Because he’s the first politician ever to do so, and we need to nip this in the bud.
If I had to guess, I’d say perhaps december is hoping that there will be a furor over Gephardt’s comments in the style of the shitstorms over recent comments by Trent Lott, Rick Santorum, etc. etc. etc. Or some things Bush has said. It won’t happen, and I doubt the reasons for the differences will occur to him.
I agree that there will be no furor, like those over Lott or Santorum. Would you be willing to share with us a list of the reasons why the response will be different in this case?
None that I know of. Why? (I gather from the question that you think Gephardt is advocating some sort of “rule by decree”, but I cannot fathom how you’ve come to such a conclusion.)
He has stated that he will use executive decisions to “overcome” the Supreme Court. That amounts to extending presidential veto to the Court as well as to the Congress. Rule by decree.
He should resign from the Democratic party and join the Falange, where they would welcome his attitude.