# Should Dick Gephardt resign? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 24, 2003, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002 "2003-06-24T12:46:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/1 "2003-06-24T12:46:15Z")
At a meeting of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, Representative Gephardt was discussing the Supreme Court affirmative action decision. [He said](http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/23/democrats.2004.ap/index.html), > [@](#): > > When I’m president, we’ll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/2 "2003-06-24T14:11:26Z")
I tell you. What are we going to do with these national political leaders who make foolish comments? Personally, I’d be fine with calling for the resignation of every national political leader who makes a foolish comment. Who’s with me and December? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/3 "2003-06-24T14:20:20Z")
Heck, it sort of puts Gephardt in the fine footsteps of Andy Jackson, there. ---
**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:** [June 24, 2003, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/4 "2003-06-24T14:27:01Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/5 "2003-06-24T14:27:06Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![middleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9a140/32.png) [@middleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/middleman)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/6 "2003-06-24T14:52:12Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/7 "2003-06-24T14:53:32Z")
It was [Executive Order 11246](http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/ofccp/eo11246.htm), 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). Next outrage, please. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/8 "2003-06-24T15:04:01Z")
If every politician and public official who suggested or did something unconstitutional were to resign, there would be nobody left to run the country. On the other hand, we’d be rid of the entire Bush Administration, so there is certainly something to be said for the suggestion. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/9 "2003-06-24T15:06:53Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/10 "2003-06-24T15:16:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\*It was [Executive Order 11246](http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/ofccp/eo11246.htm), 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). \*\* 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. This isn’t as far-fetched as it seems. [Mayor Willie Brown has chosen to ignore California’s Constitutional ban on governmental racial preferences, even though the Calif. SC has upheld it](http://www.heritage.org/research/features/issues/98/chap11.html). (This ban was an apoproved ballot proposition 209, making it a part of the State Constitution.) I suspect that there are Board members who agree with Brown’s action. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/11 "2003-06-24T16:21:09Z")
ABC News reports that [Gephardt campaign spokesman Erik Smith responded to them on this issue](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote.html): > [@](#): > > The fact that this question comes from libertarian law professors should speak for itself. Dick Gephardt knows the law. The president can not overturn a Supreme Court decision. That’s not what he said. He was simply expressing his commitment to diversity and his willingness to use the tools of his office to promote affirmative action programs to the fullest extent possible. It’s important to remember that Harry Truman used an executive order to integrate the military. I’m not quite sure how that excuse relates to Gephardt’s actual words, but it’s nice to see that they did make some response. Maybe **Libertarian** would like to speak to the slam against libertarians (or is it a slam against law professors?). ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/12 "2003-06-24T16:21:52Z")
In 1990, the US Supreme Court handed down [Employment Divison v. Smith,](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=494&page=872) 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](http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/nfs-regs/rfra-act.html) 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. Sua ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/13 "2003-06-24T16:23:20Z")
er, _Employment **Division** _. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/14 "2003-06-24T16:24:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*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. \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/15 "2003-06-24T16:26:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\*It was [Executive Order 11246](http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/ofccp/eo11246.htm), issued by LBJ in 1965, that established Affirmative Action in the first place. \*\* So what? What SPECIFIC US SUPREME COURT RULING did this overturn? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/16 "2003-06-24T16:31:36Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/17 "2003-06-24T16:33:19Z")
**Dick!** Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/18 "2003-06-24T16:37:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Marley23 \* > \*\*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? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/19 "2003-06-24T16:43:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*originally posted by \*_Dogface[/b:_ > > So what? What SPECIFIC US SUPREME COURT RULING did this overturn? 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.) ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2003, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002/20 "2003-06-24T16:48:10Z")
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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dick-gephardt-resign/184002.md?page=2)