Glad you mentioned vetoes. You’re aware, aren’t you that Congress can overturn a presidential veto? Similarly, executive orders can be challenged in court. Gephardt may have been talking out of his ass when he said he’d “overcome” Supreme Court decisions he disagrees with, but he wasn’t promising to do anything every President hasn’t already done.
The Republic would be safe from a President Gephardt. (And believe me, I find the phrase “President Gephardt” pretty unappetizing in the first place.)
Can someone explain to me what would happen if the President issued (or, in Gephardt’s words, “did”) an executive order that blatantly defied the Supreme Court?
I think that’d be slightly different from Andrew Jackson’s attitude, in which he failed to issue orders in response to Court rulings, but I may be wrong.
Would issuing such an order be an impeachable offense?
Would stating in incredibly vague terms that you might at some point in the future issue an executive order that might defy a Court order (or equally might circumvent a court order by finding a sneaky legal way to accomplish a goal that the SC intended to outlaw) be an impeachable offense?
I agree that the Supreme Court’s decisions can be overturned by certain constitutional devices, but Gephardt’s statement is that he will use Executive Orders to overcome “any wrong” decision. That seems to indicate that he thinks he could issue EO’s at his whim to create law.
I think the context in which he made the comment confirms this view. He was talking about a state case, not a federal law. What EO does he think he could issue to remedy a “wrong” decision?
Gephardt is obviously playing to a constituency and that’s par for the course in a campaign. But a lot of posters seem to assume that Gephardt could issue EO’s however he likes. The integration of the army example shows that Gephardt’s folks don’t seem to understand what an EO is. The president is Commander-in-Chief so issues of military personnel practices are an issue for the executive branch. An EO is an order to the Executive branch. The EO must derive from a statutory or constitutional grant. There is no statutory or constitutional grant that says the president can overturn any Supreme Court decision he disagrees with.
Likewise, the veto example is inapposite. Vetoes are established by the Constitution. EO’s to overcome “any” wrong decision are not.
Exactly. Gephardt’s statement amounts to rule by decree. What if the Court determines that secretly arresting people and declaring them to be “Enemy Combatants” without possibility of appeal to the courts is unconstitutional? Under the Gephardt Doctrine, President Bush would be fully within his rights to issue an executive order to “overcome” this particular Supreme Court decision that he would likely deem to be “wrong”.
You are adding a phrase to Gephardt’s statement that isn’t there, to wit: “… even if I don’t have the legal authority to do so.” Why do you read that into his statement?
If I were to say to you, “I will do everything I can to stop Hilary from being re-elected,” would you assume I mean, “even if I have to assassinate her”? I would hope you would not. I wasn’t sloppy with my language; it is generally assumed that such a statement does not include illegal or immoral acts.
But for Gephardt, you (and december and Dogface) ignore that normal assumption and have decided that he must have meant that he will act illegally to achieve his goals. Why? Does Mr. Gephardt have a criminal record or has he otherwise demonstrated a propensity to violate the law? I rather doubt it.
Or, perhaps, you are letting your political prejudices obstruct your normal understanding of the English language?
I explained in my first post my reasoning. Dick Gephardt was discussing the affirmative action cases before the Supreme Court and made the comment that he would issue EO’s to overcome “any wrong thing” the Supreme Court does. I haven’t added anything, but you’ve subtracted the context in which the comment was made.
Since he was talking about the specific cases, it’s entirely reasonable to read the comments to mean that, if he was president right now, he would issue EO’s to overcome a “wrong” decision on these cases. Yet, the case is about a state policy, not an executive branch issue. What EO would he issue?
I’m not assuming that Gephardt would do anything. I said in my first post that I believed he was simply playing to a constituency. I merely pointed out that his first EO should probably be “The president shall read a civics book” because his understanding of EO powers is lacking.
In the context of his remarks, I believe Gephardt made an incorrect statement about what he could do if president. I posted that and said that those who assume he could overcome “any” wrong decision are wrong. All the sudden I’m an illiterate Republican.
My purpose for posting was to point out that those who believe that any president can issue an EO because he doesn’t like a decision are wrong. If you think I’m mistaken in using the context of the remarks, then make the argument instead of taking cheap shots about my intelligence and/or prejudice.
Triva: was this post written by december, or by a computer pretending to be december that simply scans off the latest Sullivan blog, and adds the standard "A says B? Does that mean X outrageous consequence? I think not (though by raising and then dismissing the point I got to mention it for no reason as a means to further impugn his character without actually having to stand by it! And it still makes him a horrible person too, because my unsubstantiated explanation for his behavior likewise paints him poorly.)
Though I can’t believe everyone has missed THIS outrageous statement:
Triva: was this post written by december, or by a computer pretending to be december that simply scans off the latest Sullivan blog, and adds the standard "A says B? Does that mean X outrageous consequence? I think not (though by raising and then dismissing the point I got to mention it for no reason as a means to further impugn his character without actually having to stand by it! And it still makes him a horrible person too, because my unsubstantiated explanation for his behavior likewise paints him poorly.)
Though I can’t believe everyone has missed THIS outrageous statement:
SuaSponte, the idea of parsing a comment in a campaign speech is just a game, but within that game I admit you do have argument.
You are also adding a phrase, “do everything I can.” ISTM that Gephardt’s comment was vague enough to support either interpretation.
BTW I have quibble with Zoff. The SC might have decided that affirmative action was barred by the Constitution. Presumably that decision would have applied not only to the U of M but to the entire federal government. So, a Presidential executive order maintaining affirmative action in the executive branch would be a conceivable response. would you assume I mean, “even if I have to assassinate her”?
As I said in the OP, Gephardt understands and respects Separation of Powers, but was probably dishonestly pandering to his audience.
The ARI Principle
Actually I approve of the principle of choosing a reasonable interpretation of a person’s ambiguous comments. Your interpretation is pretty much what Gephardt’s spokesman said. What peeves us conservatives is that Lott and Santorum and didn’t get the benefit of this principle. Bush and Ashcroft also frequently are not given the benefit of Assumption of Reasonable Interpretation.
I agree that I think Lott got a raw deal, but you can hardly hold it up as an example of how conservatives are put upon by liberals: it was other conservatives that LED the charge to get him. It was a story that was largely ignored by left-wing media until right leaning pundits wouldn’t let it go and attacked him. Many have speculated that they wanted him out of power for other unrelated reasons (to much of a goofy maverick, too little of a prostrate spearcarrier for Bush), and this was an excellent opportunity to knock his star from the sky.
Santorum is a more interesting case, as his statements clearly WERE misinterpreted. Which is a shame, because his actual statements were much more appalling than what was being harped about (he compared homosexuality to incest!): he clearly and openly supports criminalizing homosexuality, not just as a legal consideration but as a politician speaking his desires and intentions.
Why are people making such a mountain out of this? I mean, unless and until Gephart actually tries to use executive orders to overturn the court’s decisions, it’s all just hot air. As others have pointed out, if we’re going to lynch politicians on the slightest deviations from their campaign speeches, we may as well shut down the government and be done with it.
(Oh, wait, it’s a december post. Figures. :rolleyes: )
I agree that I think Lott got a raw deal, but you can hardly hold it up as an example of how conservatives are put upon by liberals: it was other conservatives that LED the charge to get him. It was a story that was largely ignored by left-wing media until right leaning pundits wouldn’t let it go and attacked him. Many have speculated that they wanted him out of power for other unrelated reasons (to much of a goofy maverick, too little of a prostrate spearcarrier for Bush), and this was an excellent opportunity to knock his star from the sky.
Santorum is a more interesting case, as his statements clearly WERE misinterpreted. Which is a shame, because his actual statements were much more appalling than what was being harped about (he compared homosexuality to incest!): he clearly and openly supports criminalizing homosexuality, not just as a legal consideration but as a politician speaking his desires and intentions.
As you know IANAL. I was guessing that if the SC had ruled that all racial preferences were unconstitutional, their decision might have been based on the 13th, 14th and 15 th Amencments, and so might have applied to the federal government and to all other governmental entities.
Oh, sorry, I missed the previous sentence of your post:
I think I omitted it mentally because there’s no way in the world this decision would have barred affirmative action generally. It’s a long-standing and closely-followed Supreme Court canon to decide the narrowest constitutional question that will resolve the case presented before them. In this case, their purview was, variously, 1) Is the achievement of diversity a compelling governmental interest?; 2) If so, what does it mean to narrowly tailor an admissions program to achieve diversity?; 3) Given the answers to the foregoing questions, is Michigan’s undergraduate admissions program constitutional?; 4) Is their law school’s admissions program constitutional?
There was absolutely no chance of them touching affirmative action to any broader degree than that. Neither brief asked that they reconsider Adarand or Croson, for example…nor should they have.
When Al Sharpton says something boneheaded and outrageous, that’s just him being Al Sharpton. At least he didn’t threaten to abrogate the Constitution.
He explicitly stated that he would use the power of the executive order to overcome the Supreme Court.
That’s pretty cut-and-dried. He has stated a method, he has stated a goal. He stated that he will rule by decree. What would you do if GWB said that he would use executive orders to “overcome” the Supreme Court? Would you have risen to his defense? If you were not a hypocrite, you would.
BUT, the Supreme Court struck down the RFRA as being unconstitutional :D. They said that it tried to overturn the SCOTUS’ decision by simply law, and thus was NOT properly based on checks and balances.