That’s one of the few things I admire about Al Gore. When the Supreme Court ruled he was done, he was done. He said he disagreed, but acknowledged that the SCOTUS had the right to make that call.
The only real power the court has is moral authority. No power of the purse or sword.
What would have happened if Nixon had started his “Audio Tape BBQ” on the White House lawn?
What was his alternative? Raise an army and take control of the country by force?
Ahh, I understand. You are ignorant of the system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court’s determination is not necessarily the final word on an issue. Depending on the issue and the facts, in some circumstances either the Congress or the President may constitutionally overturn a Supreme Court decision.
I addressed this issue in detail in my first post. Kindly read it and reconsider your position.
Now see, why are you injecting politics into this discussion? This is an issue of law, not politics. And under the law, there are instances where the President may issue an Executive Order that overturns a Supreme Court decision.
Accordingly, if Dubya used an Executive Order to overcome a Supreme Court decision, I would first determine whether he can legally do so. If he can’t, I would oppose it on that ground. If he can, I would consider the merits of the Executive Order and base my support or opposition on that.
Bizarre concept, no?
Are affirmative action decisions an instance where a President can use Executive Orders to overturn a Supreme Court decision? I don’t know. Then again, neither do you - you are not even aware that there are circumstances where a President can do so.
Howsabout you find out before you scream “rule by decree”? :rolleyes:
Sua
He probably will resign…the blogosphere is really worked up about this and they took the credit for bringing down Trent Lott…maybe they will succeed again.
As for his comments, they were so ridiculously foolish that i still cant believe he actually sais that.
No. But he could have been MUCH more critical and called them hacks.
Sure, he let his proxies do it, but he let the court hold its moral weight.
I thought it was a big gesture. Because if he had been militant in his defeat, there could have been riots.
I thought the peaceful way we dealt with that nasty problem was a testament to our application of democracy. Even people who were opposed to the results (I agreed with the ruling, FYI) should make note of such a strong belief that just because 9 old crusty bums in black nightcoats said it was so, it was so.
And I commend Gore on his role of keeping that belief firm.
That sounds reasonable. But, somehow, when I analyzed Gephardt’s statements I was doing so as a guy who can’t understand English due to my alleged political biases.
What Gephardt said he’d do, he couldn’t do.
I’ve watched the C-SPAN video and it confirms what I said earlier. Gephardt is discussing the affirmative action cases before the Supreme Court. He talks about the amicus brief he filed. Then he makes the comment that he’d use an EO to “overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day.” He’s clearly referring to the then-pending affirmative action cases, saying he’d use an EO to “overcome” it if president. Bottom line: he can’t.
Gephardt’s backing off the statement, as I expected. But he was wrong when he said it. I don’t think that’s a political analysis. Rather, it’s a legal one.
december: Should Dick Gephardt resign? […] Does a promise to undermine the Constitution make Gephardt unfit for public office?
minega: *He probably will resign…the blogosphere is really worked up about this and they took the credit for bringing down Trent Lott…maybe they will succeed again. *
Um, you’re aware that Lott did not actually resign public office, right? He merely stepped down from the Senate Majority Leader position when the Congress reconvened in January; he’s still the Senator from Mississippi (and has a new committee chairmanship to boot). Santorum didn’t even get a lot of flak from his party leaders for his comments. I think it would be pretty delusional to expect Gephardt actually to resign from Congress for a remark of this sort.
The blogosphere worked up about something? Gasp.
Never have there been so many people both paid to be constantly outraged by everything they see, as well as so many giving away carefully practiced and cultivated outrage for free.
How could the Supreme Court undo the 14th amendment? It seems like a pretty clear amendment. The 25-year phase-out makes it even more bizarre. 5 people overuled the entire legislative process and said, in effect, you can discriminate if it’s for a good cause.
I never considered Gephardt a Democrat. I think he is part of the Socialist movement that was brought to the forefront in the Clinton years (not to attach it to Clinton, just the decade). It would love to see the “Party of Labor” come back to it’s former glory and abandon the socialist path it is currently on.
How could the Supreme Court undo the 14th amendment? It seems like a pretty clear amendment. The 25-year phase-out makes it even more bizarre. 5 people overuled the entire legislative process and said, in effect, you can discriminate if it’s for a good cause.
I never considered Gephardt a Democrat. I think he is part of the Socialist movement that was brought to the forefront in the Clinton years (not to attach it to Clinton, just the decade). I would love to see the “Party of Labor” come back to it’s former glory and abandon the socialist path it is currently on.
You are probably right. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of how a President Gephardt could overturn a decision on affirmative action by EO. It may be possible to ameliorate the effect somehow by EO.
Yes, he probably was wrong as to the law. But I don’t understand how december and some others went from a factual mistake to incipient dictatorship. It is a fact that in some instances a EO can effectively overturn a Supreme Court decision. Assuming that no EO could overturn the affirmative action decisions, then Gephardt erred in how far that constitutional Presidential authority extended. It means that Gephardt is not qualified to be a professor of constitutional law. It does not mean that he is unqualified to be a Representative or President.
What do make him unqualified for either post are his asinine protectionist views. And the eyebrows.
IMO, of course. 
Sua
I pretty much agree with this. When I read what he wrote I knew he was looking for votes and he’d eventually retract what he said (which he did in a politician kind of way.) I don’t have a dog in the fight about Dems v. Repubs.
december was using this for political leverage, for sure. But so were others. I’m not here to defend december, but Diogenes the Cynic and xenophon41 made unqualified statements that it’s perfectly constitutional to issue an EO to overcome “any bad decision”. That’s completely wrong and that’s what I was addressing. But since it’s a december thread, ridiculously incorrect statements by others get a pass and anybody who makes a point that can be construed as supporting december is labeled as irrational. It doesn’t bug me that it was me who was so labeled, it bugs me that when december says something inflammatory, facts don’t matter if you’re in opposition. He might post a lot of inflammatory stuff (I assume, because I don’t read much of it) but that doesn’t excuse other incorrect statements.
I don’t mean to take it out on you SuaSponte, but I’ve been in a grand total of probably two december threads and both times people were saying the most ridiculous things and getting away with it because they were attacking december. That’s why I posted to this thread. Not to defend him but to point out that some of the attacks on him contained completely false information.
Bullshit. Define “overcome”, then get back to me.
How about this: You said an EO would be the appropriate response. Your statement, your burden.
Tell me how an EO could “overcome” a Supreme Court ruling in Gratz v. Bollinger or Gutter v. Bollinger (if Gutter had been a “wrong decision”.)
De nada, Zoff
Sua
Here’s what I said:
You’ve characterized this remark (or one of the few other remarks I’ve made, it’s unclear from your unfocused smear) as an “unqualified” and even a “ridiculously incorrect” statement. Since you haven’t in any way substantively called my actual statement into question, it’s up to you to support your characterization.
:rolleyes:
No. I don’t know anything about those cases and I’m not going to research them to support assertions which are completely noncontroversial in the first place: Presidents can issue Executive Orders. Those E.O.s are testable by the courts. If SCotUS strikes down a particular aspect of an E.O. the sitting Chief Executive has the prerogative to issue another one which, taking into account that SC ruling, attempts to “OVERCOME” the ruling in some way the President thinks will not be struck down.
What Gephardt promised wasn’t to overturn or overrule a SCOTUS decision; he promised to overcome any decisions which weakened Affirmative Action (in his view, “wrong” decisions). The word “overcome”, I’ll wager, was carefully chosen to resonate with his audience. (And if you don’t know why, you’re probably unqualified to comment on his political savvy.)
Gephardt’s campaign promise was no less realistic than if he’d said “a President Gephardt will introduce legislation to overcome any future bad decisions by the Court”. And no less constitutional.
But, you see, Gephardt was talking about those cases when he made his comment. You defended his statement as simply stating what was appropriate for him to do – issue an EO.
The cases involve state policies. What EO could Pres. Gephardt issue to “overcome” this? The decision didn’t force the federal government to do anything. What could he do to “overcome” nothing?
You’ve tried to strip Gephardt’s comments of their context. Then you pointed to LBJ as allegedly starting Affirmative Action with an EO. But LBJ’s EO simply said that the Secretary of Labor (a member of the Executive Branch) would enforce a new policy that people who do business with the federal government can’t discriminate. That is an entirely different issue than issuing an EO to overcome a “wrong” Supreme Court decision regarding a state government policy.
So it simply boils down to this: Explain how a president could issue an EO to “overcome” a Supreme Court decision that does not deal with a federal law.
It’s actually quite different. The legislative process is entirely different than EO’s. There are any number of laws Congress could pass that could not be done through use of EO’s. That’s basic civics.
Simply put, I don’t know, and I doubt Gephardt had any specific strategy in mind when he made the statement. It’s not relevant. Gephardt was deliberately vague regarding what kind of E.O. he could write in order to overcome “future bad decisions.” That lack of specificity is a hallmark of campaign promises, as you may have noticed; it’s purposeful, to allow bold rhetoric in favor of lofty goals with which the candidate wishes to be associated, without binding the candidate to a definite course of action.
So what? The fact, which you still have not disputed, is that an Executive Order would be a constitutionally allowed method of policy setting appropriate for revising a policy laid out and developed over the last three and a half decades by that very method, regardless of the reason for such revision. He could have said “I’ll do executive orders to overcome any bad things,” and it would have been just as meaningful a promise.
You seem to be adding context to Gephardt’s comments. As quoted in the story cited in the OP, Gephardt said, “When I’m president, we’ll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day.” This was said Sunday, so clearly he meant to include any possible AA-weakening decision the Court might have reached Monday. Clearly as well, it was hot air. The interpretation offered in the OP, and hysterically bleated by others, is that this empty promise to “overcome” was also a threat by Gephardt to somehow undermine separation of powers and do an end run around the checks and balances in our political system. That’s nonsense.
Are you saying EO 11246 did not establish AA? That would be an interesting historical revision.
State, schmate (to put it in Yiddish). Why is AA of so much importance in setting state policies? -Because of federal money state institutions want to receive. What can the executive branch do to affect the distribution of federal money, without asking for specific legislation? -Set conditions through policy initiatives. What’s the established (appropriate) method for such policy initiatives? -I think you know…
Gosh, yes. The powers and duties of the executive branch absolutely are quite different from those of the legislative branch. Thanks so much. If I ever assert differently, please chastise me severely.
But what I said (hint: you’ve quoted it right above your civics homily) was that Gephardt’s promise was no less realistic and no less constitutional than a promise to introduce legislation. That’s basic politics.
It is relevant. He was addressing a question about the specific cases before the Supreme Court and said that he’d issue an EO to overcome a “wrong” decision. It’s absolutely clear that he was talking about issuing an EO to “overcome” a potential bad decision in the cases before the Court.
I don’t dispute he was just politicking. I said that in my first post. But to deny he was talking about the current cases is indefensible. Look at the video. There’s no other plausible argument to be made.
What you’re saying is an EO is constitutional if it’s constitutional. That’s self-evident but completely ignores the issue. The fact is Gephardt wasn’t talking about EO’s in general. He was talking about the cases before the Court when he made the comment. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend the context of the remarks don’t matter, go ahead. But he said he’d do something that he couldn’t do as president.
So you admit the context matters, then say it doesn’t matter. I’ve never said that Gephardt is attempting a coup. I’ve said that I believe it was politicking. My point has been, all along, that he is wrong. That he said something that was constitutionally wrong. I’m not being hysterical about it. But he was wrong. Period. Why are you clinging to the idea that he’s not right? Why do you insist on stripping it of its context. Gephardt was wrong but his comment is not a threat to the Republic. I’ve never said otherwise.
Actually, JFK first used an EO for affirmative action, but that’s neither here nor there. The point was you used an example of a president exercising an Executive Order to command the Executive branch to seemingly imply that a president could issue an EO to “overcome” a state policy.
“The established (appropriate) method for such policy initiatives” is generally legislation. Had there been another way to make universities use affirmative action through EO, it would have been done. Hell, even Gephardt has pretty much acknowledged that he couldn’t do what he said he’d do at the Rainbow/PUSH forum. When asked for clarification the next day he said “you could maybe try to pass a law.” You’re arguing a position even Gephardt has abandoned.
I’ll ask again: Let’s say the Supreme Court said that Michigan Law’s policy was unconstitutional. What EO could the president issue to “overcome” the decision since it had nothing to do with an executive branch program?
Are we parsing words to the point that you’re arguing that merely suggesting something that would be unconstitutional is not itself unconstitutional? Then I agree. But the substance of what Gephardt suggested is not the same as submitting legislation.
You made a statement that was incorrect. Now you’ve boiled your argument down to “what he suggested is constitutional, because he wouldn’t sugges something unconstitutional.” I’m sure he appreciates your faith, but I don’t share it.
I have no “faith” in Gephardt. You still seem to be reading waaay too much into the word “overcome”, dude. This is an absurd argument. Gephardt was deliberately vague; you’re trying to nail him down to a specific approach which he never promised. What specifically did Gephardt suggest that would be unconstitutional? I dare you to find it in that one-sentence statement quoted at the beginning of this ridiculous thread. Either you can show how “overcoming” in some unspecified way through a real power of the Executive Office some future unspecified “bad thing” would require an abuse or perversion of Presidential authority, or you have no argument.
My argument is against those like december who don’t seem to own a dictionary. The problem they’re having with Dicky’s empty promise stems not from any disregard of Gephardt’s for basic civics, but from their own creative semantics.
To “overcome” a law, ruling or condition which negates a crucial aspect of AA (or of any social policy to which one is dedicated), a President may without question construct an Executive Order which attempts to further the goals of that policy through other means not currently disputed, discredited, rendered null through court decisions or otherwise weakened by circumstance or states’ sovereignty
(Forgive the extreme over-formatting, but I’ve been trying to make this point for two bloody pages.) The promise to take executive action to “overcome” is neither unusual in presidential campaigning nor threatening to our Republic.
It appears, however, to be quite objectionable to those so unimaginative that they can conceive of no method more sophisticated than a brute-force power play by which a Pres could “overcome” policy setbacks. Pity, but it illustrates a kind of political thinking (and I use that term with reservations) that predominates in the right wing.
And I’m done now defending the fatuous words of a candidate who I don’t even like from the unfounded fears and hatred of people with whom I don’t often agree in general. This has been a whacky thread, but not, on the whole, an enjoyable one. If I’ve come on too strongly, it is in response to a wildeyed OP and to accusations that my basic freaking statement regarding presidential authority was “ridiculously incorrect”, as if I’d suggested any course of action rather than just explained why executive orders are an appropriate way for chief executives to establish executive branch policies. Criminy.
[Fixed coding. – MEB]