[tlj009]

So would Congress start hearing cases then? Will congress hold hearings over everything now done in the court system? Who will check congress?

Actually, people can be appointed to hear cases in the court system. Wait they are.

What if the justice department simply started detaining all blondes?

I guess blondes would be detained until someone decided to do something about it.

Nor was anyone in the federal executive branch except the president himself.

There's a system in place to ensure that justices are chosen well. That they need to be picked by the president and then confirmed by congress.

Far more problematic is the justice department, which is assembled by the unelected.

What does that have to do with the amount of power they have if your scenario played out?

I'm saying that when the anti-slavery judges in the anti-slavery north sent slaves back to the south because that was the law they were acting correctly. I'm saying that no man exists above the law. Do you disagree?

No one man is above the law. The people as a whole are.

So laws should only be folloewd when the person in question feels like it?

Laws should be followed when society says that they should be followed. Laws can be changed after all and for good reason. If you want to be part of society, then you need to follow the laws of the society. If you are not part of any society, then follow your own laws.

Without a court and the rule of law? Yes I do.

Well that is good.

If we follow the rule of law, then the court would determine what that rule says (that the constitution trumps the anti-president law) and the law would be dissolved. That's the purpose of judicial review.

An example might include a case where two presidential candidates both felt they won an election. The court arbitrated that and because of rule of law we followed it even if we thought it was wrong.

Let's try this again. This time lets try to do without your first IF. In real life, how much of a difference do you think the supreme court would make.

Your example is in no way the same as your scenario.

[Bryan]

this whole recent part of the discussion seems rather silly. Obviously in order for our government to function one branch of government has to respect the authority of another branch of government. Otherwise we'd be moving close to anarchy or dictatorship.

[JerryLove]

Not everyone feels that way. There are those who think that the court should be ignorable at will. Heck, the executive branch has routinely considered the legislative branch ignorable at will (through a simple refusal to enforce law).

[Fandrew]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Not everyone feels that way. There are those who think that the court should be ignorable at will. Heck, the executive branch has routinely considered the legislative branch ignorable at will (through a simple refusal to enforce law).

The President/Leaders of the Government have at times ignored the law of the Supreme Court. Perhaps the best known example of this would be Andrew Jackson's refusal to support the Supreme Court's decision to side with the Cherokee people of Georgia. The Cherokees sued the state in order to retain control of their land. Jackson is quoted as saying

Originally Posted by Andrew Jackson

John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.

Then, Jackson evicted the Cherokee nation.

The Legislative Branch, well that's a bit tougher. The President's main incentive not to ignore Congress is to get favorable legislature passed. Otherwise, he just has to avoid being impeached.

The Judicial branch does not have the means to enforce its policies becuase most of the Judicial Branch is appointed to serve for life. Those two facts basically balance each other out and limit the power of the court.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by JayCarrfan

The Judicial branch does not have the means to enforce its policies becuase most of the Judicial Branch is appointed to serve for life. Those two facts basically balance each other out and limit the power of the court.

Which makes the president above the law. If I disobey a court ruling, I'm arrested. When the judge sentaces me, I go to jail.

When the court makes a ruling on the President, or anyone he likes, he decides if he wants to follow it or not.

Imagine that an anti-abortion law got passed, but the president didn't like it. So he simply doesn't arrest anyone. If the courts find someone guilty anyway (perhaps a citizen pressed charges), the executive branch (you know, the police and jails) simply ignore the ruling.

Does this really seem "OK" to you?

[Fandrew]

This is all assuming all police forces operate on a National Level. the President doesn't normally control local law agencies.

In addition, the DOJ does now have authority over anyone who was been convicted of a Crime, it's the primary purpose behind the U.S. Marshals.

Now, if I am correct, you are asking me if I think anyone should be above the law. In the case being discussed, President Bush made a direct action rather than a formal appointment in Congress, therefore bypassing the traditional Constitutional process. (Correct me if i'm wrong, I entered this thread late)


No man should be above the law, be he President, Senator, or man on the street. The reason I fail to see Bush's action (here) as breakign the law is the fact that
1. No penalty has been established for violating this "law"
2. Surely, if there were any objections to this ambassadorship, they would have been raised. This would be the idea of silent unanimous consent.