"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:
"Robert Green" wrote in
:

sorry for snipping relevant prior text
Those are the sort of things that Han and I worry about that don't
seem to bother you. It's been alleged that more than one president
used the FBI to gather dirt on their political enemies, Presidents
from both parties. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.

The last statement is an obvious one, and sad to say rather relevant
in view of Gingrich' reported sttement that if elected he'd do as he
saw fit, and SCOTUS be damned (paraphrased!).

"Despite the Supreme Court decision, [Andrew] Jackson took no action
to uphold the Court verdict, and in fact would openly defy it; he was
quoted as saying "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision
[on the Indian Removal Act of 1830], now let him enforce it!". As the
court has no executive powers to enforce its decisions, Jackson's
executive disregard of the court, marked a time when the Judicial
branch of government was very weak."

As to whether Gingrich would defy a Supreme Court order, it may not be
necessary. Congress has the power to anoint a law as being outside the
scrutiny of the federal courts. While this ability is rarely used, if
the Gingrich presidency is blessed with a Republican majority in
Congress, what the Court thinks could be rendered irrelevant.

Still, it is a feature of our government's organization that no branch
can order anything of another branch. The executive branch cannot
compel congress to pass a specific law and the courts cannot demand
the president do squat. That most conflicts are settled with comity
and deference does not mean that they ALL have to be handled in a
civilized manner.

Yes, the 3 branches of government are independent in one way but still
interdependent. As with all marriages, compliance with the vow is up to
the individual partners.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid