Latest Breaking News

Vattel

(9,289 posts)

27. You are mistaken.

Thu Jan 19, 2012, 07:34 AM

Jan 2012

Foreign policy and war often raise constitutional issues that SCOTUS has the authority to decide. One reason is that in cases like Boumedine, the nature and scope of our constitutional rights can become an issue. The president has no authority to violate constitutional rights for the sake of national security, and the courts have the authority to tell him not to do so.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

156 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Newt Gingrich: I would ignore supreme court as president [View all] alp227 Jan 2012 OP

Sounds like Nixon, who believed that "if the president does it, it isn't illegal." I guess these tblue37 Jan 2012 #1

Unfortunately, Bush proved that statement to be true, and Obama has followed up on that practice. nt harmonicon Jan 2012 #30

How has Obama attacked the US? boppers Jan 2012 #34

Not treason, but "if the president does it, then it's not illegal." harmonicon Jan 2012 #40

Come HARD or go home Veracious Jan 2012 #64

What?!?! Have you had your head buried in the sand?! harmonicon Jan 2012 #75

Ok, here are a few links. harmonicon Jan 2012 #78

We should have put Bin Laudin on trial? We are at war. Maraya1969 Jan 2012 #150

Oh, how civil of you! You're so nice. harmonicon Jan 2012 #152

Here Charlemagne Jan 2012 #80

Here's how Obama has attacked the US... MrBlueSky Jan 2012 #81

It's still going on in my backyard bathroommonkey76 Jan 2012 #108

got us OUT of Iraq, is working on getting us OUT of Afghanistan, against torture & waterboarding wordpix Jan 2012 #131

Please give details. n/t MaineDem Jan 2012 #38

See above. nt. harmonicon Jan 2012 #41

Opinion pieces don't count Maraya1969 Jan 2012 #151

You dispute the facts contained in the links I provided? harmonicon Jan 2012 #153

Well, that didn't take long. tabasco Jan 2012 #101

I'm an idiot for knowing the facts? harmonicon Jan 2012 #102

Facts? If Glenn Greenwald says the President is violating the Constitution tabasco Jan 2012 #109

There's nothing at all complicated about it. harmonicon Jan 2012 #110

Battlefield deaths are not murder. boppers Jan 2012 #117

There was no battlefield involved. harmonicon Jan 2012 #119

Perhaps you are not familiar with our current battlefields: boppers Jan 2012 #120

I know that you know you're wrong. harmonicon Jan 2012 #128

It's not a world I like living in. boppers Jan 2012 #143

Gingrich, just week: "Obama = Imperial Presidency" OneAngryDemocrat Jan 2012 #95

no nanabugg Jan 2012 #132

that was from the 1977 David Frost interview alp227 Jan 2012 #147

isn't this called TREASON? Tumbulu Jan 2012 #2

Yes Scairp Jan 2012 #7

Hmmm no, read what is treason in the US nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #20

Treason in the US SemperEadem Jan 2012 #26

Words have meanings nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #68

he justsqualified himself foer that new detainee program. elehhhhna Jan 2012 #43

No, it's not treason Scootaloo Jan 2012 #77

No - go read the Constitution. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #84

That's the way, Newtie! Antagonize the people who will preside over your impeachment!. . . Journeyman Jan 2012 #3

duRec nt Aida F Jan 2012 #4

golly gee, Newt is a modern day Andrew Jackson! provis99 Jan 2012 #5

+ Brazillion nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #21

Jackson was my first thought too. no_hypocrisy Jan 2012 #32

no worries Angry Dragon Jan 2012 #6

He's too sexy for his oath. bleever Jan 2012 #8

Hahaha! Thanks, I needed the levity. The Wielding Truth Jan 2012 #91

Well, he is no different than Bush, Dan Jan 2012 #9

What a narcissistic, megalomaniacal..... DeSwiss Jan 2012 #10

OMG Scairp Jan 2012 #11

cannot attest to the # of years KT2000 Jan 2012 #14

That was Perry dear Scairp Jan 2012 #17

Ooops! - dear n/t KT2000 Jan 2012 #76

And Republicans claim to have some magical understanding of the Constitution. n/t Beartracks Jan 2012 #12

"Waah! Laws are too cumbersome!" - Newt Gingrich, 2012 Beartracks Jan 2012 #13

You might try ignoring the Supremes, Newt, but can you ignore your ex-wife? truthisfreedom Jan 2012 #15

He won't be the nominee no matter what Scairp Jan 2012 #18

Between Marianne doing an interview, and Mittsy's Cayman Islands cash, this is starting to get fun. MADem Jan 2012 #23

Who cares about specific sex acts? boppers Jan 2012 #35

It was the where, mostly--the Speaker's office suite....and the what, to some extent, MADem Jan 2012 #36

I was thinking, too, that maybe he had to hang from the rafters, or dmr Jan 2012 #70

I heard rumors about the desk, the conference table, and the xerox machine! MADem Jan 2012 #146

Newtzi obviously does geardaddy Jan 2012 #59

A furry! colorado_ufo Jan 2012 #94

Ooh, a "pander bear"... boppers Jan 2012 #118

no, that's Neut-wit SemperEadem Jan 2012 #28

Interesting MFrohike Jan 2012 #16

No, sorry, the executive is NEVER justified in ingnoring the court. That is why the court is there dballance Jan 2012 #22

Ok MFrohike Jan 2012 #88

Yes and no Sgent Jan 2012 #122

This isn't dodgeball MFrohike Jan 2012 #124

A few examples Sgent Jan 2012 #126

And you're missing the point MFrohike Jan 2012 #138

I thought carter was honoring a treaty that we had with panama? newspeak Jan 2012 #134

He was MFrohike Jan 2012 #140

You are mistaken. Vattel Jan 2012 #27

No I'm not MFrohike Jan 2012 #89

You are mistaken again. Vattel Jan 2012 #142

Am I? MFrohike Jan 2012 #145

Lol. Wrong again. Vattel Jan 2012 #156

Not true. The SCOTUS is the final say on what the Constitution says. yellowcanine Jan 2012 #52

Not even close MFrohike Jan 2012 #121

The Fat Amphibian also mentioned Roe vs. Wade. 2ndAmForComputers Jan 2012 #123

Refer to my original post MFrohike Jan 2012 #125

The SCOTUS is a part of the Government of the U.S. Disregarding a lawful ruling of the yellowcanine Jan 2012 #133

Wow MFrohike Jan 2012 #139

It is your logic which sucks. "Appeal to Ridicule" is considered a logical fallacy. Check it out. yellowcanine Jan 2012 #141

Righto MFrohike Jan 2012 #144

Uh, No dballance Jan 2012 #19

Defenders of civilization are not bound by your puny human laws nxylas Jan 2012 #25

Not even remotely MFrohike Jan 2012 #90

That whole checks and balances thing is so 1776-2011. Vattel Jan 2012 #24

Oh, just like the Nazis? sofa king Jan 2012 #29

Unfortunately, the Democrats also have some of those things in common. nt tpsbmam Jan 2012 #51

Evidently Newt thinks of the Presidency as a war zone on the Consititutional government lunatica Jan 2012 #31

what country is he from? barbtries Jan 2012 #33

Someone should ask him about exboyfil Jan 2012 #37

More like WE THE PEOPLE will ignore Noot RoccoR5955 Jan 2012 #39

so commit a high crime or treason right away.... Evasporque Jan 2012 #42

Of course, dotymed Jan 2012 #44

Imagine if Obama said such a thing... noel711 Jan 2012 #45

can we say dictator? n/t newfie11 Jan 2012 #46

Bananas Roy Rolling Jan 2012 #47

On his second day impeachment begins marias23 Jan 2012 #48

What happened to state's rights in this barf-bag's little brain? randome Jan 2012 #49

Isn't this more in keeping with establishing a Theocracy with some Fascism thrown in. olegramps Jan 2012 #50

Such unabashed arrogance....... Swede Atlanta Jan 2012 #53

Obama gave the Bush Jr crowd a pass for all of avebury Jan 2012 #54

Newt Gingrich: I would ignore supreme court as president AlbertCat Jan 2012 #55

It would almost be worth it to see Gingrich become president Hugabear Jan 2012 #56

I'm starting a campaign as of right now green917 Jan 2012 #57

And 3 mandatory debates with moderators picked by the opposing party! DetlefK Jan 2012 #62

we can see that our political debates in this country have become a three ring circus newspeak Jan 2012 #136

80% is pretty low ... GeorgeGist Jan 2012 #66

You have to get 6 of 10 correct to become a citizen green917 Jan 2012 #82

Great and I agree (nt) Tumbulu Jan 2012 #96

That comment has got to bristle some of the egos on the current Court. -nt CrispyQ Jan 2012 #58

Great news everyone! Citizens United no longer counts! DetlefK Jan 2012 #60

Is he trying to get back to his book tour? Seriously Maeve Jan 2012 #61

Perhaps newty would perfer the title of il duce instead? nt Javaman Jan 2012 #63

Channeling Andrew Jackson ... GeorgeGist Jan 2012 #65

"It's good to be KING! SammyWinstonJack Jan 2012 #67

Like Newt matters he's a LOLOLOLOLOLOL Veracious Jan 2012 #69

This is nothing short of an explicit rejection of the rule of law. ChadwickHenryWard Jan 2012 #71

you mean we may be looking at another dictator wannabe newspeak Jan 2012 #137

Newty wants an 'open' Supreme Court Kingofalldems Jan 2012 #72

LMAO +1,000,000 green917 Jan 2012 #83

So, Newt, does that mean Obama can ignore Citizens United? arbusto_baboso Jan 2012 #73

or better yet SCantiGOP Jan 2012 #74

I'm good with that, too. arbusto_baboso Jan 2012 #79

Newt's "jump the shark" moment. wtmusic Jan 2012 #85

If Newt ignores the Supreme Court, then I plan to ignore it, too. GodlessBiker Jan 2012 #86

That's kind of like an open marriage Sanity Claws Jan 2012 #87

People who don't think the law applies to them texshelters Jan 2012 #92

Only if they win JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2012 #98

He'd cheat on the Consitution in a second, or at least ask for an "open relationship" with it. JoePhilly Jan 2012 #93

Newt Chavez said what? Ikonoklast Jan 2012 #97

He's just lifting policies from Mein Kampf now Prophet 451 Jan 2012 #99

Funny. He is pointing out that rule of law is a myth in the US. ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #100

Thanks. Scurrilous Jan 2012 #103

"...the president can in fact ignore it", said Newt, adding, "if he's an asshole." cheapdate Jan 2012 #104

Gingrich won't be happy until he has Civil War II 47of74 Jan 2012 #105

If you ignore the Supreme Court like that sakabatou Jan 2012 #106

3 co-equal branches of government, you ignorant fuckstain DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #107

Just like he ignores his wedding vows and discard his women mazzarro Jan 2012 #111

He's channelling President Andy Jackson. Odin2005 Jan 2012 #112

Newt, what are we ever going to do with you? jmowreader Jan 2012 #113

Nutso!!! CherylK Jan 2012 #114

I hope Jon Stewart rips him a new one. DemonSpawn Jan 2012 #115

OK to impeach Clinton for personal affair, but not OK to impeach Newt for ignoring the constitution? on point Jan 2012 #116

How about that violate the oath of an office before you take the oath of office. gordianot Jan 2012 #127

Newtzi don't want to be president... Hubert Flottz Jan 2012 #129

I wonder how many abortions Mr. Open Marriage has been responsible for wordpix Jan 2012 #130

A BIG, FAT PHONY! DemonSpawn Jan 2012 #135

Learn some humility fat boy Mosaic Jan 2012 #148

He would be the absolute biggest disaster for this country. Initech Jan 2012 #149

Why would he need to? This court rubberstamps any rightwing nightmare anyway. primavera Jan 2012 #154

heaven ann--- Jan 2012 #155