Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Newt Gingrich: I would ignore supreme court as president [View all]MFrohike
(1,980 posts)138. And you're missing the point
Both of those are tangential to the power to make war and conduct foreign policy.
Korematsu was an internal security matter during wartime that turned on the balance between constitutional rights and security. The question of rights made the court competent. The court had jurisdiction despite the war powers, not because of them. Further, while the court is not competent to rule on the meat of Article 2 powers like war and foreign policy, it always has jurisdiction to hear cases on the bounds of Article 2. The bounds are where that power directly intersects with other parts of the constitution.
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:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
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
got us OUT of Iraq, is working on getting us OUT of Afghanistan, against torture & waterboarding
wordpix
Jan 2012
#131
That's the way, Newtie! Antagonize the people who will preside over your impeachment!. . .
Journeyman
Jan 2012
#3
And Republicans claim to have some magical understanding of the Constitution. n/t
Beartracks
Jan 2012
#12
You might try ignoring the Supremes, Newt, but can you ignore your ex-wife?
truthisfreedom
Jan 2012
#15
Between Marianne doing an interview, and Mittsy's Cayman Islands cash, this is starting to get fun.
MADem
Jan 2012
#23
It was the where, mostly--the Speaker's office suite....and the what, to some extent,
MADem
Jan 2012
#36
No, sorry, the executive is NEVER justified in ingnoring the court. That is why the court is there
dballance
Jan 2012
#22
The SCOTUS is a part of the Government of the U.S. Disregarding a lawful ruling of the
yellowcanine
Jan 2012
#133
It is your logic which sucks. "Appeal to Ridicule" is considered a logical fallacy. Check it out.
yellowcanine
Jan 2012
#141
Evidently Newt thinks of the Presidency as a war zone on the Consititutional government
lunatica
Jan 2012
#31
Isn't this more in keeping with establishing a Theocracy with some Fascism thrown in.
olegramps
Jan 2012
#50
we can see that our political debates in this country have become a three ring circus
newspeak
Jan 2012
#136
He'd cheat on the Consitution in a second, or at least ask for an "open relationship" with it.
JoePhilly
Jan 2012
#93
"...the president can in fact ignore it", said Newt, adding, "if he's an asshole."
cheapdate
Jan 2012
#104
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
Why would he need to? This court rubberstamps any rightwing nightmare anyway.
primavera
Jan 2012
#154