Newt Gingrich: I would ignore supreme court as president

[MFrohike]

144. Righto

Actually, I'm using the flawed logic of your own position to show its weakness. See, you stated, without explanation or qualification, that the president was bound to follow even incorrect court rulings. I pointed out an absurd result. You may think whipping out debate nerd terminology will somehow win the day, but forgive me if I don't fluster that easily. Your argument was overly black and white and lacked any kind of safeguard for abuse or even for the use of common sense. That may sound great when it's in your head, but in practice, as we've seen, it's rather ridiculous.

Given that the definition of treason in the constitution specifically references making war or aiding enemies, your idea about treason is simply wrong. The Framers pretty clearly had an idea of what constituted treason, i.e. warlike activities, and did not find non-violent usurpations of power to be in the same league. If they had, they would have mentioned it. You may decide to argue that, but the assumption that the Framers considered and left out certain language is a basic rule of construction. Put simply, you are trying to expand the definition without any basis other than poor comparison and unsupported opinion. Weak reeds, indeed.