Apparently Gingrich thinks that IF he should ever take the Presidential Oath it also creates
an Open Marriage.
Newt Gingrich has pledged that on his first day as president he will set up a constitutional showdown by ordering the military to defy a supreme court ruling extending some legal rights to foreign terrorism suspects and captured enemy combatants in US custody.
That would be the decision of the Roberts' Court (without Roberts on the majority opinion naturally) in
Boumediene v. Bush (2008). Ignoring the Constitution is not exactly rare in the Presidency (see Jackson, Andrew through Obama, Barack) but leave it to Gingrich to be so "open" about it.
And in South Carolina famous for having problems with the Constitution (and judging by the
standing ovation that it gave last night also problems with fidelity in marriage) this was not a negative:
He implied that would also extend to the 1973 decision, Roe vs Wade, legalising abortion.
"If the court makes a fundamentally wrong decision, the president can in fact ignore it," said Gingrich to cheers.
Unlike what the country can do when a
President Gingrich makes a fundamentally wrong decision, although we certainly would have to get used to it.
[cross-posted at
Firedoglake]
Rising Hegemon
4 comments:
Just jaw-dropping.
Interesting battle if this blow-job aficionado and diamond appraiser should ever issue such an order. The military has to obey all LAWFUL orders. Would Gingrich's order one of them? I think not.
As for the second and Roe v. Wade, maybe some "reporter" will ask him (Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!! Sometimes I kill) to point out in the Constitution where it says that.
All this reminds me of the chapter in John Dean's book about the mind of authoritarians. (Dean make a pretty good link to authoritarians = conservatives via Bob Altemeyer's 30-years of research. If you are interested:
http://www.electricpolitics.com/media/docs/authoritarians.pdf)
Could the Supreme Court hold a President who does something like this in contempt of court?
Newticles knows, or ought to know, given his, um, history with the subject, that a President who ignores the Constitution is subject to impeachment and removal from office.
He just thinks no one would dare do it to him....
'patriotism' or sedition?
Post a Comment