"As President, I would ignore the Supreme Court"

I doubt he'd be assassinated. We still have Gitmo, but since it isn't full of white people, nobody cares.

In any case, I do recall hearing something from several years ago about how the lawyers in the military found themselves unable to comply with some of the President's directives on dealing with captured terrorist suspects because what he was asking was in fact illegal.

Simply being the Commander in Chief doesn't give him carte blanche to do whatever he wants with the military. Congress is also supposed ot be a check on his power, since they control the purse strings and pass the laws. But Congress hasn't seemed very interested in doing anything useful lately.

Heck, the military itself is a check on the President's power. If the President gives an illegal order, can't they refuse to obey? And if they refuse, he can't just remove them without Congressional approval.

If it's part of the executive branch, President doesn't need Congress for approving removals. Only appointments.

In theory, but the US Military is at its most basic level a conservative institution.

I would love to see what would happen if President gave order to ignore SCOTUS decision and military would say "Screw you".

Umm, civil war? Let's really not go there.

What the department of defense could do is resign in protest, and have the Congress refuse to fill in anyone for the role.

The military is, first and foremost, loyal to America. They would NOT follow the orders of one firebrand president. And if said president tried to make them, congress would impeach them within the week. We don't stand for dictators.

Well, Truman fired Mc Arther and the impeachment effort failed.

The military is part of the Department of Defense (and Homeland Security), which are led by cabinet members, appointed by the president. So if Congress finds that the military is ordered to go against laws and court rulings, then the Congress would track down which official gave that order and impeach the person.

He fired Mac Arthur for going against orders though. If the orders were illegal and a general choose not to follow them, that would be different.

Bullshit. MacArther never went against orders. Truman fired("relieved") MacArther because Truman was tired of MacArther answering the media's questions, expressing viewpoints about the Korean Conflict that differed from the Truman Administration's narrative, and thereby making Truman "look bad."

MacArther followed every order Truman gave. And that was why Congress got involved in the whole affair when Truman announced that MacArther was relieved of command...

Edit: Truman firing MacArther is one of the key moments in the military... It basically informed every officer in the US armed forces that their job is at the whim of the President, and they can be removed from it for any reason...

edited 25th Jan '12 5:30:49 PM by Swish

Considering that Mac Arthur was for nuking China, yeah, his job was at the mercy of the President. And anyway, this is getting off topic. It's about the president and his power in relation to the Supreme Court.

Swish, read a history book.

MacArthur was planning a military coup against Truman when he was fired. That he stepped down when removed is a goddamn fucking miracle.

We were centimeters from World War III. Mere inches. MacArthur was totally insane, and if there is anything praise worthy in Truman's time as President of the United States of America, it's his decision to take that lunatic as far away as possible from USM resources and strategic command.

Have to side with Flyboy here; dunno if he would have done a coup but he was definitely planning to ignore Truman's orders and destroy North Korea whether or not China came in. And if that wasn't bad enough, he wanted to nuke China if they did come in.

Citation Needed, Flyboy...

And MacArther was not for nuking China. Truman all but admits making the claim up during the Congressional Inquiry.

edited 25th Jan '12 6:13:40 PM by Swish

ok, sorry for the derail, lets get back on subject before the mods show up.

wouldn't people, just you know, tell him to GTFO?

edited 26th Jan '12 5:20:41 AM by joeyjojo

Sure, any numbrer of people could and would tell him that. But he wouldn't have to do so. Once he's in office there are two ways to get rid of him before the normal end of his term: impeachment and removal, or his death.

There are a couple of things about impeachment and removal, though: first off, it needs to make it through Congress — it wouldn't necessarily be a slam-dunk for that to happen. Second, if he is in all seriousness claiming that he can ignore the Supreme Court if they make a ruling he doesn't like, he's likely to try to take the same position when the Congress tells him "You're Out!" namely, "Make me!"

edited 26th Jan '12 6:27:12 AM by Madrugada

I seriously hope that Gingrich doesn't think that he can get himself made Lifelong Supreme Dictator of the United States simply by refusing to leave office when ordered. What happens is that, when Congress removes him from office, or his term expires, he is no longer the President and thus the Secret Service will march his ass right on out of there. Politely, of course, but if necessary they have a lot more guns than he does.

edited 26th Jan '12 6:43:19 AM by Fighteer

I'm not saying that I think he'd do that. Simply that "GTFO" may work on the Internet, but it's not a shoo-in solution for a president who thinks he can do whatever he wants.

Well, like I said, if they say, "Get out," and he says, "Make me," then the Secret Service will say, "Okay," and Gingrich will have a very sore rear end from bouncing on the White House steps.

I should not enjoy that mental image as much as I do.

^^ I love that image.

But Joey's question that I was responding to was "wouldn't people just say GTFO?". Well, lots of people would. But until the Congress said it, in the form of Impeachment and Removal, he wouldn't have to. Hence my belief that he would be assassinated. Someone would decide to say GTFO with a half-ounce of lead before Congress gets around to doing Impeachment and Removal.

edited 26th Jan '12 7:03:37 AM by Madrugada

Yes, that. Well, it creates a moral/ethical conundrum, that being whether it's okay to remove a public official whose policies you disagree with through assassination. I'd like to think that it's not, but that is a whole other topic.

edited 26th Jan '12 7:07:14 AM by Fighteer

A topic people shouldn't make because it would become a flame fest to rival the bombing campaigns of the Vietnam War.

I don't think it's acceptable, either, hence my statement that I'm not advocating it (just in case anyone thought I was). But the fact that I don't believe it's acceptable has no bearing on the fact that we have historical evidence that not everyone believes that it's wrong to do so.

edited 26th Jan '12 7:27:42 AM by Madrugada