Leftist Law Professors Openly Call for Biden to Go Full Tyrant and Defy the Constitution and SCOTUS

[Kamaji]

Leftist Law Professors Openly Call for Biden to Go Full Tyrant and Defy the Constitution and SCOTUS

By Jim Thompson
July 23, 2023

Beginning in the 1820s, Georgia began a campaign to exterminate the Cherokee Nation by force and removal. The state annexed Cherokee land, and Georgia led the way in pressuring Congress to pass the Indian Removal Act.

A minister by the name of Samuel Worcester was ministering on Cherokee land. Georgia eventually passed laws that made it “illegal” for whites to live on Cherokee land and extended Georgia’s territory into Cherokee land. Worcester didn’t leave. He and others were arrested by Georgia “police” and sentenced to four years of hard labor.

He appealed his sentence, and the US Supreme Court struck down Georgia’s extension laws in Worchester v Georgia.

Writing for the majority, John Marshall opined that the Indian nations were “distinct, independent political communities retaining their original natural rights.” Marshall declared that the Cherokee were a nation inside the nation and that treaties were signed protecting those rights. Marshall said that the Cherokee had the right to live where they chose.

But President Jackson disagreed. Urban myth has Jackson saying: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” What he actually said was just as tyrannical: “The decision of the supreme court has fell stillborn, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.”

By refusing to enforce what the Supreme Court found unconstitutional, Jackson was the first president to act as a proxy king. He refused to abide by a Supreme Court decision.

In an op/ed published in The Hill on Saturday, Jonathan Turley has again raised his voice to point out that if the left got its way, we would be in the grips of tyranny. We are creeping dangerously close to witnessing a president acting as a proxy king and, like Jackson did 185 years ago, simply ignoring the court and refusing to enforce the constitution he swore to protect and defend. Turley writes:

    In a recent open letter, Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin called upon President Joe Biden to defy rulings of the Supreme Court that he considers “mistaken” in the name of “popular constitutionalism.” Thus, in light of the court’s bar on the use of race in college admissions, they argue that Biden should just continue to follow his own constitutional interpretation.

    The use of the affirmative action case is ironic, since polls have consistently shown that the majority of the public does not support the use of race in college admissions. Indeed, even in the most liberal states, such as California, voters have repeatedly rejected affirmative action in college admissions. Polls further show that a majority support the Supreme Court’s recent decisions.

America cannot function unless the three branches of government operate as they were intended. Congress passes laws, and if they comport to constitutional mandate, they are enforced by the executive branch. If they are not constitutional, the Supreme Court must strike down those laws, and the executive branch is mandated to abide by those decisions. What the president cannot do is simply act as a proxy king and ignore the Supreme Court.

Yet, here we are. That is what men like Tushnet and Belkin want and why they are dangerous. It isn’t just their opinions that are dangerous; it is their wacky call for tyranny to go mainstream and be disseminated and taught to others as an acceptable means to an end. Less than three years ago, Donald Trump was president, and men like Tushnet and Belkin were calling Trump a tyrant. Yet they clamor for a president they “like” to act as one, to be a dictator without a moment of reflection. If a modern president acts like Andrew Jackson and simply ignores the court and, thus, the Constitution, we would no longer be a republic; we would be ruled by a tyrant.

*  *  *

Source:  https://redstate.com/jimthompson/2023/07/23/leftist-law-professors-openly-call-for-biden-to-go-full-tyrant-and-defy-the-constitution-and-scotus-n780902

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Frankly I've heard both sides call for this sort of thing, depending on the makeup of the court. Even on this very forum.

[Hoodat]

By refusing to enforce what the Supreme Court found unconstitutional, Jackson was the first president to act as a proxy king. He refused to abide by a Supreme Court decision.

And he has been revered as a Hero of the Democrat Party ever since.

[libertybele]

Frankly I've heard both sides call for this sort of thing, depending on the makeup of the court. Even on this very forum.

Then what is being suggested is throwing fuel on an already burning Republic as we will have no rule of law.

[Hoodat]

Frankly I've heard both sides call for this sort of thing, depending on the makeup of the court. Even on this very forum.

I would think it matters more what the Constitution says.  If the Supreme Court goes against what the Constitution says, I would hold the words of our founding document over any unconstitutional opinion of the court.  In Worchester v. Georgia, the court got it right (i.e. their ruling was consistent with the wording of the Constitution).  In Allen v. Milligan, their ruling violated the wording of the Constitution as well as Federal Law.

[libertybele]

I would think it matters more what the Constitution says.  If the Supreme Court goes against what the Constitution says, I would hold the words of our founding document over any unconstitutional opinion of the court.  In Worchester v. Georgia, the court got it right (i.e. their ruling was consistent with the wording of the Constitution).  In Allen v. Milligan, their ruling violated the wording of the Constitution as well as Federal Law.

It is the job of the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution and they should do so without political bias. That obviously hasn't been the case lately. That goes for ALL of them, not just for those who are deemed a liberal judge or a conservative judge.

[Bigun]

One of the principal objections inculcated by the more respectable adversaries to the constitution, is its supposed violation of the political maxim, that the legislative, executive and judiciary departments ought to be separate and distinct. In the structure of the federal government, no regard, it is said, seems to have been paid to this essential precaution in favor of liberty. The several departments of power are distributed and blended in such a manner, as at once to destroy all symmetry and beauty of form; and to expose some of the essential parts of the edifice to the danger of being crushed by the disproportionate weight of other parts.

No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal constitution therefore really chargeable with this accumulation of power or with a mixture of powers having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. I persuade myself however, that it will be made apparent to every one, that the charge cannot be supported, and that the maxim on which it relies, has been totally misconceived and misapplied. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense, in which the preservation of liberty requires, that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.

The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject, is the celebrated Montesquieu. If he be not the author of this invaluable precept in the science of politics, he has the merit at least of displaying, and recommending it most effectually to the attention of mankind. Let us endeavour in the first place to ascertain his meaning on this point.

The British constitution was to Montesquieu, what Homer has been to the didactic writers on epic poetry. As the latter have considered the work of the immortal Bard, as the perfect model from which the principles and rules of the epic art were to be drawn, and by which all similar works were to be judged; so this great political critic appears to have viewed the constitution of England, as the standard, or to use his own expression, as the mirrour of political liberty; and to have delivered in the form of elementary truths, the several characteristic principles of that particular system. That we may be sure then not to mistake his meaning in this case, let us recur to the source from which the maxim was drawn...

James Madison, Federalist, no. 47, 323--31

IMHO one must read and study the entirety of Federalist 47 to "get" what Madison says in what I personally consider to be the most important of them all. (I should add that many have done exactly that and there are many volumes dedicated to that purpose alone.)

[LMAO]

From the article….

Less than three years ago, Donald Trump was president, and men like Tushnet and Belkin were calling Trump a tyrant. Yet they clamor for a president they “like” to act as one, to be a dictator without a moment of reflection

Organized Religion and politics breeds hypocrisy

[Kamaji]

From the article….

Less than three years ago, Donald Trump was president, and men like Tushnet and Belkin were calling Trump a tyrant. Yet they clamor for a president they “like” to act as one, to be a dictator without a moment of reflection

Organized Religion and politics breeds hypocrisy