Would you support Trump if he ignored an SC decision?

[HarleyER]

Firstly, this isn't about Biden. Secondly, he revised the scheme so that it didn't contradict the SP decision. Thirdly, your are using schoolyard arguments ('Sir, he did it sir, so why can't I') and that doesn't fly. And fourthly, you avoided answering the question. Which is, a I said upstream, an answer in itself.

Thanks for your input.

1) If your going to apply a standard to Trump, then it should have been applied to Biden.
2) Biden didn't "revised the scheme". The Supreme Court said it was illegal for Biden to forgive student loans because only the Congress can do that. Biden ignored the law and, technically, he should have been impeached.
3) No schoolyard argument. You want to apply a law as it suits your view. That has been typical.
4) I didn't avoid the question. If the Democrats didn't want to impeach Biden for ignoring the Supreme Court, then the Republicans shouldn't impeach Trump if he ignores the Supreme Court. Equal treatment.

In theory, I would agree with you that if a President-any President-ignores the Supreme Court, then they should be impeached. This is the way our government SHOULD work. Trouble is, people today don't want to look at the law, they simply want to do whatever further their cause.

And, btw, while Biden DID ignore the Supreme Court, Trump has not.

 

[RileyG]

The Court seems to have ruled that actions taken by the president in official capacity are immune from criminalization.

Ok? I wasn’t aware of that? Odd.

 

[Bradskii]

1) If your going to apply a standard to Trump, then it should have been applied to Biden.

It would apply to anyone.

2) Biden didn't "revised the scheme". The Supreme Court said it was illegal for Biden to forgive student loans because only the Congress can do that. Biden ignored the law and, technically, he should have been impeached.

So I presume the same would apply to Trump. Thanks for clarifying that.

3) No schoolyard argument. You want to apply a law as it suits your view. That has been typical.

No, I want it applied across the board. What I don't want to happen is for people to say 'Your guy did it, so therefore mine can as well.' It's an argument that barely raises itself to fourth grade standard.

4) I didn't avoid the question. If the Democrats didn't want to impeach Biden for ignoring the Supreme Court, then the Republicans shouldn't impeach Trump if he ignores the Supreme Court. Equal treatment.

There's the schoolyard argument in a nutshell. But as it has just been pointed out, it works in both directions. So if you think that Biden should be impeached for ignoring the SC then it will also apply to Trump. You've effectively answered the question. Which you confirm below.

In theory, I would agree with you that if a President-any President-ignores the Supreme Court, then they should be impeached.

Which contradicts your statement labelled 4). But I'll take the last one you just made as your definitive position. So your answer to the question in the OP, as per what you just stated is 'No'.

 

[DaisyDay]

Week three and we are talking impeachment? What took so long?

Yeah, MTG got it done Day 1 of Biden's presidency. The Democrats are lazy!

 

[JSRG]

Then under what law did Jackson send troops to remove the Indians from Georgia?

Not the law that was in question in Worcester v. Georgia.

IT was the second Worchester v Georgia in 1832 that Jackson flaunted.

Except federal Indian removal wasn't flaunting Worcester v. Georgia because Worcester v. Georgia wasn't about that, it was about a state law in Georgia. I just explained all of this in the post you responded to.

 

[Diamond72]

follow the thoughts.

You think so? Thread drift is a time honored tradition in cyberspace.
It goes back to before Al Gore gave us an internet.

 

[Diamond72]

then we no longer have a constitutional republic.

This was a wonderful experiment, but don't you think it has run it's course by now?

 

[durangodawood]

This was a wonderful experiment, but don't you think it has run it's course by now?

If its been wonderful, then there should be the will to keep it going rather than revert to something un-wonderful.

Does sufficient will exist? Not sure.

 

[QvQ]

Except federal Indian removal wasn't flaunting Worcester v. Georgia because Worcester v. Georgia wasn't about that, it was about a state law in Georgia. I just explained all of this in the post you responded to.

Are you mxing up the Indian Removal Act and the Nullification Act?

"In the case of "Worcester v. Georgia," the Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign entity, essentially meaning that the state of Georgia could not enforce its laws on Cherokee land, however, this decision did not prevent the forced removal of the Cherokee people during the Indian Removal era, which was largely ignored by President Andrew Jackson,"

Jackson Ignored the Court and Sent Troops to Georgia to remove the Cherokee.

"Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott was ordered to push them out. He was given 3,000 troops and the authority to raise additional state militia and volunteer troops to force removal." (Federal Troops, given by Andrew Jackson, President)

 

[Bradskii]

This was a wonderful experiment, but don't you think it has run it's course by now?

Which reminds me of the Chinese premier Zhou Enlai's response to Kissinger asking him of his opinion of the French revolution: 'It's too early to say.' (it's not quite accurate, but why ruin a great quote with facts).

 

[durangodawood]

Which reminds me of the Chinese premier Zhou Enlai's response to Kissinger asking him of his opinion of the French revolution: 'It's too early to say.' (it's not quite accurate, but why ruin a great quote with facts).

So I read that premier ZE was actually talking about the Paris riots of 1968. Is that right? If so, it upends the scenes contribution to the mythos of China as this sage super long-view culture.

 

[JSRG]

Are you mxing up the Indian Removal Act and the Nullification Act?

No. You seem to be the one mixing up a Supreme Court case about state law and subsequent actions taken by the federal government that weren't what that case was about.

"In the case of "Worcester v. Georgia," the Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign entity, essentially meaning that the state of Georgia could not enforce its laws on Cherokee land, however, this decision did not prevent the forced removal of the Cherokee people during the Indian Removal era, which was largely ignored by President Andrew Jackson,"

You put this in quotation marks, as if you are quoting from someplace else. I tried to search for these quotes but could not find the source of this. Where are you getting this information from?

In any event, even this quote you offer mentions that Worcester v. Georgia said that "the state of Georgia could not enforce its laws on Cherokee land". That's talking about the state of Georgia, not the federal government, and indeed the decision tried to draw a distinction between what the federal government could do and what states could.

Your quote (wherever it's from) then ambiguously claims "was largely ignored by President Andrew Jackson" without being entirely clear about what it's referring to. If it's referring to Worcester v. Georgia, it's true in a sense Andrew Jackson "largely ignored" it in that he didn't try to enforce it (again, he wasn't actually told to yet), but he wasn't actively defying it either as he wasn't told he had to enforce it onto Georgia. And the decision wasn't about Indian removal anyway.

Jackson Ignored the Court and Sent Troops to Georgia to remove the Cherokee.

"Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott was ordered to push them out. He was given 3,000 troops and the authority to raise additional state militia and volunteer troops to force removal." (Federal Troops, given by Andrew Jackson, President)

Except, yet again, this isn't ignoring the court because the court decision wasn't about this.

That's the error you keep doing. I've explained repeatedly to you what the court decision was about and what it declared. You keep insisting it was about something it wasn't about. The Supreme Court wasn't evaluating the constitutionality of the Indian Removal Act or the constitutionality of Indian removal by the federal government. It was evaluating a particular Georgia law.

I notice that you again are offering something in quotations. Again you don't say where, though this time I think I found it:

President Andrew Jackson's Message to Congress 'On Indian Removal' (1830)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: President Andrew Jackson's Message to Congress "On Indian Removal"; 12/6/1830; Presidential Messages, 1789 - 1875; Records of the U.S. Senate, Record Group 46; National Archives Building, Washington, DC. View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog View...

www.archives.gov

"Perhaps the most well-known treaty, the Treaty of New Echota, ratified in 1836, called for the removal of the Cherokees living in Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama. The treaty was opposed by many members of the Cherokee Nation; and when they refused to leave, Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott was ordered to push them out. He was given 3,000 troops and the authority to raise additional state militia and volunteer troops to force removal."

Yet again, this wasn't what Worcester v. Georgia was about, so there was no defiance or even ignoring of it going on. But not only that, Jackson wasn't the one who sent the troops. The events you discuss occurred during the next administration where Martin van Buren was President. Granted, Martin van Buren was in a number of ways just continuing Jackson's policies, but still, it happened under van Buren.

 

[Bradskii]

So I read that premier ZE was actually talking about the Paris riots of 1968. Is that right? If so, it upends the scenes contribution to the mythos of China as this sage super long-view culture.

Yeah, unfortunately I think that's the fact of the matter.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Yeah, MTG got it done Day 1 of Biden's presidency. The Democrats are lazy!

No, just slower than the first time when they tried to impeach him before he was sworn in.

 

[DaisyDay]

No, just slower than the first time when they tried to impeach him before he was sworn in.

That didn't happen.

 

[QvQ]

You seem to be the one mixing up a Supreme Court case about state law and subsequent actions taken by the federal government that weren't what that case was about.

(Ouote)
"In Worcester v. Georgia 1832, the court struck down Georgia's extension laws. In the majority opinion Marshall wrote that the Indian nations were “distinct, independent political communities retaining their original natural rights” and that the United States had acknowledged as much in several treaties with the Cherokees." (End Quote)

It established two every important principles that governed US policy ever since
1) The Indian Nations are Soveriegn Nations
2) The boundaries of those Soveriegn Nations are defined by treaty.

1A) As Soveriegn Nations, as Executive, Van Buren had every right to use the military. When dealing with any Soveriegn Nation be it Mexico or Cherokee it is the military that enforces the treaties and international agreements..

2B) The US had several Treaties with the Cherokee Nation defining the boundaries of Cherokee Nation and rights therein.
The Court ruled that to remove the Cherokees would violate Treaties.

So Jackson or Van Buren violated Treaties with a Soveriegn Nation
As enforcement of Treaties is Military, Executive branch, I am not certain if Treaty Violation would be within the purview of Civilian Courts.

Note There are Two Worcester v Georgia cases. The Courts ruled one way and then reversed in the second.
You are basically Correct. Jackson did ignore the Supreme Court but may or may not have been in contempt which is what the thread is about, Contempt of Court by a US President. Van Buren most certainly was but it is always stated as Jackson flaunting the Courts Rulings.

 

[JSRG]

"In Worcester v. Georgia 1832, the court struck down Georgia's extension laws. In the majority opinion Marshall wrote that the Indian nations were “distinct, independent political communities retaining their original natural rights” and that the United States had acknowledged as much in several treaties with the Cherokees."

It established two every important principles that goverrned US policy ever since
1) The Indian Nations are Soveriegn Nations
2) The boundaries of those Soveriegn Nations are defined by treaty.

1) As Soveriegn Nations, Jackson had every right to use the military. When dealing with any Soveriegn Nation be it Mexico or Cherokee it is the military that enforced the treaties and internation agreements..

2) The US had several Treaties with the Cherokee Nation defining the boundaries of their nation and rights therein.
The Court ruled that to remove the Cherokees would violate treaties.

So Jackson violated Treaties with a Soveriegn Nation
As enforcement of treaties is military, executive branch, I am not certain if Treaty Violation would be within the purview of Civilian Courts.
So it is rather a question for whether Jackson ignored or wilfully disobeyed the Court.

Note There are Two Worcester v Georgia cases. The Courts ruled one way and then reversed in the second.

Okay, at this point I think I have to conclude that you're just not reading my posts, as you're not actually responding to what I have said and when I ask you where you get some information, you don't actually respond.

Nevertheless, in the interests of giving information, I'll make a few notes. You say that "to remove the Cherokees would violate treaties". Where does the decision say that? Again, the decision was about the constitutionality of a Georgia law, not that the federal government couldn't remove Indians.

You also say Jackson "violated Treaties with a Sovereign Nation" apparently in regards to the Cherokee removal. As I noted before, this was done under van Buren, not Jackson (though Jackson laid the groundwork, in fairness). But this removal wasn't in violation of a treaty, because the Treaty of New Echota had the Cherokees agree to leave the area and head west to new lands. The removal was enforcement of a treaty. Granted, the Treaty of New Echota wasn't fully on the up and up, as it was only a minority political group of Cherokees that had agreed to it, with the rest opposed (the US apparently claimed that the other groups not attending was just taken as an acceptance). But at any rate, the removal itself was still part of the treaty.

 

[QvQ]

Again, the decision was about the constitutionality of a Georgia law, not that the federal government couldn't remove Indians.

Worcester v. Georgia | History, Summary, & Significance | Britannica

Worcester v. Georgia, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court in March 1832 held that the states did not have the right to impose regulations on Native American land. President Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the ruling, but the decision helped form the basis for most subsequent Indian law...

www.britannica.com

It has always been, in casual history, Jackson who was solely responsible for Indian removal while disobeying a Court Ruling. Else why the oft attributed "Marshal made the decision, let him enforce it"

Why would that be so attributed to Jackson even though it was not published therefore unverified until abt 1860.

 

[HarleyER]

It would apply to anyone.

So I presume the same would apply to Trump. Thanks for clarifying that.

No, I want it applied across the board. What I don't want to happen is for people to say 'Your guy did it, so therefore mine can as well.' It's an argument that barely raises itself to fourth grade standard.

There's the schoolyard argument in a nutshell. But as it has just been pointed out, it works in both directions. So if you think that Biden should be impeached for ignoring the SC then it will also apply to Trump. You've effectively answered the question. Which you confirm below.

Which contradicts your statement labelled 4). But I'll take the last one you just made as your definitive position. So your answer to the question in the OP, as per what you just stated is 'No'.

My statement doesn't contradict #4. Democrats have set the standard. Now they have to live with what they created. If they really wanted things to get back to normal then they should start working with Republicans. Given the screaming of Maxine Waters and Chuck, I doubt if that will happen.

 

[JSRG]

Worcester v. Georgia | History, Summary, & Significance | Britannica

Worcester v. Georgia, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court in March 1832 held that the states did not have the right to impose regulations on Native American land. President Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the ruling, but the decision helped form the basis for most subsequent Indian law...

www.britannica.com

It has always been, in casual history, Jackson who was solely responsible for Indian removal while disobeying a Court Ruling. Else why the oft attributed "Marshal made the decision, let him enforce it"

Why would that be so attributed to Jackson even though it was not published therefore unverified until abt 1860.

Nothing in the link you offer actually disagrees with my assertions. Its statement that "Pres. Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the ruling", while not quite giving the whole story (Jackson was never told he had to do anything), is still in harmony with what I have been noting; he didn't defy anything. Georgia was the one doing the defying; Jackson, at worst, was not forcing them to acquiesce to the decision.

But as for "Why would that be so attributed to Jackson even though it was not published therefore unverified until abt 1860"? One might as well ask "why do false quotes gets so attributed to people?" There's a lack of evidence Marie Antoinette ever said "let them eat cake" but it still got stuck to her. There's all sorts of quotes that get attributed to people that they most likely never said.