should our president overrule the supreme court?

Question

should our pres tell them where to get off, and pass a law stating that the president has the final say on matters of national security

Answer 1

That depends on how much we value the checks and balances of powers. Clinton nearly made gun possession a public health issue to circumvent the Bill of Rights.

The last president to spit in the eye of the SC was Jackson when he helped to steal the Cherokee land and decimate their nation.

Answer 2

no thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard. If we did that the President would be an absolute tyrant and would have the power to take away all our fundamental rights in the interest of "national security." The supreme court needs to remain independent and have power to interpret the constitution and stop other brances of government when they get out of line...which Bush has on numerous occasions. That would severly undermine democracy and our system of checks and balences. Plus, that law wouldn't even work because it would clearly be unconstitutional and the supreme court would overrule it. So in conclusion, no the president should not ever overrule the supreme court.

Answer 3

EVERYTHING, according to Bush is a matter of national security, from prayer meetings to head lice. And it's people like you that believe it and perpetuate the myth that you are in some sort of danger zone. You've had ONE serious terrorist attack. That doesn't suddenly mean there'll be suicide bombers showing up on your doorstep. You are the most armed and the most dangerous nation on the planet. You are in NO DANGER. Get over yourself.

And the reason there is a Supreme Court is so that the leader of the country has SOMEONE to answer to. As well as being called Democracy, it's also called Common Sense - something quite lacking in this question.

Answer 4

Intimidating a free press IS unconstitutional with out the finest courtroom being in contact to assert so. employing the tax collector as intimidation is likewise unconstitutional. you do not might want to be a constitutional lawyer to carry close that. a tale has leaked that Obama became going to announce the foiled terror attack that became the clarification behind the analyze of the so-said as leak. John Brennan, the anti terror consultant to the president is the man who leaked the section about Al Qaeda in Yemen being infiltrated. there became no justification for what the AG branch did to AP. None in any respect except intimidation and to get a deal with on their elements. Very unconstitutional..

Answer 5

No, because he swore an oath to protect and perserve the Constitution of the United States of America. And if you understood the Constitution yourself, you would know that the President does not pass laws, Congress does. Since you don't seem to like the Constitution, why don't you move someplace like Saudi Arabia, where they have a King?

Answer 6

The Supreme Court is a balance upon the President. No branch should have that much power. Checks and balances people.

Answer 7

Yes, he should also dissolve the Congress and take direct control of the four branches of the military. The museums in England and France have some nice looking thrones, crowns and sceptres. I am sure he can get a set of those things too.

God bless America! God save the King!

Answer 8

Bushco already thinks it can do what it wants as far as laws go. Don't like a law passed by congress? Add a signing statement to it (something on the order of "I, George W Bush, hearby sign this law into effect as of this day....(unless I don't feel like obeying it.)" and ta da! No more pesky "checks and balances" or "piece of G**D***N paper" to have waved in his face.

Note: I know I oversimplified. Same basic point though.

Answer 9

No - that would definitely override the security features of the Constitution. It's all about Balance of Power.

Answer 10

Your president should not even over rule the tea lady.
She is probably a more honourable person, and has probably never murdered anyone in her life, unlike your pres.