Should the next Democratic President be a Unitary Executive?

[Ignacio Upton]

To be honest, I'm Machiavellian in my outlook about this. If we take back the White House, but Congress is either still held by the Republicans or we don't have a functioning majority to get anything done (like repealing Bush's tax cuts or rolling back torture and the FISA violation) or if we have a hostile SCOTUS (what if Roe v. Wade gets overturned within the next five years on the 5-4 decision?) Then I will support the next Democratic President if he wants to bypass them.
If the SCOTUS takes away choice, the President should pull an Andrew Jackson and say "John Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it." He should ignore the decision and nullify it through executive fiat and tell states that roll back choice to shove it. Afterall, he's the "Unitary Executive" right? And it's not like Presidents haven't told the SCOTUS to fuck off before. Jackson did it (albeit, for the wrong reason of Indian genocide) and Dred Scott was ignored by states, and the Taney Court was effectively toothless during the Civil War when they made rulings unfavorable to Lincoln.
And what about signing statements? The next President should write in each budget bill that he will decide how to interpret raising revenue, which could mean unilaterally changing the tax code. Ditto for wiretapping and torture (assuming a GOP-controlled Congress or gutless Democratic-controlled Congress refuses to do so.) He might want to consider writing Universal Healthcare into the budget (isn't Bush trying to make room for Social Security private accounts for 2007's budget?)
Fuck it, we have the precedent, thanks for Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo.

[elehhhhna]

1. We can actually dilute the current USSC by ADDING MORE JUSTICES.

Nothing in the Constitution to stop us.

[librechik]

2. NO! Next prez should re-ify DEMOCRACY of the People, By the People!

and the people better be ready to work damn hard for it!

THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND RADICAL!!! It should be stamped out as a movement, and debunked as an issue--it is UNAMERICAN and against everything the founding fathers hoped for with the great experiment of a Democratic America.

[Ignacio Upton]

5. So, if the SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade...

You don't think the President should stop them a la Jackson or Lincoln? BTW, I also support the other poster's proposal to expand the SCOTUS. Unfortunately, I don't see Congress willing to do that.

[MrCoffee]

6. Hell no the President shouldn't stop them...what are you talking about?

You really want the President (of whatever party) walking around striking SCOTUS decisions he doesn't agree with? Really?

[Ignacio Upton]

7. Well, considering they violated the Constitution with Bush v. Gore

Fuck them. Besides, I'm sure ol' Sam Alito would be just fine with it. On edit, I'm expressing my rage over ChimpCo a little harshly, but considering what the right has done to uphend the Constitution over the last six years, part of me feels like the only way to correct things and erase their agenda quickly is to have a Unitary Executive. The bright side would be that if a Democrat does it, it would convince the Republicans in Congress not to support another one, or to enact legislation preventing future Unitary Executives.

[MrCoffee]

8. All-righty then. You have fun with that.

There's nothing more to be said.

[MrCoffee]

3. Yeah, the next Democratic president should violate the Constitution

because it's ok, we're Democrats.

:puke:

[Swamp Rat]

4. Yes, then we can round up ALL republicans on the planet and send them to

"We represent the Lollipop Guild
The Lollipop Guild, the Lollipop Guild
And in the name of the Lollipop Guild
We welcome you to Munchkin Land
Tra la la la la la la la la la la la..."

:D