> And one way for the executive branch to check the judicial branch is to disregard judicial rulings that are blatantly unconstitutional, just like the judicial branch regularly invalidates entire laws and government programs.
That is totally not how this works. But if it did... what decisions would you have the executive ignore? Dred Scott? That would be fine. The one in 1942 that allows the Interstate Commerce clause to apply to what is clearly in-state commerce? Yeah, that one, too.
How about Roe v. Wade? That was pretty clearly going beyond the bounds of the Constitution. ("Penumbra"? Why not just admit that you're stretching it past the breaking point?) Do you really want Richard Nixon deciding whether he can throw out Roe v. Wade?
The one time that I know of where the president blatantly threw out a Supreme Court decision was when Andrew Jackson ignored the court's decision that whites could not encroach on Cherokee land.
Do you really want the president deciding which Supreme Court decisions are "clearly unconstitutional"? Not only is the president less of a constitutional scholar than the justices are, he is also more blatantly political than they are. He's going to judge the judges' decisions? That's a terrible idea, and it's absolutely not how checks and balances work.
And the fact that you think that is both good and constitutional makes me really unimpressed with your view that the debt ceiling is clearly unconstitutional...
That is totally not how this works. But if it did... what decisions would you have the executive ignore? Dred Scott? That would be fine. The one in 1942 that allows the Interstate Commerce clause to apply to what is clearly in-state commerce? Yeah, that one, too.
How about Roe v. Wade? That was pretty clearly going beyond the bounds of the Constitution. ("Penumbra"? Why not just admit that you're stretching it past the breaking point?) Do you really want Richard Nixon deciding whether he can throw out Roe v. Wade?
The one time that I know of where the president blatantly threw out a Supreme Court decision was when Andrew Jackson ignored the court's decision that whites could not encroach on Cherokee land.
Do you really want the president deciding which Supreme Court decisions are "clearly unconstitutional"? Not only is the president less of a constitutional scholar than the justices are, he is also more blatantly political than they are. He's going to judge the judges' decisions? That's a terrible idea, and it's absolutely not how checks and balances work.
And the fact that you think that is both good and constitutional makes me really unimpressed with your view that the debt ceiling is clearly unconstitutional...