Fog:

I appreciate your blog posting… I understand your position. For my readers, I want to excerpt your post:

You suggest that Sen. McCain make the following statement (and I presume follow through on it if elected):

“Like many Americans, I’ve long held the view that the courts in this country have become an unelected legislature, accountable to no one save the editorial boards of the Washington Post and the New York Times. This latest decision - that non-US citizens held by our military on foreign soil - have rights in U.S. courts, and cannot be held against the will of some unelected federal judge, is offensive to the plain sense of the people.

Consequently, when I am President, when an enemy combatant is captured and held on foreign soil, I will ignore any U.S. court rulings on their disposition, and will handle them in accord with policies enacted by the Congress, and Congress alone. Were we to capture Osama Bin Laden, it would be irresponsible of me to risk his release by a Federal court system which has, unfortunately, demonstrated that it cares more about the rights of foreign combatants than the safety of U. S. citizens.”

I will say, however, that as Republican, McCain supporter, and American Citizen - I would fully support the impeachment of a “President McCain” if he was to accept your advice and refuse to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision if elected President. No President of the United States can take such an act lawfully and decide his will is superior to that of our Government.

You fundamentally misunderstand the concepts of three co-equal branches of government, the role that Supreme Court plays in our government. The founding Fathers intentionally created a tripartite system of government - in equal contention with each other. For the executive branch to declare federal supremacy over the others would destroy the constitutional basis or our Republic. It would be the “end” of our Republic.

Also - this whole notion of “activist judges” and how its used by our party disgusts me. When Republicans get a decision they like - they call it good judicial policy. When they get one they don’t - they call it judicial activism. The reality of the research done on federal decisions is that Republican or Democrat appointed - judges follow the law. The concept of stare decisis is well applied. Long and short of it is - few judges are truly ‘activist’ with the majority of those decisions being corrected upon appeal.

What if - as many Republicans want - the fundamental basis for the decision Roe v. Wade is overturned by this Court. It’s likely to happen at some point. What if, John McCain, doesn’t win the Presidency, and a “President Obama” decides,

Like many Americans, I’ve long held the view that the courts in this country have become beholden to the knee-jerk reactions of bigotry and intolerance - bearing their moral imposition upon all of us through the slow erosion of civil rights and liberties. This latest decision - that a woman’s right to choose no longer exists, is offensive to the plain sense of the people.

Consequently, as your President, I declare that a woman’s right to chose will be enforced against States that adopt legislation that would prohibit abortions and I will ask House Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid to immediately present me with legislation to fully restore a woman’s right to choose.

I don’t know you all that well - but hopefully now you can see the fallacy and the lunacy of just allowing Presidents to decide what they’re going to do absent our governmental checks. Everything sounds grand and dandy when you’re in charge - and things get pretty ugly when you’re not. Hence, why we have a system of laws, and not men.

I realize that this decision concerns many Americans. I am not all that concerned that the decision will result in the high value detainee being “let go” because of a habeas claim. The reality is that most federal prisoners are NOT released on habeas claims. While the case against all detainee are not “air-tight” to a judicial standard, many of them are, and many detainees will be escorted back to their cells. The real damage here is how going forward we will fight the GWOT and the consequential problems that will undoubtedly come as a result of deciding to prosecute detainees versus protect them from engaging in terrorist activity.

I perhaps know more than most the exact nature of the problem that we are now facing as a result of shifting our focus from “protection” to “prosecution” of the detainees. However, this is something we will survive - the Republic will survive. Terrorist attacks can kill our people - they cannot end our nation.

The Republic could not survive a President deciding his will is the only will of the land. I would have to fundamentally oppose that.