ChatGPT gets it

Here's what my good buddy ChatGPT has to say to my question. 

Me: Are there historical parallels to the potential refusal of the current president of the US to obey court orders? Isn't this an unqualified failure of the checks and balances system of the Constitution, and the precipitation of an unprecedented constitutional crisis? This is not a political question, but one of Constitutional law.

ChatGPT said:

The scenario you're describing, where a sitting president might refuse to obey court orders, does indeed pose a serious challenge to the constitutional checks and balances system. Historically, there have been a few instances that might offer some parallel, though each situation has its unique aspects.

One of the most cited examples is the incident involving President Andrew Jackson and the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia (1832). In this case, the Court ruled that the state of Georgia could not impose its laws on Cherokee lands. Jackson supposedly responded, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" Whether Jackson actually said this is debated, but he did not take action to enforce the Court's decision, effectively allowing Georgia to ignore the ruling.

Another significant case is during the administration of President Richard Nixon. In United States v. Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Nixon had to release tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials to a federal district court. Nixon complied with the ruling, which eventually led to his resignation. His initial resistance to releasing the tapes, however, highlighted tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary.

If a current president were to refuse outright to follow a direct court order, it would indeed represent a grave constitutional crisis. The checks and balances system is predicated on the assumption that each branch of government, including the president, will respect the legal rulings and authority of the others. A refusal to comply with court orders would not only challenge this balance but also raise immediate questions about the mechanisms available to enforce compliance.

The Constitution provides for checks on presidential power primarily through Congress, which has the power to impeach and remove a president for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The judiciary, for its part, can issue rulings and orders but relies on the executive branch to enforce them. If this enforcement mechanism is disregarded, it would likely require action from Congress or a crisis resolution mechanism that might involve public, political, or legal pressures of various kinds.

This issue underscores the fundamental principle that the rule of law is maintained not just by written constitutions but by the willingness of all parties, especially those in power, to adhere to legal norms and principles.

.............

RESIST.
DEMAND IMPEACHMENT