Abdication...

[Bullypulpit]

1. Then why did Congress then pass the DOMA, which specifically says that same-sex marriages in one state do not have to be recognized in other states? And why are business licenses and concealed (weapons) carry permits issued in one state not automatically recognized in all other states?

2. The Preamble has never been recognized as legally binding. While it lays out the purpose of the Constitution, it is not used by legal scholars or judges as legal justification of any particular law or regulation.

Because it was a popular wedge issue that was voted on as a matter of political expediency and not whether it was right or wrong. Also, why then should states recognize each others drivers licenses? It'd be a nifty way to control the movement of the population.

The preamble embodies the spirit of the Constitution, and perhaps it should be used as such.

 

[Shazbot]

Which was, in and of itself, a violation of the Constitution and an abidication of powers granted solely to Congress by the Constitution.

Just a question...should congressional approval be ahead of any and all troop deployments? In other words, should the president have any power (in your view) to deploy troops without congressional consent?

-Douglas

 

[Shazbot]

It applies equally, today, to President Bush's policy of pre-emption in the case of Iraq, or any other threat his deluded mind might percieve.

Not only do you oppose how the president got the power to send troops over to Iraq, but you oppose his poise of a preemptive strike. Here's a little snipit from Bill O'Reilly's interview with Michael Moore...

O'REILLY: Any government? Hitler, in Germany, not a threat to us the beginning but over there executing people all day long — you would have let him go?

MOORE: That’s not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States.

O'REILLY: From '33 until '41, he wasn’t an imminent threat to the United States.

MOORE: There’s a lot of things we should have done.

O'REILLY: You wouldn’t have removed him.

MOORE: I wouldn’t have even allowed him to come to power.

O'REILLY: That was a preemption from Michael Moore. You would have invaded.

MOORE: If we’d done our job, you want to get into to talking about what happened before WWI, whoa, I’m trying to stop this war right now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html

Ok, I understand, this is what Moore says. Now, what would you have done?

BTW, isn't it funny how Moore dodges that last question?

-Douglas

*Edit...oops, forgot the link.

 

[Mr. P]

Nice try...Article IV, section 2 is why the right-wingnuts want a Constitutional amendment banning same gender unions. The issue is already being brought to trial in several states, so we'll see....

Ooooooooo, contrary to what you may think most "Right-wingers" want less Of the Federal Government in their lives, not more. Hey, that must be why so many States are voting on an amendment to their Constitutions on this matter. Ya think?

The Constitution is the law of the land, and while the preamble may not have the force of law, it provides the justification for public education, healthcare for all and occupational and environmental safety.

The only "Justification" the preamble gives, is for the document that follows it.

 

[sealybobo]

<blockquote>Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necesary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he deems it necessary for such purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probablity of the British invading us" but he will say to you, "Be silent; I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I inderstand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. </blockquote>

The above passage was taken from a letter from Abrham Lincoln to William Herndon in refutation of Mr. Herndon's support of James Polk's war with Mexico.

It applies equally, today, to President Bush's policy of pre-emption in the case of Iraq, or any other threat his deluded mind might percieve. Congress and Congress alone has the power to declare war, and it doesn't really matter how many times it's been done before, they violated the Constitution in abdicating their power to send troops into harms way to the President.
Similarly, the President had no right to accept such powers, and in doing so he violated the Constitution.

ANY who authorized this abdication of authority stand in contempt of the very foundation of the Republic, and are unworthy of the office they hold, just as ANY who accepted such authority stand in contempt of the Constitution and are unworthy of the office they hold. {Yes, that means John Kerry AND George Bush)

Starting to see a pattern of abdication

So all the “fake news” was true. A hostile foreign power intervened in the presidential election, hoping to install Donald Trump in the White House. The Trump campaign was aware of this intervention and welcomed it. And once in power, Trump tried to block any inquiry into what happened.

Never mind attempts to spin this story as somehow not meeting some definitions of collusion or obstruction of justice. The fact is that the occupant of the White House betrayed his country. And the question everyone is asking is, what will Democrats do about it?

But notice that the question is only about Democrats. Everyone (correctly) takes it as a given that Republicans will do nothing. Why?

Because the modern GOP is perfectly willing to sell out America if that’s what it takes to get tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans may not think of it in those terms, but that’s what their behavior amounts to.

The truth is that the GOP faced its decisive test in 2016, when almost everyone in the Republican establishment lined up behind a man fully known to be a would-be authoritarian who was unfit morally, temperamentally and intellectually for high office.

In their chilling book “How Democracies Die,” Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt call this “the great Republican abdication.” The party’s willingness to back behavior it would have called treasonous if a Democrat did it is just more of the same.

The great Republican abdication