Can Congress Write Any Laws It Wants?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sorry to stray a bit there off topic. But yeah, congress can write any law it wants.

I think the more important question is who must obey and who will enforce t.

We have to obey it, and the police with their guns will enforce it.

Congress can pass any law it so deems necessary.

I am stongly opposed to the bill that attacks the AIG execs, and was passed to redirect public attention.

I believe that it is unconstitutional, so I spoke to a friend who is a lawyer, and he said that congress can knowingly pass such a law even if it is expected to be tossed out.

The point is that the public has a short memory, and the taxes will have been paid long before the courts adjudicate same.

Congress is supposed to take into account the constitutionality of a law just as the President is supposed to do before he signs it, otherwise neither of those branches would need to take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.

 

[manu1959]

congress can write any law it wants.

and then the Supreme Court can decide if it's constitutional.

checks and balances are a beautiful and wonderous thing.

congress is about to write a law thar targets individual citizens.....the rules of the game say they should not do that.....but hey why let rules get in the way of outrage and blame for their own ineptitude.....

you talking about the bill taxing the AIG bonuses?

It will work it's way through the courts, like everything else. I do think it funny that such a bill offends the right so much more than interfering with the contracts of union auto workers, but there ya go.

politicians, of all stripes, do things to make it look like they're doing *something*... even if they know the court will undo it.

kind of like when bush got up in the middle of the night and ran to sign the schiavo bill... it was the only time in eight years he left his little ranch on an emergency basis.

you think that was because they were so competent? or do you think it was for show?

the unions were asked to renegotiate and they choose to....i din't see congress runing to pass a law making them do it .... no senate hearings no nothing....

the point of all this is deamonize the rich and coroporations......watch what happens next....

 

[manu1959]

Did you bother to explain this to the President #43?

When was Bush a member of Congress?

But had you read the article you would have noted how Napolitano states that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.

Bush made things law without congress approving it.

really.......which things.....

 

[chopcrazy]

Sorry to stray a bit there off topic. But yeah, congress can write any law it wants.

I think the more important question is who must obey and who will enforce t.

We have to obey it, and the police with their guns will enforce it.

Congress can pass any law it so deems necessary.

I am stongly opposed to the bill that attacks the AIG execs, and was passed to redirect public attention.

I believe that it is unconstitutional, so I spoke to a friend who is a lawyer, and he said that congress can knowingly pass such a law even if it is expected to be tossed out.

The point is that the public has a short memory, and the taxes will have been paid long before the courts adjudicate same.

What prevents the person from receiving the bonus, paying 35% tax + state and local, and then move the remaining money off shore? If the IRS wants more money, then it will go through the courts.

 

[slackjawed]

I think a more important question is should congress be required to read, or in some cases I suppose, have read to them any bill they are voting on so they actually have some kind of idea what is in it?
I wonder what else is in that bill they signed today that had this tax in it.
I wonder who among our leaders actually knows this time.
Anybody else wonder these things too?

 

[foggedinn]

you talking about the bill taxing the AIG bonuses?

It will work it's way through the courts, like everything else.

By the time something like this works its way through the courts, legal fees eat up everything. As usual, only the lawyers win.

Interesting discussion though.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When was Bush a member of Congress?

But had you read the article you would have noted how Napolitano states that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.

Bush made things law without congress approving it.

really.......which things.....

Now don't spoil his outright lies by asking for specifics.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you talking about the bill taxing the AIG bonuses?

It will work it's way through the courts, like everything else.

By the time something like this works its way through the courts, legal fees eat up everything. As usual, only the lawyers win.

Interesting discussion though.

And guess what Jillian is? A Lawyer of course.

 

[jeffrockit]

congress can write any law it wants.

and then the Supreme Court can decide if it's constitutional.

checks and balances are a beautiful and wonderous thing.

congress is about to write a law thar targets individual citizens.....the rules of the game say they should not do that.....but hey why let rules get in the way of outrage and blame for their own ineptitude.....

you talking about the bill taxing the AIG bonuses?

It will work it's way through the courts, like everything else. I do think it funny that such a bill offends the right so much more than interfering with the contracts of union auto workers, but there ya go.

politicians, of all stripes, do things to make it look like they're doing *something*... even if they know the court will undo it.

kind of like when bush got up in the middle of the night and ran to sign the schiavo bill... it was the only time in eight years he left his little ranch on an emergency basis.

you think that was because they were so competent? or do you think it was for show?

Why does Bush have to come up in every discussion. Try to stay with the current administration or are they such an supreme joke that posters try to change the subject by bashing Bush.

 

[Gunny]

"Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat… But, if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it? … NO."

When Robert Bolt wrote that truism in his play A Man For All Seasons, his protagonist, Thomas More, was attempting to persuade the jury at his trial for high treason that all governments have limitations, and that the statute he was accused of violating was beyond Parliament’s lawful authority to enact. Sir Thomas was there appealing to the natural law as well as to the common sense of his jurors: The government can’t change the laws of nature. As we know, he fared no better than those who today argue that Congress is not omnipotent, has natural, moral, and constitutional limitations on its power, and every day fails to abide them.

Jefferson wedded the natural law to American law in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote that our rights are "inalienable" and come to us from "Our Creator." Not only does federal law recognize that, but the whole American experience recognizes the natural law as the ultimate source of our freedoms and as a restraint on the government. Thus, the traditional panoply of American rights is ours by birthright and cannot be interfered with by an act of Congress or order of the president, but only after due process.

Can Congress Write Any Laws It Wants? by Andrew P. Napolitano

Apparently so. It can legisalte your ass out of existence.

 

[pegwinn]

Point taken.

But the Judge meant do they have authority from the Constitution to write any laws that they want?

congress can write any law it wants.

and then the Supreme Court can decide if it's constitutional.

checks and balances are a beautiful and wonderous thing.

congress is about to write a law thar targets individual citizens.....the rules of the game say they should not do that.....but hey why let rules get in the way of outrage and blame for their own ineptitude.....

Heh, I just blogged that one. Conspiracy theories aren't just for the ABB crowd anymore.