Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I feel queasy saying this, but Liability had it right. The President takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution. It is implicit to the furtherance of that responsibility that the President make determinations about how to interpret provisions. This is why the outrage over Bush's use of signing statements was overblown to some extent (though it was still an issue in cases where he simply said he'd ignore the plain text of the law).
He has the ability to interpret and define how he wants to act on an issue, the Court, has the responsibility to call him on it, if he crosses the line. The Courts interpretation takes precedence. The end is not justified by the means. There may be 1000 ways to accomplish a task. That does not mean they are of equal merit, or all legal, or all ethical. Big Hamilton style fail there.
We're not really disagreeing here, except that the SCOTUS interpretation only has as much authority as the other branches allow it to have, since they have no power to enforce their rulings.
Obama: "I won't wait for Congress..." "If Congress won't act, I will..."
I think most Presidents feel that way.
They just don't act on impulses like that, being grown up and all.
What the hell are you talking about? Every President uses the executive branch machinery to maximize his influence.
I think most Presidents feel that way.
They just don't act on impulses like that, being grown up and all.
What the hell are you talking about? Every President uses the executive branch machinery to maximize his influence.
Yes, within the Law.
I think most Presidents feel that way.
They just don't act on impulses like that, being grown up and all.
What the hell are you talking about? Every President uses the executive branch machinery to maximize his influence.
No what in the hell are you talking about? The president cannot subvert law.
None can, some tried...they got bit.I think most Presidents feel that way.
They just don't act on impulses like that, being grown up and all.
What the hell are you talking about? Every President uses the executive branch machinery to maximize his influence.
No what in the hell are you talking about? The president cannot subvert law.
That's the Courts role, you know that. He can Veto Anything he doesn't like, just because he doesn't agree with it. That is within his power. His Power is mostly Executive, Commander in Chief, and Presidential Order. For Each, he is accountable. Here, he is putting himself above the Court and many times over, Due Process and Oversight. He has decreed that the Rule of Law is what he says it is. His terms are a fail and a threat.
I actually DO disagree.
The COURT's role is what the Constitution SAID the Court's role is, not what the Court (itself) then said their role was.
And there's not one single coherent reason that the President cannot make decisions about what is or is not Constitutional.
For example, if the Congress passes a law that transgresses the separation of powers and invades the proper turf of the Executive, I maintain that the FIRST Constitutional body to pass judgment on that law's Constitutionality (or lack thereof) is not some Court. It is the Executive.
However, I completely AGREE that when he issues a signing statement that "interprets" a prohibition as unconstitutional and then proceeds to DO the very thing that the law (which he has himself signed) forbids, he is not validly interpreting the Constitution anymore. At that point he is simply violating the law.
He is a President not a King or a dictator.
It was before Hamilton and Marshal changed it.
I actually DO disagree.
The COURT's role is what the Constitution SAID the Court's role is, not what the Court (itself) then said their role was.
And there's not one single coherent reason that the President cannot make decisions about what is or is not Constitutional.
For example, if the Congress passes a law that transgresses the separation of powers and invades the proper turf of the Executive, I maintain that the FIRST Constitutional body to pass judgment on that law's Constitutionality (or lack thereof) is not some Court. It is the Executive.
However, I completely AGREE that when he issues a signing statement that "interprets" a prohibition as unconstitutional and then proceeds to DO the very thing that the law (which he has himself signed) forbids, he is not validly interpreting the Constitution anymore. At that point he is simply violating the law.
He is a President not a King or a dictator.
It was before Hamilton and Marshal changed it.
Ah. There's the rub. As to how things have turned out, as a practical matter, you and I are much closer to full agreement.
I think the point I was trying to grunt out was simply that I reject the pronouncements which alter what the Constitution says (except, of course, for those that come via Amendment). I disagree whether they come in the guise of a Court edict (like a power grab along the lines of Marbury v. Madison) or in the guise of some others repeatedly telling us the way things ARE (which turns out upon inspection to be a mere reiteration of some prior claim that isn't properly premised in what the Constitution itself actually says).
It was before Hamilton and Marshal changed it.
Ah. There's the rub. As to how things have turned out, as a practical matter, you and I are much closer to full agreement.
I think the point I was trying to grunt out was simply that I reject the pronouncements which alter what the Constitution says (except, of course, for those that come via Amendment). I disagree whether they come in the guise of a Court edict (like a power grab along the lines of Marbury v. Madison) or in the guise of some others repeatedly telling us the way things ARE (which turns out upon inspection to be a mere reiteration of some prior claim that isn't properly premised in what the Constitution itself actually says).
Maubury is a classic case of power grabbing.
He is just so benevolent isn't he??? I get he feeling he thinks himself Immortal. God-Like. This Guy taught Constitutional Law? What a waste of time.
Ah. There's the rub. As to how things have turned out, as a practical matter, you and I are much closer to full agreement.
I think the point I was trying to grunt out was simply that I reject the pronouncements which alter what the Constitution says (except, of course, for those that come via Amendment). I disagree whether they come in the guise of a Court edict (like a power grab along the lines of Marbury v. Madison) or in the guise of some others repeatedly telling us the way things ARE (which turns out upon inspection to be a mere reiteration of some prior claim that isn't properly premised in what the Constitution itself actually says).
Maubury is a classic case of power grabbing.
Someone has to be the final arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional. Though the Constitution is silent on the specifics it does ESTABLISH the Supreme Court and vest in it final authority on the matter of what is and is not LEGAL. It makes sense that of the three branches the Judiciary be the one to make the decision.
What was argued in Maubury"s time was completely unworkable. That the Executive decide what is Constitutional in the Executive and the legislature decide what is Constitutional in the legislature.
And it has over 200 years of precedent.
I agree...but why is it that since there are 3 equal but separate branches of Government, that the Congres doesn't over ride the Court more often in the Amendment process that they have...Ah. There's the rub. As to how things have turned out, as a practical matter, you and I are much closer to full agreement.
I think the point I was trying to grunt out was simply that I reject the pronouncements which alter what the Constitution says (except, of course, for those that come via Amendment). I disagree whether they come in the guise of a Court edict (like a power grab along the lines of Marbury v. Madison) or in the guise of some others repeatedly telling us the way things ARE (which turns out upon inspection to be a mere reiteration of some prior claim that isn't properly premised in what the Constitution itself actually says).
Maubury is a classic case of power grabbing.
Someone has to be the final arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional. Though the Constitution is silent on the specifics it does ESTABLISH the Supreme Court and vest in it final authority on the matter of what is and is not LEGAL. It makes sense that of the three branches the Judiciary be the one to make the decision.
What was argued in Maubury"s time was completely unworkable. That the Executive decide what is Constitutional in the Executive and the legislature decide what is Constitutional in the legislature.
And it has over 200 years of precedent.
I would say he should veto the law in that case, but assuming the veto is overridden, I would concur.
Ideally, I agree. But in a practical real-world scenario, that isn't always possible. Like a defense authorization bill might NEED to be signed even if some of the riders are a bunch of irrational and patently unconstitutional horseshit.
This is the point at which we'll disagree. The President doesn't have the authority to chop legislation in to pieces. He doesn't have a line item veto (I think there is merit to the idea of amending the Constitution to give him on budgetary matters, but that's a different issue).
Indeed...Line Item Veto was struck down...Ideally, I agree. But in a practical real-world scenario, that isn't always possible. Like a defense authorization bill might NEED to be signed even if some of the riders are a bunch of irrational and patently unconstitutional horseshit.
This is the point at which we'll disagree. The President doesn't have the authority to chop legislation in to pieces. He doesn't have a line item veto (I think there is merit to the idea of amending the Constitution to give him on budgetary matters, but that's a different issue).
Then I don't see the disagreement. His choice is to either accept the fucking bill WITH the unconstitutional parts OR reject the unconstitutional parts at the cost of the parts he deems crucial.
Under such circumstances, a President might very well sign the bill into law and simply refuse to ENFORCE the portions he claims would violate his oath and duties. Set up a confrontation over it and THEN the Courts can come in and play THEIR role.
